Dear Lobsters: There Is a Better Way

Great article, as all of Nathan’s work is

 

North Korea identifies as a Democratic Peoples Republic.

Sometimes you're just saying something to try and cover what you really are.

 

“There is a misconception, pushed by people like Shapiro and Peterson, that “the left” consists of a very particular strain of “social justice” thinking that traffics in making white people, especially men, feel ashamed all the time. This is what one of the above ex-lobsters said: He thought he was being told he had White Privilege when he was at his lowest point, and that made him incredibly angry. It is a mistake, however, to identify this as “the left.” First, many of us are stalwart defenders of social justice, and believe that white men have been responsible for a lot of horrific crimes and amassed an undue share of power, yet do not believe that individuals need to feel ashamed of themselves. You did not make the world you were born into, you should not feel personally responsible for that which was beyond your control. What you are responsible for is trying to recognize and rectify injustice. I have never felt like I am a bad person for being a white man, but I have certainly felt an obligation to try to fight against race and gender inequality.“

Thank you. This is something I once struggled with and I currently know people who do. A large part is due to how the media (and Tumblr) falsely represents progressives. It feels great seeing an article come out and say it when I’ve come to know people on the left who accurately represent what Nathan is saying.

 

lol

 

Required in any Jordan Peterson thread.

 

Peterson isn’t gonna give you praise for defending him online you don’t gotta do it

 

The Intellectual We Deserve | Current Affairs

But, having examined Peterson’s work closely, I think the “misinterpretation” of Peterson is only partially a result of leftists reading him through an ideological prism. A more important reason why Peterson is “misinterpreted” is that he is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is “actually saying.” People can have such angry arguments about Peterson, seeing him as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal, because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected.

 

What’s most likely is you’re following a literal charlatan who also happens to be deeply bigoted and defending him online for reasons that are unknown.

 

Watching lobsters tank for JP is almost indistinguishable from Scientologists talking about how much auditing has helped them. Cool story, you’re still in a cult doing far more overall harm than good.

 

I thought this was the discussion part of the website - I regret trying to do this as if I don't agree with you people it gets personal and kind of mean.

The response after yours among others also tells me disagreeing means I am not welcome here.

I am not following anyone either, I just like some of his content as I like the long form debates he has taken part in.

Reasons unknown? I saw an article about someone I am familiar with on a website I frequent and thought I would engage in debate in the article discussion thread - is this unusual?

Would you reply like this in person?

 

People telling you you're wrong isn't "kind of mean"; that's your own interpretation of a situation you don't like to be in.

You are welcome here, only I'm not sure you understand what a debate is, which is perhaps due to the fact that the people you look up to gave you a biased idea of what debating actually is.

I would definitely reply like this in person.

 

Sam Harris claims to be left wing while have incredibly xenophobic views. He white mansplains Islam, without ever engaging in discussions of economic factors and acces to resources, American imperialism or nationalism, and then when called on this becomes defensive and accuses the other debater of being hostile, thus allowing to never engage with ideas different than his own.

Jordan Peterson uses a small amount of scientific evidence, such as lobsters and ants, while ignoring mountains of evidence that contradicts him, to prove his points. He, like Sam, is often unwilling to engage with ideas going against his own. Meanwhile they’re both doing this but accuse the left of stifling free speech, while they rarely engage in real debates.

Also here’s a great twitter thread from a biologist breaking down just how badly Peterson doesn’t understand lobsters, or animals and science in general.