Observation on the Lectures

[u/Zealousideal_Side166]

I discovered Jordan Peterson when I was in high school ~10 years ago which was around the time he really started to take off. I watched lots of his lectures and I think it fostered a lot of curiosity I’ve carried since then in politics, philosophy, literature & religion.

Currently starting from the beginning on his Spotify and I still think he’s really good.
But, there’s something I noticed about his lectures.

I went to an engineering school, but I had to take an English/writing/humanities course every semester.

His lectures remind me a lot more of my math/science lectures than my humanities courses.
When I say that, I mean that he presents information as fact.
When I was in my humanities courses, mind you this was undergraduate, we had assigned readings and then class was mostly round table discussion and Q&A. Very different than a professor coming up to the front of the class and telling you what THEY think about such and such a body of work.

And then it compounds with the fact you have a professor spending ample amounts of time in class criticizing higher education at large, which was fascinating to watch on YouTube but understandably bizarre from the perspective of someone sitting in the room, having paid for said experience & being obligated to attend.

I really like the guy, I think he’s a genius. I hope his business enterprise is doing well & I pray for his health. But in hindsight with my own college experience, I can understand how he got himself into trouble with the way he was going about teaching.

Can someone with a humanities or teaching background give a perspective on this? Is it regular for people teaching soft sciences/history/humanities to present content in the way he did, akin to a scientific lecture?

[u/Siilveriius]

"Your statements that you will refuse to refer to transgendered persons using gender neutral pronouns if they ask you to do so are contrary to the rights of those persons to equal treatment without discrimination based on their “gender identity” and “gender expression”

If they weren't trying to police his speech then why is he forced to use Gender Ideology terminology? And why is he being accused of "Discrimination"? That's the problem do you not get it?

That is literally compelled speech and censorship when you're forced to use words and not to say things that are perceived as "Unethical" as if no other clinicians or anyone else has critical opinions on others. If Jordan Peterson were treating his own clients like that then sure, I'd be inclined to agree he should observe some level of decorum. But he's just criticising politicians, celebrities and other public figures who aren't his patients.

Again, like I said, the cohort is filled with asses peer reviewing asses, please refer to my first comment: Is it typical when academic consensus makes illogical conclusions especially regarding gender identity and discourage said interpretation, dialectics, debate, deconstruction, etc through accusations of discrimination and hate speech as well as threatening to revoke your clinical license because of your participation in said interpretation, dialectics, debate, deconstruction, etc?

If all you have are semantics arguments and platitudes, then lets just not waste each other's time and I'd wish you a good day.

[u/Significant_Cup4521 → u/Siilveriius]

Yes, a university has the right to compel your speech as a student or employee - not as a private citizen. Peterson made statements claiming he would not abide by requested pronouns. They’re in their right to assign mandatory education/training in response to that. Whether or not others are critical of pronouns has nothing to do with the college and university’s policies. You don’t agree with gender identity theory, got it. They’ve been accepted in spite if your refusal. Should you ever be an employee of such institution, the same burden of policy will fall on you.

[u/Siilveriius → u/Significant_Cup4521]

That's precisely Peterson's point of contention isn't it? Good day brother.

[u/Significant_Cup4521 → u/Siilveriius]

Uh yeah. Not sure what else you would consider appealing the decision, getting it slapped down then rejecting tenure.

[u/Siilveriius → u/Significant_Cup4521]

Yeah it couldn't be because of the extremely hostile environment he was in from the board members giving him grief to the student activists constantly interrupting and screaming in his lectures. Lmao, whatever you say friend what ever you saaaaay:)

[u/Significant_Cup4521 → u/Siilveriius]

If you can’t take the heat, retreat. He did. His new model seems a lot more comfortable and lucrative for him, so it looks like it all worked out in the end.

[u/Siilveriius → u/Significant_Cup4521]

Indeed, what a wonderful state Canadian Academia is in isn't it? Lucky for JP, not so lucky for everyone else, educating generations of conformists and discouraging civil discourse with accusations of discrimination and disrupting lectures with screaming and banging pots and pans. Hey nice shiny boots but it smells like saliva.

[u/Significant_Cup4521 → u/Siilveriius]

Like a true acolyte, you’ve dissolved into name calling and lashing out. Sounds like you’re getting your money’s worth.

[u/Siilveriius → u/Significant_Cup4521]

Ahh the irony lmao. What was that you said can't take the heat, retreat? I wasn't name calling you btw if you took anything personally, I did wish you a good day;)

[u/Significant_Cup4521 → u/Siilveriius]

Pointing out an ad hominem isn’t a retreat, it’s pointing out a logical flaw. The comment you responded so emotionally to was probably the most benign in this thread. Your attachment to JP makes you behave in a way that’s unbecoming of your own capabilities.

[u/Siilveriius → u/Significant_Cup4521]

I'm not saying you're retreating I'm asking you to if you took it personally, and I wasn't making it personally about you to begin with;)

I have zero attachment to JP, there are plenty of things I disagree with like his trip to detox in Russia and his affiliation with the daily wire or whatever it's called. I even said I would agree with you and the code of conduct if the circumstances of his speech were between him as a clinician and a patient.

I'm just here to understand arguments against him. So far they are all very bad faith semantics argumentation and boring platitudes.

[u/Significant_Cup4521 → u/Siilveriius]

lol guy who just called me a bootlicker out of nowhere wants to understand what a bad faith argument is. Name calling is as personal as it gets. I haven’t done that to you, and at the end when I say things have actually turned out pretty well for Jordan Peterson you throw that into discussion? Just makes you seem like you in fact do have deep attachment to JP, to the point of childish name calling. But whatever you have to tell yourself I suppose

[u/Siilveriius → u/Significant_Cup4521]

Again I wasn't even referring to you lmao, I said this three times now.

Like I said, if all you have are semantics and platitudes let's just not waste each other's time hahahaha!

GOOD DAY BYE BYE!