Jordan Peterson and the left-wing smear machine

Via Hot Air

Author Carol Horton identifies herself as someone who leans left on political and cultural issues. Yesterday, in a piece for Quillette, she describes looking into Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and finding him “a refreshing departure from the standard discourse.” That put her at odds with friends who warned her that Peterson was “hate-filled right-wing propaganda.” But while Horton was willing to make up her own mind about Peterson, she found doing so left her feeling isolated and uncomfortable. Horton says the social pressure was so intense that she felt scared to speak up with her opinion. She believes that pressure to conform to a narrow, approved view is a much bigger problem for the left than Jordan Peterson:

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

If you follow the news stream, it seems that virtually every right-thinking left-leaning (pun intended) journalist, blogger, and social media maven agrees: Peterson is an alt-right wolf in professorial sheep’s clothing, a self-serving charlatan who dresses up old-school misogyny, racism, and elitism in faux-intellectual, fascist mystical garb.

I don’t buy it. I’ve read and listened to enough Peterson to make up my own mind and that’s not how I see him at all. Rather than being forthright about this, though, I’ve tended to cower silently in my alienated corner, fearful that revealing my rejection of the stock anti-Peterson narrative will cause my progressive friends to denounce me and the social media mobs to swarm…

The hyperbolic uniformity of the leftist attack on Peterson is emblematic of the growing tendency to reduce left-of-center thought to the status of a rigidly simplistic ideology. Increasingly, what passes for progressive political thought today offers little more than a scripted set of weaponized hashtags (you must be pro- #metoo and anti-patriarchy, no further thought required). This narrowing of our public discourse is disturbing, and worrisome on multiple, mutually reinforcing levels…

The Left’s attack on Peterson is so unrelenting, so superficial, and quite frequently so vicious, that many of us who work and/or live in left-leaning social environments feel scared to speak up against it…

I realize that Peterson has at times said things that I disagree with and might even find offensive. But I’m much more concerned with—and disgusted by—the endless stream of tendentious and dishonest articles from leftists critics that grab onto such statements and blow them out of proportion, while aggressively erasing everything else the man has ever said or done from the record.

We saw this left-wing smear machine in action just a few days ago. I highlighted an example from a debate in Toronto where Michael Dyson claimed Peterson was an example of white privilege and then called him a “mean, mad, white man” when Peterson dared to object. And that was only one of several possible examples I could have pointed to from that debate.

Here’s another example. Writer Michelle Goldberg accused Peterson of saying women “shouldn’t be allowed to wear make-up” at work. When he denied that, she told the audience he’d said it in an interview with Vice and told the audience to Google it. But if you Google it, you’ll find that in the full interview Peterson says explicitly, “I’m not saying that women shouldn’t do it and I’m not saying that it should be banned.” The video below contains video of both events. Could Michelle Goldberg have looked this up on her own? Probably so. So why didn’t she do that before rolling out this attack in a debate?

Peterson doesn’t get a fair shake from the left because the goal is not to engage with him but to make him appear so toxic that no one will be willing to engage with him. The classic in this genre is the now infamous “interview” of Peterson by Cathy Newman. I’m putting the word interview in quotes because this isn’t really an investigation of ideas, it’s a series of increasingly silly attacks designed to convince viewers that Peterson is toxic and/or irrational. Here’s one of my favorite examples from the interview (as transcribed by the Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf):

Peterson: There’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionarily history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.

Newman: Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?

It’s not a coincidence that the author of a recent NY Times hit piece on Peterson used almost exactly this same line of attack, i.e. mocking his reference to lobsters without even trying to understand or explain the point of the reference.

Carol Horton is correct. The left isn’t listening to Jordan Peterson, they’re just trying to destroy him as efficiently and quickly as possible. That dynamic says a lot about the left, none of it very good. Kudos to Horton for having the courage to stand up to the mob.

There’s an underlying question here: Why are so many, so eager to destroy Peterson? The most convincing explanation of the phenomenon that I’ve seen is this one from NRO’s David French:

If Peterson were writing to a Christian audience, he’d be one voice among many. An interesting and quirky voice, to be sure, but his core message about men and women would be conventional, not revelatory. Instead, however, Peterson stands out because he is playing in the Left’s cultural sandbox. He’s disrupting an emerging secular cultural monopoly with arguments about history, tradition, and the deep truths about human nature that the cultural radicals had long thought they’d banished to the fringe.

That’s the reason for the fury. That’s the reason for the rage. When Peterson walks into a secular university or a secular television studio and addresses a secular audience by referencing ancient theological arguments, the effect is not unlike inviting a genderqueer women’s-studies professor to a Baptist Sunday-school class. Some things (in some places) are just not said.

I wish I could say I was optimistic about Peterson’s chances, but I’ve seen the left’s scorched-earth playbook in action before and it usually succeeds. Throw enough garbage at the wall and eventually, a few bits stick. Those become all the excuse a compliant media needs to silence the target. Frankly, it’s a credit to Peterson’s quick wit that he’s survived as long as he has given both the degree to which he’s willing to challenge the left’s assumptions and the firepower they are deploying against him.

Here’s the video mentioned above showing that, contrary to Michelle Goldberg’s claim, Peterson is not for outlawing make-up in the workplace.

 

 

17
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
rocky raccoon
rocky raccoon

The left is afraid of the truth

Ghost

Don’t make me bring Jack Nicholson in here to say it.

I have followed the Peterson saga for a while. He’s one cool dude. I’d like to have him here on the ranch for TEOTWAWKI.

Ghost

Jordan can have Ann Barnhardt’s spot by the pond.

Ann? You wouldn’t have come to a lapsed Catholic’s land anyway.

Guy White
Guy White

Outstanding! “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”

Jake
Jake

The left has to resort to destroying reputations with lies. You cannot successfully argue against fact and reality. Therefore, you say Professor Peterson is a Deplorable of the worst kind and no self respecting, lying asshole, liberal communist proggie dirtbag should even dignify him by deigning to debate him. Especially since he is gonna whup ya upside yo haid with logic and facts.

whiskey tango foxtrot

Today’s masthead at WRSA: ….”get used to it. The girls are in charge of reality now.”…….
There will be no way of voting our way out of this. Harden your hearts.

BB

I just bought one of his books a couple weeks ago .Only had the chance to read one chapter but I can tell already that He is one smart man.He should be ok unless the left can dig up something from his past.

AC
AC

Commies/Trannies/etc. – We need to drive off the cliff as fast as possible, right now!!!

Peterson – We need to drive off the cliff at the posted speed limit, in the near future.

Peterson essentially wants the Globohomocomplex social fantasy to work, with a few tweaks. It can’t. It’s an absolute failure on every level.

We need to go back to what worked, and that precludes retaining any delusions of racial and/or gender equality as a core value of our social system.

Ozum
Ozum

There are places for gender/racial equality. Appearing at the place of judgement before non-racial/gender laws. A check-out line at the grocery store. Many more like that in day to day living. Let us see things as they “should be” , and not as the hysterical groups want them to be.

Gator
Gator

“Peterson – We need to drive off the cliff at the posted speed limit, in the near future.”

I don’t think he is that bad, but you are correct in the sense that its bizarre that anything he says is even considered controversial. Shows how far left the Overton window had moved.

Anonymous
Anonymous

I love peterson. linking his videos anywhere acts like a litmus test for sanity.
its really helped me sort out who’s worth bothering to talk to and who’s gone off the deep end already.

SemperFido
SemperFido

It is Alinsky Rules For Radicals tactics. The Socialists don’t want an open debate. They want to control the narrative.

hardscrabble farmer

“I am persuaded that a coldly-thought-out and independent verdict upon a fashion in clothes, or manners, or literature, or politics, or religion, or any other matter that is projected into the field of our notice and interest, is a most rare thing — if it has indeed ever existed.”
― Mark Twain, Corn Pone Opinions

Not Sure

The two camps have been established, with every now and then, each camp sending forward their champion to do battle. When the fight is over, each warrior returns to their respective camp to swells of “hail to the victor!” Much celebrating commences in each camps banquet hall, the revelry and wine flow and all participants party into the night.
The next day, a new champion is selected from each side and the past repeats itself. Neither side is interested in vanquishing the enemy; just bragging rights among their respective alumni and hopefully a book deal if one is loud enough.
And so it goes, year after year of back and forth, endless bickering with no end in sight. The epic battle has become boring with neither side giving or taking ground. I am tired of the endless sniping, I know what my sense of right is and no longer am interested in changing anyone’s mind.

Iconoclast421
Iconoclast421

Incorrect analogy. One camp sends a champion. The other camp only sends maggots to gnaw away at him.

thetruthonly

Peterson explains fairly well that from his research into personality (his specialty), conservative and liberals on average have different major personality traits. He goes to explain it is extraordinarily difficult but not impossible to incrementally change a personality trait over a long time frame (turn an introvert into an extrovert for example). He sees, or suggests really as a possibility, that since there is correlation between liberal or conservative views to difficult to change personality traits, those features of a person may also be equally as difficult to change (he also goes on to say people on average become more conservative as they age, so change is possible). Personality traits are somewhat hard wired into the very essence of what a person is. The political beliefs sure might be also. He also goes on to say the left and conservatives really need each other as both have critical roles to play in society. They just have to figure out how to co-exist to make life better. His other guest in this video is equally interesting .

Iconoclast421
Iconoclast421

If these people dont have the basic temerety it takes to analyze jordan’s statements for themselves without succumbing to cultural marxist peer pressure, then how the hell are they going to have what it takes to see through a big lie like a false flag attack that thrusts millions of people into their doom? Oh, that’s right, they wont.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading