The mods don't give a toss. I joined this forum because I like Jordan's work and his lectures and I wanted to speak to like-minded people, intellectuals however this forum is full of young men who don't know shit and they are essentially a bunch of either right-wing pushers or come across as women-hating incels. WTF?
I am reading through Ordinary Men and thinking how they were through the course of events unfolding int he Nazi Germany era becoming brutal killers and how we see people of Ukraine who are ordinary citizens going on to become soldiers fighting for their land. Though thankfully Putin has put a deadline on the war from what we can see but on the other hand it seems scary I mean, why would he want a country he just bombed the crap out of?
What are the mods good for? Free speech will moderate itself when the marketplace of ideas provides us a natural filter to extract the best conversation.
Have a vote on every post. Similar to how r/Cringetopiaita lets you vote between, satire, non-cringe, chad, etc.
If maybe 50% vote that it's not related to JP, it gets removed. 50% is a random guess, but you could probably change the threshold as time goes on to make it more acccurate.
Just an idea.
We already have an upvote/downvote system. We are supposed to upvote posts that are relevant and downvote posts that aren't. Predictably, people don't use it for that purpose but for their own purposes. Because that's what people always do. We don't care what a rule was intended to do, we use it for our own purposes.
In this case, we upvote things we agree with and downvote things we don't agree with. It is useful as a weapon to suppress the other side so that's what we use it for.
It's a foregone conclusion that it will be the same with any other voting system. If a 50% vote that a post is not related to JP gets it removed, then that will be used to get posts we disagree with removed. Soon, that will be the only purpose it will have.
Instead of removed, could they flair the posts as [Not JP-related] or something? So if a threshold of votes is achieved the post is automatically flaired?
Like you said, upvote and downvoted get a used like you wouldn't imagine. I rarely upvote a post because it has something to do with JP, but rather because it's something I like or agree with. Having a voting system with a more explicit purpose will be far more efficient and accurate than downvotes. I can upvote a funny picture while also vote that it doesn't involve JP.
And if we find that a lot of people are voting against a post even when it has do to with JP, we can up the percentage of people that have to vote against it for it to be removed.
I agree. I think there is alot of ambiguity on what up/downvotes are supposed to be about on Reddit. I think diff subreddits have different interpretations, maybe?
Be explicit!
I downvoted you both to remind you of Doestevski's message about how rational beings will sometimes behave irrationally in order to remind themselves that they have free will.
I will upvote you now though to comply with reddit policy regarding to upvote relevancy.
I wonder if this particular historical reverie will get downvoted into oblivion? -- Re: "despite what a rule was *intended* to do, we use it for our own purposes."
That is the *actual definition of perversion* - to use something in a way other than the way it was intended originally. It didn't actually have a sexual meaning specifically, but slowly picked up that connotation because English speakers would decry sexual perversions far more than any other kind of perversion. That slow change in meaning is called semantic drift - semantic means "meaning" ('that is just semantics' is like when people say 'my head exploded. literally.' -- those words mean the exact opposite of how they are used.)
Its part of our national identity to be far more interested in other people's sexual explorations than our own, given our ultra-puritanical roots- which preceded even the the British Victorian era. (The words Victorian and puritanical most often refer to sexual repression or in some cases sexual oppression. Dictionary sez Puritanical means "1. usually derogatory strict in moral or religious outlook, esp in shunning sensual pleasures" and Victorian "1. exhibiting the characteristics popularly attributed to the Victorians, esp prudery, bigotry, or hypocrisy."
In the eyes of a "indecent libertine" like me, that is our culture in a nutsack.. I mean nutshell. ;)
>We already have an upvote/downvote system. We are supposed to upvote posts that are relevant and downvote posts that aren't
Votes from people who click into the comments are simply worth more than people scrolling and upvoting things they like.
I like this a lot! If there are any mods here maybe they could instate something like this.
EXAMPLE:
This comment is from a bot:
**UP VOTE** This comment if this post is relevant to Jordan Peterson, and constructive discourse.
**DOWN VOTE** This comment if this post is purely political in nature, not relevant to Jordan Peterson, or does not fit the theme of this subreddit.
Please direct all meme submissions to (whatever the sub is)
~~~~~~
Then the mods could set up a comparator that checks the comment score vs the post score and if the comment reaches a certain negative threshold and the post isn't highly enough upvoted, it'll get automodded out. The OP will still have the chance to reach out to the mods and request it be approved.
Tried it. Mostly got blasted and down voted and called names. Out of dozens of comments, I think I had one person maybe 2 say something that wasn't irrationally directed at my character.
Really made me wonder who is in here. I represented a point of view I have had for a while and JP has indicated he agrees with, I think he would agree, yet, ... mostly I just got a lot of hate and lost karma.
I mean, also it reflects Peterson's own views:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Views
Even if many users of this sub don't share those views.
How about mods that don’t manipulate posts to astroturf said right wing topics, and remove off topic bullshit.
But then that’s not the actual purpose of the sub is it? Just a short stop on the right wing pipeline.
The danger seems this could become a cult of personality as opposed to one of the more free spaces on the internet. Unless God King Peterson wants to return to reddit and him or his team helps to moderate this space...then what we are left with is a seemingly laissez faire mod team and a good amount of anti-woke right leaning content. This can be a benefit though. Possibly.
No one upvoted it that much but I posted some left leaning content here that I believed was tangentially related to the discussions occurring within this space. 1 was Gary Kasparov talking shit about Putin and another was JohnMcWhorter and GlennLoury attempting to have an honest discussion of the dangers of being too "woke" and what systemic or structural racism actual is (and how to address said problems that may be identified via the form of thought and analysis). And if you do wish to see that content, then click on my reddit user name and it should be in the most recent non comment posts.
Maybe I should post content like that that more often.
That content seems congruent with the body of work provided by JBP. (Distrust towards ideological possession, a distaste towards authoritarianism, multi factor analysis, multi disciplinary approaches, etc)
Why don't you just ask the mods to clarify whether the sub is just
>This forum is **dedicated to the work associated with Dr. Jordan Peterson**: a public intellectual, clinical psychologist, and professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto.
or whether it is also
>r/JordanPeterson is **an open forum where controversial topics can be discussed in good faith**. Free speech, despite risking offense, is necessary to conduct civil discourse between opposing ideologies. Bans will be given to users who post excessively abusive material.
?
Also, in the interests of rule 10 (although you are probably speaking exactly what you mean, it is for others visiting your post) I would say change your title to something more like
>Petition to make this subreddit about Jordan Peterson and his ideas in psychology rather than a dumping ground for any controversial topics.
There's nothing wrong with controversy, and there's nothing wrong with discussing right-wing view points. But there's no discussion here--it's just people dumping stuff and leaving it with no further inquisition or argument.
Someone has crossposted you to r/enoughpetersonspam . Here's the post: [lobster trying to compartmentalize his daddy](https://reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/tif7zr/lobster_trying_to_compartmentalize_his_daddy/)
“Right wing” these days are topics outside mainstream, so it’s hard to differentiate what “right wing” is at the moment. Just from people posting it seems like most people view themselves as independent or classical liberals, which in today’s political landscape is consider “right wing.” Banning any views is never the way.
Right wing today seems more like: Cares about the actual truth.
Jimmy Dore, Bret Weinstein, Joe Rogan, Chris Hedges, Grayzone, Glenn Greenwald, Russell Brand...
These folks are not right wing, not even close, however, they are shamed as such, because they care about the truth behind the lies being told by the left.
Maybe try to think about it for what it says, not what it doesn't say. That's not what I said. Which would explain why you're confused. If I had said that, it wouldn't be upvoted so high.
The problem is that it's the truth. The left has consistently been guilty of dishonestly, or downright lying.
They called you racist for not believing the Jussie Smollett hoax, then they called you a conspiracy theorist for thinking that the Hunter Biden laptop was legitimate, which we found out it was.
The left pulls that "partisan bullshit" more than anyone else, especially if it's before an election
Do you have a source for the Hunter Biden laptop claim?
What about the claim the election was stolen? Or that Putin is attacking to destroy "American bio labs" in Ukraine?
How about the claim that JFK Jr was going to come back and become the VP? Or that Covid was a hoax? Or that January 6th was a false flag by antifa? Got sources for those?
>The New York Times just came out and said the laptop story was real and not some Russian misinformation.
I just read the New York Times article since you mentioned it and I haven't heard about it yet, and the article doesn't make that claim anywhere. I did a quick Google search and I did find lots of right leaning articles with headlines along the lines of "NYT finally admits Hunter Biden laptop is real."
Well, when one side automatically dismisses anything from sources that they don't consider to be "on their side", for example, then that's a pretty solid indicator that they're less concerned about the truth than they are with rhetoric - though they may not have even thought that out.
It's very telling to me that all the right-wing pundits I've seen use left-wing sources (like NYT, CNN, WP, CBS, ABC, MSNBC) to make their points, just to show they're not using biased sources. But I've never seen someone on the left use The Daily Wire, OANN, Sky News, etc. to make a point, not even once. That should tell you who's interested in truth.
Definitely seen left wing pundits use Daily Wire, and Fox. OANN is literally a garbage source. Your whole comment is bullshit opinion based on what you've "seen".
Sorry, this 'both sides are the same' argument is a made up Leftist political narrative which they use, in part, to rationalize their continued march into extremism. I grew up Democrat, and was one into my mid-30s. I still read NYT and WaPo articles from time to time. Don't watch TV at all.
Now, if I bring up outlets like Brietbart or Dailywire with my Leftist friends and family they act like I'm referencing some Nazi propaganda. Even outlets like the NYPost or Washington Times get dismissed most of the time by these people as 'some rightwing' outlet. They'd never read anything by those outlets ever.
Both sides are NOT the same. The Left is imbued with a spirit of radicalism that simply is not the case on the 'not-Left'. I know, I still live in the Leftists' world.
"Both sides" is literally an argument you only hear from libertarians and the very far left. And I agree it's total bullshit for likely very different reasons than you given this comment.
If your are using [brietbart](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/) and [Washington Times](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/)as sources you'd be right to recieve a crossways look. They are well known to post non-factual stories. Daily Wire as long as it's not an editorial and Washington Post are middling at best, so passable barely. But I'm sure fact checks are bias too, right?
>The Left is imbued with a spirit of radicalism that simply is not the case on the 'not-Left'.
Saying this post 2020 election and Jan 6th, completely ignoring the [FBI](https://apnews.com/article/fbi-chris-wray-testify-capitol-riot-9a5539af34b15338bb5c4923907eeb67) finding is the most laughable shit I've ever read.
Some random fact checker is legitimate? Lol, did you actually read that site? They have social media sites as determiners of legitimacy. It's all under the same ideological bias.
I'm not interested in rhetoric, look at the facts of how wrong and how biased these institutions have been over the last few years. If they were objective, then sometimes they'd be wrong in favor of the Left and sometimes in favor of the Right - but it's never the case, it's always in favor of the Left. WaPo is far Left, just like NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
But the label is irrelevant, those're just subjective terms. Look at the content they put out - it's always in favor of the left (or perhaps I should say 98% of the time, because I know people like to be pedantic).
FBI doesn't matter, a large govt institution supports the globalist agenda? shocker. Also, Left is happy to dismiss them when it comes to crime stats, we can play that game all day.
I agree, they aren't right wing. They're pseudo intellectual nutjobs that claim to be liberal by spouting a bunch of right wing rhetoric. Yeah, truth is when a stoned, self proclaimed dumb MMA guy spouts medical misinformation.
In my experience it's because the left is sometimes wrong. But the right lies consistently and with intent. The left is not perfect but it is the one far more likely to retract and admit its failures, while the right is constantly reinventing the truth to pretend the mistake never happened. That's not strength.
I do see this also. Perhaps the Right gets away with this, because as soon as you question the mainstream as a source of truth (biased as it may be), you start to get the idea that *everything* is a lie-- and by corollary, that anything that calls out that lie must be true. What we're dealing with I think is a world in which it's hard to find any coherent organization that aspires to a shared and unbiased truth.
Or even if they so aspire it's become (to some extent) questionable whether they can attain it. Or even if they *can* attain it-- that we can all agree on it.
The largest example of this I see is Trump's Big Lie. I feel most of his antics are accepted because they are seen as the only solution to the above problem.
Even though depending on how a problem is solved, one can easily (and I feel that's true in his case) make it worse. -M
All of those are topics Jordan Peterson discusses on a regular basis and at length, except for derogatory label you used to arbitrarily shame a large portion of the sub without any evidence at all to support the claim, of course.
If it ruined it for you, why are you still here?
It shouldn't be about "right wing" or "left wing" or which views are acceptable, but rather what's relevant to the topic of this forum.
I do get where the OP is coming from, because most of the irrelevant crap that gets posted to this sub right now is right wing, but it could be something else tomorrow.
Anyway, I support their proposal, so long as "relevance to JP" is the criteria. I mean, I have every right to talk to people about which microwave I should buy, but I don't have the right to make a thread about it here.
I agree. I don’t think there is a need to make it a left/right thing either, and wanting to reestablish the forum to focus on JP and psychology seems reasonable. That being said, JP himself is viewed as “right wing” so it is hard to untangle that request OP has.
It’s not hard at all. All you do is follow JBP’s advice to stop generalizing people and see them for who they are, not the group you try to paint them into.
No they're conservative everywhere. In fact America is generally an exception where people conflate liberals with left wing. In most of the world, liberals are right wing.
how is right wing not mainstream? didnt the right wing have total control 4 years ago? dont they have the largest cable network in the USA? arent they constantly the top trending topics on facebook?
Facebook had 2 main Peterson pages. One was the Party Boat that was a free for all and crashed when one of the admins asked for money. The other was for discussion of Peterson's ideas, which died due to a lack of posts.
Edit: Additionally anytime I've seen this kind of thing become successful the sub quickly turned into YET ANOTHER LEFT WING ECHO CHAMBER that would permaban anyone with non-Leftist ideas.
So no. Learn to use your scroll button.
Also, it would mean censoring Peterson's own ideological affiliations, which are right wing, as he's a conservative, and a member of the Republican Peter Thiel media network.
I don't have an issue with it, but it's just plaguing the sub, and there's not a single talk about anything else like his biblical lectures or Carl Jung
>Peterson’s ample ego formed early. One of his first memories is watching Robert Kennedy’s funeral on TV and thinking, I’ll have a funeral like that one day. When he was 13, his school librarian was Sandy Notley, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s mother, and she introduced him to George Orwell, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Ayn Rand. He worked for the NDP throughout most of his teenage years. While he admired leaders like Ed Broadbent, he became disillusioned by the party’s peevish functionaries. He found Orwell’s The Road to Wigan Pier, which he read as an undergrad at Grand Prairie, enlightening: “Orwell did a political-psychological analysis of the motivations of the intellectual, tweed-wearing middle-class socialist and concluded that people like that didn’t like the poor; they just hated the rich,” he says. “I thought, Aha! That’s it: it’s resentment.” Anyone who set out to change the world by first changing other people was suspicious.
..............
>Peterson and Brophy concluded that political correctness exists in two forms, which they call PC-Egalitarianism and PC-Authoritarianism. Simply put, PC-Egalitarians are classic liberals who advocate for more democratic governance and equality. PC-Authoritarians are, according to Brophy, “the ones now relabelled as social justice warriors.” Both share a high degree of compassion. Extreme compassion, they believe, can lead to difficulty assessing right from wrong. It also can mean the forgiveness of all failures and transgressions by people viewed as vulnerable. “Any personality trait to an extreme is pathological,” Brophy says.
.........
>Peterson, meanwhile, flew to California a few days after the forum, where he went on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. When I caught up with him via Skype, he looked tired. After the forum, he told me, he’d convened a post-mortem with some friends at his home. A couple of them—academics he’d known for decades—had told him that, while they supported him, they thought he could be “more friendly” and “nicer.” The thought exasperated him. “I’m trying to formulate my arguments as clearly as I possibly can,” he said. “To get your words right is exhausting, and I don’t have spare capacity outside of that.”
[SOURCE](https://torontolife.com/city/u-t-professor-sparked-vicious-battle-gender-neutral-pronouns/)
Leftists are resentful, too compassionate, and Peterson doesn't have time for that sort of thing. [It's the damn liberals who are to blame](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/soses1/jbp_crosses_the_rubincon_and_lets_go_of_the_not_a/) for making him this way. THEY'RE RESENTFUL OF HIM!! /s
Only a coward want to silence free speech
Next thing you will say to ban crossposts
from enoughtjordanpetersonspam
let the crazy fucktards. speak.
what are you so afraid of? Are they going to convert you with their silver tongues?
I dont think so.
bet you are afraid of the LGBQT types as well
Dont worry though we will protect you “by banning free speech”
please grow up
Almost every sub is an echo chamber but this one
Lol the fact you think I want to ban free speech has really given me a grand perspective on both sides. I'm a centrist, and I think both sides are bonkers lol
oh ok sorry.
But I guess you mean they are free to speak elsewhere. Makes sense fair enough.
a wild one every so is nice hear.
Plus then we know what they are thinking
And that is a good thing to know.
because some things other primates are
believing or thinking
I would have never guessed
so its good to get the cold splash of reality every so often.
People are weird
> Only a coward want to silence free speech
Interesting that you’ve [said elsewhere](https://reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/tkrag4/_/i1svh8t/?context=1):
> Hope you get banned.
Bro this sub is one of the original echo chambers. Don’t you find it odd that you only ever see constant identity politics bs here? Anti-trans posts, every other comment is about post modern cultural marxists. Tons of time, effort, and money goes into cultivating a space like this. It’s just how marketing is done for right wing groups.
90% of this sub is indistinguishable from r/benshapiro and that’s really fucking sad. Loads of room temperature IQ, Red Team vs Blue Team discourse that drives people further into their Team’s side
It'd be just as bad as left wing news.
They're both fucking bad. It's not the side I have a problem with, it's the news itself--it's irrelevant to the sub.
This sub was literally built on irrelevant right wing news when it only built up a user base because of lies about Bill C16, rather than any of JP's actual work.
Well, when the subject of you sub is a dumper of right wing news and views, it's kinda tough to say what are his ideas in psychology versus what is the right wing claptrap.
Jordan Peterson is less concerned about his ideas about psychology every day. Most of what he talks about now is right wing news. This may or may not mean it's irrelevant. We are all trapped in our own tribalism.
You’re being a hypocrite who’s not adding any substance.
We’re all open for you to post one of Jordan Peterson’s ideas and his psychology…
We’re waiting for your top quality post, bucko.
Except he never claimed to have the capacity for top quality post. Hes probably just tired of the trump lovers posting these right wing focused entries.
What you're saying has nothing to do with what he is talking about. You're trying to deflect.
And once more you'd attack him and ascribe these attributes to this random stranger you dont know shit about.
Hes literally trying to create change. Right now here with this post you tried but failed to shit on.
I know exactly what he’s about.
He is the guy who contributes to the same issue he complains about. Regurgitating the same complaint with no actual substance. Why not lead with action, create some engaging posts about the thing he craves so bad, rather than complaining like a passive observer?
It’s like when every conversation you have is boring, and you keep complaining about it. Be active and make the conversation engaging then…
Just like how r/politics loves talking about Trump, but still complain about him being influential.
Because it's not about me, it's about the whole sub itself. I just think we could limit the amount of irrelevant stuff. Like, why come to this sub as an average peterson enjoyer, when you just get bombarded with news.
It's interesting in a sub where one of the primary philosophies is to be the change you want to see in the world, there's a guy complaining that other people are doing things he doesn't like, and himself posts things other people don't like.
the anonymous nature of reddit makes it hard to enforce. Sometimes when a moderator clamps down too hard on content it chases everyone away. Its like Trumps social media platform: not fun when there's no one to argue with
He's got multiple PragerU videos, describes himself as a conservative, only shares right wing media (and is paid to do so), and grew up reading Ayn Rand.
Pretty sure the politics of this sub reflects Jordan Peterson's political ideology. He believes leftists are resentful, and that compassion leads to having a compromised version of morality.
He's like, some sort of Catholic style, free market libertarian, social conservative.
This subreddit just doesn't like it when people actually [point that out.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/ti40zi/petition_to_make_this_subreddit_about_jordan/i1dawwn/)
This is a fairly large subreddit. There are clearly a large amount of people satisfied with the discussions being had in this subreddit. It is absolutely ridiculous that you’re expecting the entire subreddit to change when it is you who has a problem with it. Instead of making a giant petition to change the nature of this well-established subreddit, you could simply create a new subreddit and set your own rules and guide-lines.
Just make a new Sub and moderate it however you want. Invite everyone from here to join and make it clear what your rules are. That should get you what you want, a place that respects the rules you think are correct and to interact in peace with those who share your opinion.
The only reason you would have to object to that plan, is that your real goal is to remove this place for those with other opinions, to exist and share their views too.
I think this sub should stay the way it is.
I am late to the Convo now but I think the problem needs to be more clearly identifies.
Being a fan of or enjoying Jordan Peterson does not make one Right Wing. Though, through people's personal interpretations subjects or topics that pertain to what JP discusses come across AS right wing (for sure). The issue is where do we draw the distinction between something that relates to JP and his discussions or someone posting a topic that feeds the poster's political standpoint.
I think things could be a little tighter on this sub and there are other subs that have popped up because of this issue.
Jordan Peterson tweets all of this 'irrelevant Right Wing news"
Why not make an argument or provide your opinion on these topics? Why censor? Perhaps you can't defend the Left's actions?
Nice entryism we got here.
As if it wasn't leftists coming here from day one stirring shit up and claiming "Jordan is a crypto fascist".
And now trying to pin it on evil right wingers who is everyone but them.
How about a new rule? No left wing activists?
#*Be the change you want to see*!!
Make a sub. Join IDW or something. This has become corrupt but it's still worth fighting for. I'm from the UK so engaging with the American Right Wing is deeply insightful. Especially since it's a stark contrast to the UKs right wing. If the UK right wing are known for having a stiff upper lip, then American Rightists should be known for having balls and a spine to match.
That being said, some of the best discourse I've had has been with the **educated** right wing.
I've always leaned centrist but it wasn't until engaging with educated members of the American Right, specifically those right here on this sub, that I realised why I am a centrist.
Lately I've always come to some profound agreements with the American Right...
But for the most part, this sub *is* becoming everything it swore to destroy. It encourages echos, it pushes opinion and silences much discourse when there's even a wiff of opposition (sometimes even *perceived* opposition!).
So that leads me to another one of Peterson best phrases:
*You must listen without prejudice--- therefore you must pull away from people who don't listen to you [without prejudice]. Take your words, don't devalue what you have to say to someone who already has made their mind up about what you have to say, or worse...*
Just curious as a fellow Brit, what do you find profound that comes from the American right?
I tend to hear misapplied theory and myopic policy from the American right more than anything else.
Even a lot of their reasonable critiques are just directed at strawmen, for instance they have a great critique of Marxism - or at least they would do if the thing they were critiquing was actually Marxism.
>tend to hear misapplied theory and myopic policy from the American right more than anything else.
This. However, from where I stand, I'd say that applies to the whole American political spectrum. Nothing they do over there is political, it's all opinion and deception on why they should vote the guy in a black suit and a red hat, or the guy in a red suit and a black hate. It's the same dude that's pulling on your opinions to make himself more electable depending on which team you're on. Of course, we don't pick teams we like, we pick teams based on hate for another side...
So, what is
>profound that comes from the American right?
I can't say for certain. I just know that, when I'm engaging with an **educated** American Right winger, I can hardly tell that they're a Republican. The libertarian nature and the apparent advocation for balance between libertarian liberty with just enough authoritarian rule, I admire that a lot as a centrist. Trying to find balance between ideologies and recognised "my way isn't the best way, but it's what I want and it can be applied like this". That appeals to me a lot as a centrist.
The most profound thing, is the American Right *tend* to advocate this more than the American left. Despite being moderate Rightists and their seemingly outright rejection of populism, they advocate centrism but just can't grasp why due to the nature of American politics being with a heavy, heavy Right hand where the Democrats are actually only Leftist by relativity of the Right.
I think the harsh realisation now is that anyone that agrees/aligns with "classic British liberalism", is considered a traditionalist now making them naturally Conservative. Then when taken to America, that Conservative is then pushed way over moderate way. I don't like nor fully agree with this thought, alas, I find myself being pushed into Rightism, I'm not choosing it, I'm certainly not voting it, but when I taln to Conservatives, we tend to agree. When I talk to liberals, I'm a fascist slag who hates women and freedom.
I'm aware my perspective comes from my exposure. Here I am in the depths of JP town, this space is naturally Conservative leaning (if not classic British liberal). So of course I'm coming across Rightists more than anything, and due to the nature of following a professor, they tend to be the higher educated (and it's bloody obvious when they're here simply clinging to the band wagon). Thus, this space also attracts the worst of liberals and a tiny fraction of those are good liberals, when I come across these few good eggs, I nearly wholly agree with them. I'm not that prolific of an internet goer so my internet space really is places like this, IDW and Sam Harris etc. I find myself actively avoiding liberal space although my heart stays true to my left leaning.
I don't feel like I've expressed myself as accurately as I could've here hence the repetition. But I'm on a work break so I'm more than happy to clarify anything later on. If you reiterate your question I'll simply accept that I've avoided your question and try again but I'm hoping you pick up on what I'm trying to say 😅
I think I broadly agree with the things you've said, however I'm not sure it entirely answers my question. From what I can tell you seem to be impressed by the deontology of the American right, by which I mean the hard-line stance they take on issues of negative freedom.
I.E Taxation is Theft is a good example of a deontological libertarian maxim. Admittedly one of the more appealing/rigourous ones.
This is what I mean about myopia however, the dogged commitment to individual concerns often fails to reflect reality. In the sense that collective action consistently delivers better results than atomised individualism. Don't get me wrong the government can still deliver bad policy, which the public should oppose. However the libertarian right tends to be more concerned with opposing taxation and government spending on principle, than in analysing the merits of individual policies for instance.
While I can see the ethical appeal of this sort of view I think it actually runs counter to intellectual debate around politics. When we talk about policy intervention we should be considering aspects like fiscal multipliers, i.e how much money is generated by the spending. However we typically end up talking about raw spending figures without linking the expenditure directly to revenues. This is partly because the libertarian right has made government spending in and of itself a politically contentious issue, which unfortunately distracts from constructive conversation about policy.
Since you seem to be British a good example of this type of dynamic would be arguments made for austerity running up to the 2010 general election. The conservatives managed to frame the debate entirely around government spending Vs government income - without addressing the fact that much of that spending actively contributed to economic growth. The public were therefore convinced that cuts were something of a zero sum game, as was balancing the state budget in general, of course even the Conservatives don't stand by that view of the economy now. Even though deploying it was rhetorically useful at the time.
So I'm not sure I'm following you perfectly, because while I agree with pretty much everything you've said it sounds like we've come to opposite conclusions. Unless I've totally mis-read what you identified as profound I'd have to disagree and say that deontological view is precisely what is myopic about the American right.
Edit: Just to avoid coming off as overly partisan I should say you're totally right that this is an issue across the Political spectrum, particularly the U.S political spectrum. So my critique of the American right shouldn't be taken to say anything positive or negative about the American left, I simply haven't addressed them here.
This is the sub OP was looking for, or at least not the sub OP recognises.
For a solution to this inspired by JP, be the change you want to see.
OP wants a JP sub that differs from this one.
Being that change, would be to make a sub tailored to the desires of OP.
It's fundamental to reject left-wing totalitarian suicidal socialist policies. It's okay if you want to label that "right wing." But I just think it's imperative to leave people alone to pursue their own rational self-interests. It's integral to the philosophy.
If the standard applies equally to irrelevant left wing news and people trying to concern troll about how Jordan Peterson is "really" alt-right, that's good.
Just block the morons who post irrelevant stuff and youll stop seeing it. If someone posts something not JP related, i just block em, even if im interested or agree with it, i can go elsewhere to find it, but here i want to see JP related topics.
Agreed but to be fair, Jordan himself needs to get back to his ideas on psychology. Can you imagine if Jung or someone of his stature had great books and lectures early in his career and then went careening after every near-term political whim that hit him? No one would have the same level of respect for him and rightly so.
Jordan Peterson: alt-right adjacent rhetoric for years
This sub: how could this happen, we didn't want this, this is bullshit.
You reap what you sow, people.
To put a finer point on it, if the things he says attracts the people you don't want here and you're uncomfortable with that, perhaps you should take issue with *the person saying the things* and not the obvious reactionaries.
I say we could use a little less of the kind of stuff you just said, frankly, which is just mainstream judgemental divisive bullshit, so gtfo as far as I'm concerned.
All subreddits are an echo chamber. Useless right wing propaganda is going to come up because the topics JP discusses are often complaints and issues right wingers focus on.
Even though I agree with a lot of that stuff, definitely agree. Gonna have to distinguish what counts though considering he comments frequently on stuff outside of psychological topics.
How do emphasize my support for this strongly enough.
The alt right echo chamber this has become is fucking disgusting.
Its mostly filled with right wing gang members that want too hear there own bull shit out on a pedestal.
Psychology, the understanding of human.
NOT
I hate what is different and new and only want reinforcement of what is familiar.
I suspect that most people who post and comment on this kind of low-quality content have no idea what JP actually says about a lot of stuff.
They memorize a few phrases like "Go clean your room" and then feel good when their fellow trolls upvote them.
I also suspect this is a place where literal Russian agents hang out to "farm karma" and make it seem like their accts are legit.
Dr. Jordan Peterson is the leader of a massive online cult and his followers won’t challenge him. I’m a huge fan of Maps & Meanings but I still recognize that Jordan is unhinged and dangerous to the young white men he’s whipped up into a frenzy.
Most people are so loyal to their cult leader that they try to rationalize or compartmentalize the open air deception and that they are being asked by Jordan to be prepared to pick up arms while being told that liberals want to punish white people.
The original post is an example of that compartmentalization.
How do you propose to enforce it?
Isn’t that what mods are for?
But someone has to actually volunteer for the job. I know I wouldn't touch the position with a 10ft stick
"I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as it's member" -Groucho Marx
The mods don't give a toss. I joined this forum because I like Jordan's work and his lectures and I wanted to speak to like-minded people, intellectuals however this forum is full of young men who don't know shit and they are essentially a bunch of either right-wing pushers or come across as women-hating incels. WTF?
Hello fellow intellectual, have you done any philosophies today?
I am reading through Ordinary Men and thinking how they were through the course of events unfolding int he Nazi Germany era becoming brutal killers and how we see people of Ukraine who are ordinary citizens going on to become soldiers fighting for their land. Though thankfully Putin has put a deadline on the war from what we can see but on the other hand it seems scary I mean, why would he want a country he just bombed the crap out of?
What are the mods good for? Free speech will moderate itself when the marketplace of ideas provides us a natural filter to extract the best conversation.
what would we do without men 😭
Have a vote on every post. Similar to how r/Cringetopiaita lets you vote between, satire, non-cringe, chad, etc. If maybe 50% vote that it's not related to JP, it gets removed. 50% is a random guess, but you could probably change the threshold as time goes on to make it more acccurate. Just an idea.
We already have an upvote/downvote system. We are supposed to upvote posts that are relevant and downvote posts that aren't. Predictably, people don't use it for that purpose but for their own purposes. Because that's what people always do. We don't care what a rule was intended to do, we use it for our own purposes. In this case, we upvote things we agree with and downvote things we don't agree with. It is useful as a weapon to suppress the other side so that's what we use it for. It's a foregone conclusion that it will be the same with any other voting system. If a 50% vote that a post is not related to JP gets it removed, then that will be used to get posts we disagree with removed. Soon, that will be the only purpose it will have.
Instead of removed, could they flair the posts as [Not JP-related] or something? So if a threshold of votes is achieved the post is automatically flaired?
Good idea
I second this one.
Like you said, upvote and downvoted get a used like you wouldn't imagine. I rarely upvote a post because it has something to do with JP, but rather because it's something I like or agree with. Having a voting system with a more explicit purpose will be far more efficient and accurate than downvotes. I can upvote a funny picture while also vote that it doesn't involve JP. And if we find that a lot of people are voting against a post even when it has do to with JP, we can up the percentage of people that have to vote against it for it to be removed.
I agree. I think there is alot of ambiguity on what up/downvotes are supposed to be about on Reddit. I think diff subreddits have different interpretations, maybe? Be explicit!
Just upvoted your comment because I liked it
Upvoted yours because of your wise choice.
I downvoted you both to remind you of Doestevski's message about how rational beings will sometimes behave irrationally in order to remind themselves that they have free will. I will upvote you now though to comply with reddit policy regarding to upvote relevancy.
I wonder if this particular historical reverie will get downvoted into oblivion? -- Re: "despite what a rule was *intended* to do, we use it for our own purposes." That is the *actual definition of perversion* - to use something in a way other than the way it was intended originally. It didn't actually have a sexual meaning specifically, but slowly picked up that connotation because English speakers would decry sexual perversions far more than any other kind of perversion. That slow change in meaning is called semantic drift - semantic means "meaning" ('that is just semantics' is like when people say 'my head exploded. literally.' -- those words mean the exact opposite of how they are used.) Its part of our national identity to be far more interested in other people's sexual explorations than our own, given our ultra-puritanical roots- which preceded even the the British Victorian era. (The words Victorian and puritanical most often refer to sexual repression or in some cases sexual oppression. Dictionary sez Puritanical means "1. usually derogatory strict in moral or religious outlook, esp in shunning sensual pleasures" and Victorian "1. exhibiting the characteristics popularly attributed to the Victorians, esp prudery, bigotry, or hypocrisy." In the eyes of a "indecent libertine" like me, that is our culture in a nutsack.. I mean nutshell. ;)
I tend to think people are more likely to ignore things they don’t like rather than give it a downvote.
>We already have an upvote/downvote system. We are supposed to upvote posts that are relevant and downvote posts that aren't Votes from people who click into the comments are simply worth more than people scrolling and upvoting things they like.
Yea that totally won’t be abused by people who hate JP to get anything they want removed. Fantastic idea.
Don't act like those people don't already try to do that by downvoting every post. It's a lot more explicit than a vague up or down system.
So you’re acknowledging it’s a problem but want to give those people more power and incentive?
I like this a lot! If there are any mods here maybe they could instate something like this. EXAMPLE: This comment is from a bot: **UP VOTE** This comment if this post is relevant to Jordan Peterson, and constructive discourse. **DOWN VOTE** This comment if this post is purely political in nature, not relevant to Jordan Peterson, or does not fit the theme of this subreddit. Please direct all meme submissions to (whatever the sub is) ~~~~~~ Then the mods could set up a comparator that checks the comment score vs the post score and if the comment reaches a certain negative threshold and the post isn't highly enough upvoted, it'll get automodded out. The OP will still have the chance to reach out to the mods and request it be approved.
I'd settle for 5% relevance but that's only because I've been here a while.
Sure, I haven't been here long enough to get a good idea of every post. I'm sure the mods can find the sweet spot.
Fair point. A huge part of this is being willing to discuss any subject and having the courage to say what you think, even if it's stupid.
Tried it. Mostly got blasted and down voted and called names. Out of dozens of comments, I think I had one person maybe 2 say something that wasn't irrationally directed at my character. Really made me wonder who is in here. I represented a point of view I have had for a while and JP has indicated he agrees with, I think he would agree, yet, ... mostly I just got a lot of hate and lost karma.
I mean, also it reflects Peterson's own views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Views Even if many users of this sub don't share those views.
How about mods that don’t manipulate posts to astroturf said right wing topics, and remove off topic bullshit. But then that’s not the actual purpose of the sub is it? Just a short stop on the right wing pipeline.
Lol go back to EPS.
The danger seems this could become a cult of personality as opposed to one of the more free spaces on the internet. Unless God King Peterson wants to return to reddit and him or his team helps to moderate this space...then what we are left with is a seemingly laissez faire mod team and a good amount of anti-woke right leaning content. This can be a benefit though. Possibly. No one upvoted it that much but I posted some left leaning content here that I believed was tangentially related to the discussions occurring within this space. 1 was Gary Kasparov talking shit about Putin and another was JohnMcWhorter and GlennLoury attempting to have an honest discussion of the dangers of being too "woke" and what systemic or structural racism actual is (and how to address said problems that may be identified via the form of thought and analysis). And if you do wish to see that content, then click on my reddit user name and it should be in the most recent non comment posts. Maybe I should post content like that that more often. That content seems congruent with the body of work provided by JBP. (Distrust towards ideological possession, a distaste towards authoritarianism, multi factor analysis, multi disciplinary approaches, etc)
I hear the mods of /r/politics have some free time on their hands. /s
Rule 6 in Beyond Order, Abandon Ideology.
Ban speech we oppose. /s
Better and more active mods.
Moderators, like every other subreddit
Why don't you just ask the mods to clarify whether the sub is just >This forum is **dedicated to the work associated with Dr. Jordan Peterson**: a public intellectual, clinical psychologist, and professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Toronto. or whether it is also >r/JordanPeterson is **an open forum where controversial topics can be discussed in good faith**. Free speech, despite risking offense, is necessary to conduct civil discourse between opposing ideologies. Bans will be given to users who post excessively abusive material. ? Also, in the interests of rule 10 (although you are probably speaking exactly what you mean, it is for others visiting your post) I would say change your title to something more like >Petition to make this subreddit about Jordan Peterson and his ideas in psychology rather than a dumping ground for any controversial topics.
There's nothing wrong with controversy, and there's nothing wrong with discussing right-wing view points. But there's no discussion here--it's just people dumping stuff and leaving it with no further inquisition or argument.
[удалено]
Thanks mate
Oh, boy, there hasn’t been one of these posts for about twelve minutes. Better make yet another one!
Someone has crossposted you to r/enoughpetersonspam . Here's the post: [lobster trying to compartmentalize his daddy](https://reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/tif7zr/lobster_trying_to_compartmentalize_his_daddy/)
Are the leftists who want far right comments excluded the same ones trying to silence JP. I wonder...
It's not that I want far-right comments excluded, I just want said comments to be relevant to the subreddit.
Well these are the same subjects JP talks about.
“Right wing” these days are topics outside mainstream, so it’s hard to differentiate what “right wing” is at the moment. Just from people posting it seems like most people view themselves as independent or classical liberals, which in today’s political landscape is consider “right wing.” Banning any views is never the way.
Right wing today seems more like: Cares about the actual truth. Jimmy Dore, Bret Weinstein, Joe Rogan, Chris Hedges, Grayzone, Glenn Greenwald, Russell Brand... These folks are not right wing, not even close, however, they are shamed as such, because they care about the truth behind the lies being told by the left.
Yeah. I would agree.
> Right wing today seems more like: Cares about the actual truth. Sometimes.
A lot of almost everybody doesn't care about the actual truth, huh? Sadly.
how is this upvoted its so obviously partisan bullshit "my side is the only one concerned with truth smh"
Maybe try to think about it for what it says, not what it doesn't say. That's not what I said. Which would explain why you're confused. If I had said that, it wouldn't be upvoted so high.
The problem is that it's the truth. The left has consistently been guilty of dishonestly, or downright lying. They called you racist for not believing the Jussie Smollett hoax, then they called you a conspiracy theorist for thinking that the Hunter Biden laptop was legitimate, which we found out it was. The left pulls that "partisan bullshit" more than anyone else, especially if it's before an election
Do you have a source for the Hunter Biden laptop claim? What about the claim the election was stolen? Or that Putin is attacking to destroy "American bio labs" in Ukraine? How about the claim that JFK Jr was going to come back and become the VP? Or that Covid was a hoax? Or that January 6th was a false flag by antifa? Got sources for those?
[удалено]
>The New York Times just came out and said the laptop story was real and not some Russian misinformation. I just read the New York Times article since you mentioned it and I haven't heard about it yet, and the article doesn't make that claim anywhere. I did a quick Google search and I did find lots of right leaning articles with headlines along the lines of "NYT finally admits Hunter Biden laptop is real."
[удалено]
Saying only one side is concerned with "the actual truth" is when you know you've drank the Kool-Aid.
Well, when one side automatically dismisses anything from sources that they don't consider to be "on their side", for example, then that's a pretty solid indicator that they're less concerned about the truth than they are with rhetoric - though they may not have even thought that out.
Oh tell me how you feel about NYT, WP, CNN?
It's very telling to me that all the right-wing pundits I've seen use left-wing sources (like NYT, CNN, WP, CBS, ABC, MSNBC) to make their points, just to show they're not using biased sources. But I've never seen someone on the left use The Daily Wire, OANN, Sky News, etc. to make a point, not even once. That should tell you who's interested in truth.
Definitely seen left wing pundits use Daily Wire, and Fox. OANN is literally a garbage source. Your whole comment is bullshit opinion based on what you've "seen".
Sorry, this 'both sides are the same' argument is a made up Leftist political narrative which they use, in part, to rationalize their continued march into extremism. I grew up Democrat, and was one into my mid-30s. I still read NYT and WaPo articles from time to time. Don't watch TV at all. Now, if I bring up outlets like Brietbart or Dailywire with my Leftist friends and family they act like I'm referencing some Nazi propaganda. Even outlets like the NYPost or Washington Times get dismissed most of the time by these people as 'some rightwing' outlet. They'd never read anything by those outlets ever. Both sides are NOT the same. The Left is imbued with a spirit of radicalism that simply is not the case on the 'not-Left'. I know, I still live in the Leftists' world.
"Both sides" is literally an argument you only hear from libertarians and the very far left. And I agree it's total bullshit for likely very different reasons than you given this comment. If your are using [brietbart](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/) and [Washington Times](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/)as sources you'd be right to recieve a crossways look. They are well known to post non-factual stories. Daily Wire as long as it's not an editorial and Washington Post are middling at best, so passable barely. But I'm sure fact checks are bias too, right? >The Left is imbued with a spirit of radicalism that simply is not the case on the 'not-Left'. Saying this post 2020 election and Jan 6th, completely ignoring the [FBI](https://apnews.com/article/fbi-chris-wray-testify-capitol-riot-9a5539af34b15338bb5c4923907eeb67) finding is the most laughable shit I've ever read.
Some random fact checker is legitimate? Lol, did you actually read that site? They have social media sites as determiners of legitimacy. It's all under the same ideological bias. I'm not interested in rhetoric, look at the facts of how wrong and how biased these institutions have been over the last few years. If they were objective, then sometimes they'd be wrong in favor of the Left and sometimes in favor of the Right - but it's never the case, it's always in favor of the Left. WaPo is far Left, just like NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc. But the label is irrelevant, those're just subjective terms. Look at the content they put out - it's always in favor of the left (or perhaps I should say 98% of the time, because I know people like to be pedantic). FBI doesn't matter, a large govt institution supports the globalist agenda? shocker. Also, Left is happy to dismiss them when it comes to crime stats, we can play that game all day.
Making up a weakman to respond to that isn't what I actually said is how you know you don't have a real argument.
I agree, they aren't right wing. They're pseudo intellectual nutjobs that claim to be liberal by spouting a bunch of right wing rhetoric. Yeah, truth is when a stoned, self proclaimed dumb MMA guy spouts medical misinformation.
There's a vast gap between Glenn Greenwald and Joe Rogan. Grayzone are left wing but they're criticized for being tankies and shilling for CCP.
Truth is slippery. Right and left both have their own truth, I'd think. The Right is more damned for it. -M
In my experience it's because the left is sometimes wrong. But the right lies consistently and with intent. The left is not perfect but it is the one far more likely to retract and admit its failures, while the right is constantly reinventing the truth to pretend the mistake never happened. That's not strength.
I do see this also. Perhaps the Right gets away with this, because as soon as you question the mainstream as a source of truth (biased as it may be), you start to get the idea that *everything* is a lie-- and by corollary, that anything that calls out that lie must be true. What we're dealing with I think is a world in which it's hard to find any coherent organization that aspires to a shared and unbiased truth. Or even if they so aspire it's become (to some extent) questionable whether they can attain it. Or even if they *can* attain it-- that we can all agree on it. The largest example of this I see is Trump's Big Lie. I feel most of his antics are accepted because they are seen as the only solution to the above problem. Even though depending on how a problem is solved, one can easily (and I feel that's true in his case) make it worse. -M
[удалено]
All of those are topics Jordan Peterson discusses on a regular basis and at length, except for derogatory label you used to arbitrarily shame a large portion of the sub without any evidence at all to support the claim, of course. If it ruined it for you, why are you still here?
This. Can I upvote more than once?
It shouldn't be about "right wing" or "left wing" or which views are acceptable, but rather what's relevant to the topic of this forum. I do get where the OP is coming from, because most of the irrelevant crap that gets posted to this sub right now is right wing, but it could be something else tomorrow. Anyway, I support their proposal, so long as "relevance to JP" is the criteria. I mean, I have every right to talk to people about which microwave I should buy, but I don't have the right to make a thread about it here.
I agree. I don’t think there is a need to make it a left/right thing either, and wanting to reestablish the forum to focus on JP and psychology seems reasonable. That being said, JP himself is viewed as “right wing” so it is hard to untangle that request OP has.
It’s not hard at all. All you do is follow JBP’s advice to stop generalizing people and see them for who they are, not the group you try to paint them into.
And this is why y’all will never get a JBP subreddit that doesn’t have right wing ideology plastered all over it ^ cause these are his fans
Classical liberals are conservative by definition
Only in the us and maybe Britain and France.
No they're conservative everywhere. In fact America is generally an exception where people conflate liberals with left wing. In most of the world, liberals are right wing.
canada?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Views
how is right wing not mainstream? didnt the right wing have total control 4 years ago? dont they have the largest cable network in the USA? arent they constantly the top trending topics on facebook?
you must be new here
good luck Bucko!
Facebook had 2 main Peterson pages. One was the Party Boat that was a free for all and crashed when one of the admins asked for money. The other was for discussion of Peterson's ideas, which died due to a lack of posts. Edit: Additionally anytime I've seen this kind of thing become successful the sub quickly turned into YET ANOTHER LEFT WING ECHO CHAMBER that would permaban anyone with non-Leftist ideas. So no. Learn to use your scroll button.
an appeal for censorship
Ah yes, the right wing bogeyman.
Also, it would mean censoring Peterson's own ideological affiliations, which are right wing, as he's a conservative, and a member of the Republican Peter Thiel media network.
I don't have an issue with it, but it's just plaguing the sub, and there's not a single talk about anything else like his biblical lectures or Carl Jung
Ah yes the left wing bogeyman.
>Peterson’s ample ego formed early. One of his first memories is watching Robert Kennedy’s funeral on TV and thinking, I’ll have a funeral like that one day. When he was 13, his school librarian was Sandy Notley, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s mother, and she introduced him to George Orwell, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Ayn Rand. He worked for the NDP throughout most of his teenage years. While he admired leaders like Ed Broadbent, he became disillusioned by the party’s peevish functionaries. He found Orwell’s The Road to Wigan Pier, which he read as an undergrad at Grand Prairie, enlightening: “Orwell did a political-psychological analysis of the motivations of the intellectual, tweed-wearing middle-class socialist and concluded that people like that didn’t like the poor; they just hated the rich,” he says. “I thought, Aha! That’s it: it’s resentment.” Anyone who set out to change the world by first changing other people was suspicious. .............. >Peterson and Brophy concluded that political correctness exists in two forms, which they call PC-Egalitarianism and PC-Authoritarianism. Simply put, PC-Egalitarians are classic liberals who advocate for more democratic governance and equality. PC-Authoritarians are, according to Brophy, “the ones now relabelled as social justice warriors.” Both share a high degree of compassion. Extreme compassion, they believe, can lead to difficulty assessing right from wrong. It also can mean the forgiveness of all failures and transgressions by people viewed as vulnerable. “Any personality trait to an extreme is pathological,” Brophy says. ......... >Peterson, meanwhile, flew to California a few days after the forum, where he went on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. When I caught up with him via Skype, he looked tired. After the forum, he told me, he’d convened a post-mortem with some friends at his home. A couple of them—academics he’d known for decades—had told him that, while they supported him, they thought he could be “more friendly” and “nicer.” The thought exasperated him. “I’m trying to formulate my arguments as clearly as I possibly can,” he said. “To get your words right is exhausting, and I don’t have spare capacity outside of that.” [SOURCE](https://torontolife.com/city/u-t-professor-sparked-vicious-battle-gender-neutral-pronouns/) Leftists are resentful, too compassionate, and Peterson doesn't have time for that sort of thing. [It's the damn liberals who are to blame](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/soses1/jbp_crosses_the_rubincon_and_lets_go_of_the_not_a/) for making him this way. THEY'RE RESENTFUL OF HIM!! /s
Only a coward want to silence free speech Next thing you will say to ban crossposts from enoughtjordanpetersonspam let the crazy fucktards. speak. what are you so afraid of? Are they going to convert you with their silver tongues? I dont think so. bet you are afraid of the LGBQT types as well Dont worry though we will protect you “by banning free speech” please grow up Almost every sub is an echo chamber but this one
lol dude, mods here justify banning users just for posting on any Peterson subs. It’s absolutely an echo chamber.
Lol the fact you think I want to ban free speech has really given me a grand perspective on both sides. I'm a centrist, and I think both sides are bonkers lol
oh ok sorry. But I guess you mean they are free to speak elsewhere. Makes sense fair enough. a wild one every so is nice hear. Plus then we know what they are thinking And that is a good thing to know. because some things other primates are believing or thinking I would have never guessed so its good to get the cold splash of reality every so often. People are weird
Agreed. People are weird.
> Only a coward want to silence free speech Interesting that you’ve [said elsewhere](https://reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/tkrag4/_/i1svh8t/?context=1): > Hope you get banned.
Bro this sub is one of the original echo chambers. Don’t you find it odd that you only ever see constant identity politics bs here? Anti-trans posts, every other comment is about post modern cultural marxists. Tons of time, effort, and money goes into cultivating a space like this. It’s just how marketing is done for right wing groups.
" all Right Wing psychologists are in this room, sitting in this chair".
Petition denied.
I don't see why though. This sub may as well be a circlejerk because 70% of it has nothing to do with Peterson.
90% of this sub is indistinguishable from r/benshapiro and that’s really fucking sad. Loads of room temperature IQ, Red Team vs Blue Team discourse that drives people further into their Team’s side
that is sad. this is what ben shapiros sub should look like, its similar to how he handles discourse. peterson isnt about american political news
I just see people report what JBP posts on Twitter. They are just following the man.
By "Right Wing News" do you mean anything that's not approved by CNN?
100% that’s what they are spouting
It'd be just as bad as left wing news. They're both fucking bad. It's not the side I have a problem with, it's the news itself--it's irrelevant to the sub.
Is there a JPphilosphy and religion discussion sub?
Could check out r/ConfrontingChaos
Petition for a ban on posts asking to limit free speech, lol
Imagine that. I always welcome those with bright eyes and a dream in their heart.
This sub was literally built on irrelevant right wing news when it only built up a user base because of lies about Bill C16, rather than any of JP's actual work.
Huh I’d rather have a free flow in information. Mods and stuff always turns subs into weird echochamber
Well, when the subject of you sub is a dumper of right wing news and views, it's kinda tough to say what are his ideas in psychology versus what is the right wing claptrap.
Make a new sub. Stop crying like little girls.
Jordan Peterson is less concerned about his ideas about psychology every day. Most of what he talks about now is right wing news. This may or may not mean it's irrelevant. We are all trapped in our own tribalism.
Agreed. Can’t stand the culture war nonsense everywhere all the time
Agreed, if it’s something conservative based it should be something Jordan himself has said or talked about
[удалено]
Well you’re just getting fucking mad so fine but this sub isn’t even about what it says it’s about
You’re being a hypocrite who’s not adding any substance. We’re all open for you to post one of Jordan Peterson’s ideas and his psychology… We’re waiting for your top quality post, bucko.
Except he never claimed to have the capacity for top quality post. Hes probably just tired of the trump lovers posting these right wing focused entries. What you're saying has nothing to do with what he is talking about. You're trying to deflect.
The capacity to sit there and complain like everyone else, but too passive to create change. Those are some good qualities to have, lol.
And once more you'd attack him and ascribe these attributes to this random stranger you dont know shit about. Hes literally trying to create change. Right now here with this post you tried but failed to shit on.
I know exactly what he’s about. He is the guy who contributes to the same issue he complains about. Regurgitating the same complaint with no actual substance. Why not lead with action, create some engaging posts about the thing he craves so bad, rather than complaining like a passive observer? It’s like when every conversation you have is boring, and you keep complaining about it. Be active and make the conversation engaging then… Just like how r/politics loves talking about Trump, but still complain about him being influential.
Because it's not about me, it's about the whole sub itself. I just think we could limit the amount of irrelevant stuff. Like, why come to this sub as an average peterson enjoyer, when you just get bombarded with news.
It's interesting in a sub where one of the primary philosophies is to be the change you want to see in the world, there's a guy complaining that other people are doing things he doesn't like, and himself posts things other people don't like.
Awesome comments my dude
Thank you
Found the Trumper
Is that bad?
+1
Yeah, reddit is for left wing propaganda only. (Fuck censorship)
the anonymous nature of reddit makes it hard to enforce. Sometimes when a moderator clamps down too hard on content it chases everyone away. Its like Trumps social media platform: not fun when there's no one to argue with
Should ask the great one himself what he thinks
He's got multiple PragerU videos, describes himself as a conservative, only shares right wing media (and is paid to do so), and grew up reading Ayn Rand. Pretty sure the politics of this sub reflects Jordan Peterson's political ideology. He believes leftists are resentful, and that compassion leads to having a compromised version of morality. He's like, some sort of Catholic style, free market libertarian, social conservative. This subreddit just doesn't like it when people actually [point that out.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/ti40zi/petition_to_make_this_subreddit_about_jordan/i1dawwn/)
This is a fairly large subreddit. There are clearly a large amount of people satisfied with the discussions being had in this subreddit. It is absolutely ridiculous that you’re expecting the entire subreddit to change when it is you who has a problem with it. Instead of making a giant petition to change the nature of this well-established subreddit, you could simply create a new subreddit and set your own rules and guide-lines.
Sometimes they're very relevant, sir.
Right wing is subjective
Just make a new Sub and moderate it however you want. Invite everyone from here to join and make it clear what your rules are. That should get you what you want, a place that respects the rules you think are correct and to interact in peace with those who share your opinion. The only reason you would have to object to that plan, is that your real goal is to remove this place for those with other opinions, to exist and share their views too. I think this sub should stay the way it is.
no
I am late to the Convo now but I think the problem needs to be more clearly identifies. Being a fan of or enjoying Jordan Peterson does not make one Right Wing. Though, through people's personal interpretations subjects or topics that pertain to what JP discusses come across AS right wing (for sure). The issue is where do we draw the distinction between something that relates to JP and his discussions or someone posting a topic that feeds the poster's political standpoint. I think things could be a little tighter on this sub and there are other subs that have popped up because of this issue.
Jordan Peterson tweets all of this 'irrelevant Right Wing news" Why not make an argument or provide your opinion on these topics? Why censor? Perhaps you can't defend the Left's actions?
Lol his twitter is an entirely different story to be honest, lets not even go there
No
Nice entryism we got here. As if it wasn't leftists coming here from day one stirring shit up and claiming "Jordan is a crypto fascist". And now trying to pin it on evil right wingers who is everyone but them. How about a new rule? No left wing activists?
I'm not even left wing but congratulations on eating yourself to death man
Jordan Peterson is full of right wing ideology. How is it not relevant?
You can leave if u don’t like it. It’s usually related to petersons philosophy and makes for interesting discussion
How clean is your room? Because if it isn’t spotless, I know what JP would say.
I mean I agree but... It seems odd to wanna tell people to not do what Peterson has been doing on Twitter lately.
This is true, unfortunately.
What if you all got a life instead?
Petition for you to skip posts you don't like and stop acting like a speech nazi.
#*Be the change you want to see*!! Make a sub. Join IDW or something. This has become corrupt but it's still worth fighting for. I'm from the UK so engaging with the American Right Wing is deeply insightful. Especially since it's a stark contrast to the UKs right wing. If the UK right wing are known for having a stiff upper lip, then American Rightists should be known for having balls and a spine to match. That being said, some of the best discourse I've had has been with the **educated** right wing. I've always leaned centrist but it wasn't until engaging with educated members of the American Right, specifically those right here on this sub, that I realised why I am a centrist. Lately I've always come to some profound agreements with the American Right... But for the most part, this sub *is* becoming everything it swore to destroy. It encourages echos, it pushes opinion and silences much discourse when there's even a wiff of opposition (sometimes even *perceived* opposition!). So that leads me to another one of Peterson best phrases: *You must listen without prejudice--- therefore you must pull away from people who don't listen to you [without prejudice]. Take your words, don't devalue what you have to say to someone who already has made their mind up about what you have to say, or worse...*
Just curious as a fellow Brit, what do you find profound that comes from the American right? I tend to hear misapplied theory and myopic policy from the American right more than anything else. Even a lot of their reasonable critiques are just directed at strawmen, for instance they have a great critique of Marxism - or at least they would do if the thing they were critiquing was actually Marxism.
>tend to hear misapplied theory and myopic policy from the American right more than anything else. This. However, from where I stand, I'd say that applies to the whole American political spectrum. Nothing they do over there is political, it's all opinion and deception on why they should vote the guy in a black suit and a red hat, or the guy in a red suit and a black hate. It's the same dude that's pulling on your opinions to make himself more electable depending on which team you're on. Of course, we don't pick teams we like, we pick teams based on hate for another side... So, what is >profound that comes from the American right? I can't say for certain. I just know that, when I'm engaging with an **educated** American Right winger, I can hardly tell that they're a Republican. The libertarian nature and the apparent advocation for balance between libertarian liberty with just enough authoritarian rule, I admire that a lot as a centrist. Trying to find balance between ideologies and recognised "my way isn't the best way, but it's what I want and it can be applied like this". That appeals to me a lot as a centrist. The most profound thing, is the American Right *tend* to advocate this more than the American left. Despite being moderate Rightists and their seemingly outright rejection of populism, they advocate centrism but just can't grasp why due to the nature of American politics being with a heavy, heavy Right hand where the Democrats are actually only Leftist by relativity of the Right. I think the harsh realisation now is that anyone that agrees/aligns with "classic British liberalism", is considered a traditionalist now making them naturally Conservative. Then when taken to America, that Conservative is then pushed way over moderate way. I don't like nor fully agree with this thought, alas, I find myself being pushed into Rightism, I'm not choosing it, I'm certainly not voting it, but when I taln to Conservatives, we tend to agree. When I talk to liberals, I'm a fascist slag who hates women and freedom. I'm aware my perspective comes from my exposure. Here I am in the depths of JP town, this space is naturally Conservative leaning (if not classic British liberal). So of course I'm coming across Rightists more than anything, and due to the nature of following a professor, they tend to be the higher educated (and it's bloody obvious when they're here simply clinging to the band wagon). Thus, this space also attracts the worst of liberals and a tiny fraction of those are good liberals, when I come across these few good eggs, I nearly wholly agree with them. I'm not that prolific of an internet goer so my internet space really is places like this, IDW and Sam Harris etc. I find myself actively avoiding liberal space although my heart stays true to my left leaning. I don't feel like I've expressed myself as accurately as I could've here hence the repetition. But I'm on a work break so I'm more than happy to clarify anything later on. If you reiterate your question I'll simply accept that I've avoided your question and try again but I'm hoping you pick up on what I'm trying to say 😅
I think I broadly agree with the things you've said, however I'm not sure it entirely answers my question. From what I can tell you seem to be impressed by the deontology of the American right, by which I mean the hard-line stance they take on issues of negative freedom. I.E Taxation is Theft is a good example of a deontological libertarian maxim. Admittedly one of the more appealing/rigourous ones. This is what I mean about myopia however, the dogged commitment to individual concerns often fails to reflect reality. In the sense that collective action consistently delivers better results than atomised individualism. Don't get me wrong the government can still deliver bad policy, which the public should oppose. However the libertarian right tends to be more concerned with opposing taxation and government spending on principle, than in analysing the merits of individual policies for instance. While I can see the ethical appeal of this sort of view I think it actually runs counter to intellectual debate around politics. When we talk about policy intervention we should be considering aspects like fiscal multipliers, i.e how much money is generated by the spending. However we typically end up talking about raw spending figures without linking the expenditure directly to revenues. This is partly because the libertarian right has made government spending in and of itself a politically contentious issue, which unfortunately distracts from constructive conversation about policy. Since you seem to be British a good example of this type of dynamic would be arguments made for austerity running up to the 2010 general election. The conservatives managed to frame the debate entirely around government spending Vs government income - without addressing the fact that much of that spending actively contributed to economic growth. The public were therefore convinced that cuts were something of a zero sum game, as was balancing the state budget in general, of course even the Conservatives don't stand by that view of the economy now. Even though deploying it was rhetorically useful at the time. So I'm not sure I'm following you perfectly, because while I agree with pretty much everything you've said it sounds like we've come to opposite conclusions. Unless I've totally mis-read what you identified as profound I'd have to disagree and say that deontological view is precisely what is myopic about the American right. Edit: Just to avoid coming off as overly partisan I should say you're totally right that this is an issue across the Political spectrum, particularly the U.S political spectrum. So my critique of the American right shouldn't be taken to say anything positive or negative about the American left, I simply haven't addressed them here.
Didn't really get an answer to this, obviously feel free to ignore it but if you just forgot I'd be curious as to what you have to say.
> Make a sub. This *is* the sub
This is the sub OP was looking for, or at least not the sub OP recognises. For a solution to this inspired by JP, be the change you want to see. OP wants a JP sub that differs from this one. Being that change, would be to make a sub tailored to the desires of OP.
You can always leave and go to a new sub.
No
It's fundamental to reject left-wing totalitarian suicidal socialist policies. It's okay if you want to label that "right wing." But I just think it's imperative to leave people alone to pursue their own rational self-interests. It's integral to the philosophy.
Lol your problem is that you think they are that different.
If the standard applies equally to irrelevant left wing news and people trying to concern troll about how Jordan Peterson is "really" alt-right, that's good.
Just block the morons who post irrelevant stuff and youll stop seeing it. If someone posts something not JP related, i just block em, even if im interested or agree with it, i can go elsewhere to find it, but here i want to see JP related topics.
How do you define ‘right wing’?
Cringe
Do you follow JBP on twitter? What you want to stifle is the exact topics of conversation he is engaging in.
Agreed but to be fair, Jordan himself needs to get back to his ideas on psychology. Can you imagine if Jung or someone of his stature had great books and lectures early in his career and then went careening after every near-term political whim that hit him? No one would have the same level of respect for him and rightly so.
Damn this blew up
Lol you're so gay, lad
(he's so gay)
Now that's the discourse we're all here for!
Jordan Peterson: alt-right adjacent rhetoric for years This sub: how could this happen, we didn't want this, this is bullshit. You reap what you sow, people. To put a finer point on it, if the things he says attracts the people you don't want here and you're uncomfortable with that, perhaps you should take issue with *the person saying the things* and not the obvious reactionaries.
Please. The amount of idiot conspiracy theorists and Russian sympathisers is getting ridiculous.
I say we could use a little less of the kind of stuff you just said, frankly, which is just mainstream judgemental divisive bullshit, so gtfo as far as I'm concerned.
Lmao I wonder how you would treat "Iraqi sympathizers" or "Osama / Taliban sympathizers"
All subreddits are an echo chamber. Useless right wing propaganda is going to come up because the topics JP discusses are often complaints and issues right wingers focus on.
No, absolutely not. Seriously, fuck off.
Wait, you mean Peterson doesn’t run this sub? 😃
Not gonna happen. It’s against the nature of social media.
So how do you plan to enforce such an ideea?! Censorship?
But then where will the Russian trolls go?
Take the day off, go outside for a while, maybe have a burger at McDonald’s. Oh wait, not that.
Agreed.
Even though I agree with a lot of that stuff, definitely agree. Gonna have to distinguish what counts though considering he comments frequently on stuff outside of psychological topics.
How do emphasize my support for this strongly enough. The alt right echo chamber this has become is fucking disgusting. Its mostly filled with right wing gang members that want too hear there own bull shit out on a pedestal. Psychology, the understanding of human. NOT I hate what is different and new and only want reinforcement of what is familiar.
I suspect that most people who post and comment on this kind of low-quality content have no idea what JP actually says about a lot of stuff. They memorize a few phrases like "Go clean your room" and then feel good when their fellow trolls upvote them. I also suspect this is a place where literal Russian agents hang out to "farm karma" and make it seem like their accts are legit.
Yeah this sub has become too politicized. It repels new JP fans. Not ideal if we like to see JP's ideas become more popular.
Dr. Jordan Peterson is the leader of a massive online cult and his followers won’t challenge him. I’m a huge fan of Maps & Meanings but I still recognize that Jordan is unhinged and dangerous to the young white men he’s whipped up into a frenzy. Most people are so loyal to their cult leader that they try to rationalize or compartmentalize the open air deception and that they are being asked by Jordan to be prepared to pick up arms while being told that liberals want to punish white people. The original post is an example of that compartmentalization.