3 3

I’m not a big fan of Peterson (nor his bigger detractor, I’ll admit, if you ask me I think he is a mixed bag), but this is a joint document agreed with Sam Harris as a summary for their latest debate on building an effective morality. I have my ideas, but I should perhaps save them for a longer post.


leofalas 4 July 7

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Not clicking on that..

One day people will talk about other people instead of this carousel of the same handful of alt right sympathiser thinkers... Dawkins, Pinker, Harris, Peterson et al.

Having Peterson constantly shoved in my face is one reason to come off this site.

Peterson regularly disavowes the alt right as they are white identitarians and Peterson detests identity politics. Most of the people you listed are not alt-right sympathizers. I’m curious where you got this idea that they are. You might not agree with what they say and that’s fine, in fact I’d be curious to know what general disagreements you have with them, but labeling people as alt right when they don’t share the same world view is not correct.


There are actions and then they are words. Like Peterson's now aborted plan to blacklist universities he considered too left wing.

Like that's his business. That's what the Nazis did.

@Ellatynemouth do you have a source for this claim? What exactly do you mean by blacklist? Like he didn’t plan to go speak there? Or was he planning to shut them down? Also he regularly criticizes university for being too biased towards the left. I’d hardly draw an analogy between criticizing the left and being a nazi: if that’s the criteria for being a nazi then I suppose I’d be considered a nazi as well which I’d take great exception to since I’m a proud liberal.

Basically, I need more clarification on your comment.

If this is what you are referring to...



"We're going to start with a website in the next month and a half that will be designed to help students and parents identify post-modern content in courses so that they can avoid them”

"I'm hoping that over about a five-year period a concerted effort could be made to knock the enrolment down in postmodern neo-Marxist cult classes by 75 per cent across the West. So our plan initially is to cut off the supply to the people that are running the indoctrination cults."


“I considered building such a website but put plans on hiatus as I talked it over with others and decided it might add excessively to current polarization,

If this makes him a nazi, then I’d say he’s doing a pretty bad job at being one in my opinion. Like I said you don’t have to agree with him, but labeling someone you disagree with as a nazi is simply an ad hominem unless you have some sources where he espoused views in support of racial superiority, genocide, and authoritarianism.


I've recently posted about it.

Are people not allowed to criticise him? Is that it?

@Ellatynemouth Not to sure where you got that idea from considering my initial response to your comment was...

“You might not agree with what they say and that’s fine, in fact I’d be curious to know what general disagreements you have with [him]”

Edited the quote replacing him with them.

However, I do not have to agree with your criticism. No one here is suggesting you can’t criticize him: go right ahead and do so to your hearts content. But if you’re going to ad hominem him as a nazi and you wish to convince someone like me that he is, then I’d advise you to bring some evidence of that claim. I’ve posted three links and associated quotes supporting my critique of your claim. You’re more than welcome to respond to them if you wish.

From what I’ve read up on, nothing to me suggests he has tried to or even suggested that we should use force to shut down these courses. Merely that he initially wanted to create a site that would help students and parents avoid courses that in his view have no educational value in their current pedagogical methods. After some consideration he backed away from the idea because of the current divisive political climate. These do not seem like the actions of someone who is wants a radical violent revolution like a national socialist would.


"national socialist".

I understand..

@Ellatynemouth yes, national socialist as in the short hand of the official title of the NSDAP which in german is read as “die Nazional-Sozialistische Deustscher Arbeits-Partei” which translates to “the national socialist german workers party”. Socialism is not a uniquely left-wing political ideology since it’s main tenet is the state ownership of the means of production. Of course the irony is that Nazi Germany never fully acted on this principle at least formally but that’s a different topic all together. Also you might be interested to know that your post regarding Peterson is no longer available.

I suspect that by your short responses you’re not actually interested in engaging on this manner so I’ll wish you a good day and move on with mine.


The Nazis deliberately used the word 'socialist' to appease and appeal to a disenfranchised population. It has a different meaning in that context. It is not 'socialism' in the common meaning and fascism is not 'state ownership'. It's the ruling class taking direct control of capitalism.

No. You're right. I'm not interested in engaging with you because I guessed your political stance and was proven correct when you liked a comment about a book written by an alt right Islamaphobe on someone else's post.

Perhaps we shouldn't waste each other's time.


I agree that fascism is not the same as socialism, I was just using the term as that is what “nazi” is short for. To be honest my opinion on socialism is just as negative as my opinion on nazism or communism. The end result of both philosophies are the same: millions striped of individual rights, their humanity, and ultimately their lives which is why all of the above are detestable and utterly disgusting.

You have no idea about my political affiliation, these people who you claim are alt right simply aren’t. You simply do not like them. If you want to talk about the alt right and opposing them, then great let’s talk about that. How can we oppose the likes of Jared Taylor, Richard Spencer, Andrew Anglin and their ilk? In my opinion it’s best done by attacking identity politics: let’s put the emphasis back on the individual.

Just because I like a recommendation doesn’t say anything about my political affiliation: I’m a classical liberal by the way just so you know. All you have done so far is ad hominem people you seem to disagree with. If you wish to actually have a discussion about this then that is fine. If you wish to disagree with me? Great, respond to my points and we can have a dialogue, but leave out the ad hominem attacks as I have not attacked your character. If you don’t want to then fine that’s okay too. I’m not alt right, nor will I ever be and no amount of straw manning me as such will change that.


I’ll have to check this out, I actually really like Jordan Peterson which isn’t a popular opinion to hold on this site from what I’ve seen, but that’s okay. I may not agree with everything he says, but when he says things like I’ll paraphrase here “clean your room first” I love it. It reminds me that before I dedicate my effort outside of myself, I have a lot of things that I need to improve about myself first. I also really enjoy his breakdowns of stories, now I don’t necessarily agree that people need meta narratives and I don’t necessarily disagree with the postmodern scepticism towards such stories and how they relate to each other, but I’d have to read more about the subject to really form an opinion on the matter.


I have mixed feelings about Peterson too. Though it doesn’t help that others demonize him. I don’t think he’s a complete hack, as I’ve said.
I do feel he’s being honest in most topics. Just not when it comes to religion, especially Christianity. He seems to beat around the bush sometimes.

Exactly, which is why I’m not sold on his apparent idea that people in general need stories. I would concede from my experience people in general are more comfortable with stories (including myself), but I’m also not sure where he wants to go with that position (that people need narratives in their lives).

I just read through it and I don’t understand a lot of it but Peterson definitely brings up some food for thought for individuals like myself who say that science can inform morality by drawing upon the body of knowledge cultivated by science. I’ll definItaly have to think about this.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:124518
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.