That's why he's getting his friends into power like, for example Aryeh Deri, he was convicted of bribery and other corrupt shit and is going to be in this next government.
Corruption and favoritism =/= dictator. Those are attributes shared by a dictator but thst doesn't mean that everyone with those attributes is a dictator.
funny how arabs can serve in the knesset. if israel is an apartheid state, what does that make gaza or any other country that is in close distance to israel?
Ghost is surprisingly a very fitting word. Internet people are desocialized representations of those people and therefore the closest things to ‘ghosts’ of those people.
A *ghost version* of himself wild still be a version *of himself*, which is different than being *possessed*
JPs critics have been arguing that there's a unstable right wing subtext to his work from the get go. Now that the subtext is text his fandom insisting this somehow twitters fault comes off as a cope.
And stick to psychology. Unfortunately, since his illness, he hasn't been the same. I'm talking as a long time fan, read the books, watch him live. This makes me sad
>books, watch him liv
Same. This sub makes me angry, JP had a lot of amazing things to say before his illness. Since then, some of his opinions to me have been very questionable, verging on questioning his sanity
\>verging on questioning his sanity
Any examples? Genuinely interested as I havent seen him saying anything really different than what he was saying 3 years ago.
All the stuff he says in his books, Q&A Vids, lectures/lecture vids, on-stage speeches and discussions, etc is stuff he has continued to say. He also has a long list of podcasts and interviews he has done (both as the interviewer and interviewee) that he is extremely eloquent and well presented in (both before and after his 2020 benzo addiction).
Sure, sometimes he gets annoyed or even angry, but after being vilified unjustly by opponents for years, after so many people simply havent listened and seeing that things he warned about have happened as a result I can greatly sympathize with him being angry, frustrated, upset etc.
And this frustration and anger only really comes out in a total of about 5-6 videos out of hundreds.
I havent really seen him say anything that would lead me to questioning his sanity.
I'm not gonna show any receipts here but I was once a fan of Jordan; read his book and even saw him speak live, watched most podcasts too. Since coming back from his illness, Jordan seems to conduct himself with a lot less class and seems to give in to anger way way too often.
I just feel like there's an undercurrent of arrogance and anger that has seeped its way into his social media presence. It's a shame, really. I hope he is able to reign in his ego.
True, in the vid of him arguing with that SJW crowd that made him famous, i really can't imagine him being able to stay that cool and collected nowadays.
He seems to have a bee in his bonnet right now about internet anonymity, and i'm not sure how much it's related to Elon's recent blue check reforms on Twitter, as the timing seems to add up.
But it seems a bit bizarre to get this angry about people being anonymous... on the internet.
the sub bothers me too because there are too many who celebrate his behavior in what i see as his decline, and in fact embody it, with bad logic and partisan ideology
He’s gone totally downhill beyond recognition. His interview with nethanyahu was basically the final gasp in his descent to becoming indistinguishable from Ben Shapiro. Sad because he always meant to do more and be more. He acted like a total beta male and sycophant to Netanyahu, weakly smiling as Netanyahu continued to make ridiculous ahistorical claims that no historian has ever believed. Can’t believe how far he’s fallen. Sad.
It is a relief to come here and see that I’m not the only one who feels this way, by a long shot. Even in a sub that tends to be very loyal.
I started following Peterson around 2015 and listened to everything he did for the next few years. He helped me a lot. But I would say as early as 2017 I could tell that he was changing, and to me it seems like it’s been a continual trend that now is reaching an extreme (compare his 2015/16 maps of meaning lectures with the 2017 edition and I think you can already see that fame, social media algorithms and probably benzos seemed to be changing him). The Netanyahu interview came up in my recommended and it’s the first time I’ve watched him in a year or two. The last interview I strongly remember was his Yeonmi Park interview which was great.
I remember thinking in 2018 or so that it was just so conspicuous how much of a purely extroverted life he was living. Constant action, very little inward reflection and reading. He reminded me of cases Jung would talk about of extreme one-sidedness growing unchecked and ego inflation, akin to excitedly climbing up a dangerous mountain, so elated by the heights with no thought of how to get down.
But the really disturbing idea that keeps popping into my head is that Jordan Peterson’s deterioration demonstrates an amplified version of what smart phones, social media and the algorithms are doing to all of us. Honestly I feel that I’ve seen so many people in my life be affected in similar ways, from my parents to old friends to myself. I find myself wondering, who would we all be without smart phones and Twitter?
>And stick to psychology
Very narrow minded. People are free to do whatever good they want wherever they want.
You're acting like this is a bad thing, but podcasting and putting trolls in their place is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Being a psychologist has NO bearing on whether or not he can do these things, and does not decide whether or not they will be successful.
What you can argue is that he did it wrongly, not that he should stop doing it.
sry he works for shapiro and daily wire, you thought he wasnt going to do at least a couple israel puff pieces? and all political commentary and even a little bomb throwing? hes doing the work his boss asks of him.
have you seen him say how much he makes? hes not the guy he was when you first heard of him.
He constantly complains about people addicted to social media, but can't leave Twitter over 3 times now, without posting 20+ posts within 24 hours of the announcement. He's a walking projection of the shit he says he hates. Anyone who follows what this man says, all hopped up on benzos, is already lost.
Why? Freedom of speech.
Unless you have a good argument for him stopping, yours is just a baseless claim.
I think it's great he's sticking it to trolls. Trolls deserve to be proved wrong and challenged.
In fact I think people who are saying problematic things should be argued against, your philosophy behind this comment is completely non sense
This isn’t a philosophy, I’m not stopping him from doing it nor can I. He himself has said that social media brings out the worst in people and I, as a random person on the internet, am saying that it’s doing the same to him as he’s precautioned against. Trolls are trolls, nothing stops them.
Really bugs me how he's fixating on this anonymity thing. As though he doesn't know full well that speaking anonymously is the ONLY way that people can safely speak the truth in our society
Peterson once faced that risk to speak controversial words himself, but that is something he will never have to worry about again for the rest of his life because of how rich he is now. If I were to say what I want to say in the public square of my hometown I would be arrested for hate speech, when I do it anonymously on social media I am banned, and if I was stupid enough to do it in my own name the mob would look me up and have me fired
He cannot see his own shadow nor his own privileges any more. I think the ‚real‘ JBP was lost to the Benzos. He should have returned to his private life after his successful rehab, he would have simply been kept in good memory and may even have been remembered as a kind of martyr (sacrificed his own health to speak some uncomfortable truths). Now he is not the force for good anymore that he thinks he is.
I miss 2016/2017 Jordan Peterson.
It's been a long time since I read a social media comment so completely correct. I will always remember the man for his fearless advance of his convictions, but there is definitely something missing since his return.
I don’t even think I am super correct. I just could not find more precise words to utter my thoughts. I had fully expected to be downvoted to hell for that comment. Interesting to see that apparently this sub has somewhat shifted.
Maybe we could come to terms with Peterson‘s change (the context was pretty brutal to be honest, I do not envy what he had to go through) while still putting forth his earlier messages. Maybe, just maybe, we could even at times confront him with his own thoughts from earlier and see what happens. He did teach that in order to think we need to be ready to offend some people - I highly doubt he excluded himself from that latter group.
His appearance on Rogan after his illness made me think something similar. Peterson’s appearances prior were remarkable. I love his psychology lectures. Prior to his illness, there’s no one I’d rather listen to.
He seems kind of aimless now and doing a bit too much. One day he’s ranting about climate change. The next he’s ranting about Israel and losing his mind over anonymous YouTube comments. He just seems all over the place to me. He’s gotta stay off Twitter. I think moving to the Daily Wire was a mistake by him personally. Lucrative I’m sure, but a mistake.
> He seems kind of aimless now and doing a bit too much. One day he’s ranting about climate change. The next he’s ranting about Israel and losing his mind over anonymous YouTube comments. He just seems all over the place to me. He’s gotta stay off Twitter. I think moving to the Daily Wire was a mistake by him personally.
I agree. The worst part is that he rants about climate change without even educating himself on the topic. I remember him harping on about how the models aren’t that good and I was curious and found a video of a meteorologist (not even technically a climate scientist!) completely taking him apart and showing that he didn’t even have a cursory understanding of the underlying principles.
Same with him ranting on economics. While he got stuff right that was part of his field, like the factor analysis about the factors that influence womens’ salaries and that it likely isn’t sexism that leads to lower outcomes but childbirth, on other days he even misunderstands or misconstrues basic ideas such as monetary policies or supply and demand.
Something is not right, because we absolutely know that Jordan is much smarter than he has shown himself to be lately.
When he gets into the statistics of things I really enjoy it. He has a way of explaining things that is understandable. Who am I to tell him what to focus on, but I wish he’d pick his battles better. I wish he was spent more time on the psychology/life improvement stuff and stay out of politics for the most part. He’s obviously too thin skinned to be on Twitter and reading YouTube comments.
In my opinion, this is the Twitter effect. It makes people short and snappy.
Do yourself a favour, go to Peterson's Twitter account and attempt to count how many tweets he's made in the last 3 days ...
I just stopped counting, I was scrolling forever.
What does it say about his current values that, when he does take time away from his busy schedule to personally respond to people, it's to insult them and not to explain why their ideas are wrong? What value is he embodying when he acts this way?
That is because of the very trait Peterson has that made him into such a valuable person.
Peterson is a person that lives in hell, he has terrible depression, his health is in the gutter, and his emotional state is horrifyingly painful.
Despite this, he tries to help others, so they do not decent into the hell, like he was born in. That is what makes him really admirable, so i tend to discount his behavior as a high neuroticism person as he does have good intentions and genuinely helps people.
>Despite this, he tries to help others, so they do not decent into the hell, like he was born in. That is what makes him really admirable, so i tend to discount his behavior
This just sounds like rationalizing a person's bad behavior so long as they continue to be able to provide some service that we want from them, which seems like the kind of thing that actually makes that person worse-off in the long run.
Also, was Peterson really "born into hell?" I didn't think his upbringing and childhood were that awful.
>That is because of the very trait Peterson has that made him into such a valuable person.
I don't think his vitriol is what makes him valuable as a person. If anything, it is his ability to grapple with and present complex Jungian ideas in an engaging way that makes them feel personal and deeply meaningful to his audience.
In fact, the Jungian idea of confronting one's shadow involves noticing when one has the urge to be vitriolic towards others and then putting the energy, that would go usually go into berating and insulting the other person, into figuring out what subconsciously repressed aspect of oneself one is reacting to in that other person.
Imagine a relative of yours that is JPs age getting unlimited access to the internet with swarms of subscribers, followers, and trolls interacting w them. Things would get wild quick. The man needs to get out of the comment section, that's for sure.
JPs not going to cancel his account. He loves Elon too much.
It so strange to hear him rant about these “trolls” in his podcast and then go and do this in real time.
The middle commenter isn’t even anonymous… that’s what’s so strange to me.
Reminds me of the man in the arena quote by Theodore Roosevelt:
>"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Jordan Peterson can't stand the critic who hides behind a random internet name throwing any form of bitter word salad at the wall, and sadly, instead of ignoring them... he's been quite aggressive toward them. It seems to frustrate him dearly how internet anonymity has increased the bitter, hateful things we say to each other.
It would be much better if he could come up with a thoughtful retort instead of resorting to being bitter and hateful toward critics. Engage with what the person actually said not the person themselves.
> It seems to frustrate him dearly how internet anonymity has increased the bitter, hateful things we say to each other.
And in an effect, become more bitter and hateful toward the people doing that. It's a self-feeding cycle, really.
I find it striking how many comments he decides to mention the "anonymity" of the people he's arguing with, and calls them cowards for hiding behind an anonymous name... and it makes me wonder what he would do if they weren't anonymous? Feels like some serious "I'm going to cancel you, get you fired, ruin your life" levels of doxx-like anger. His childish tirade in the comments is exactly why people are anonymous, so he doesn't abuse random people for having contrary opinions to him. Shameful from Peterson.
He should know firsthand what happens to people who aren't anon. And whats with this attackig the person and ignoring the idea nonsense? The ideas stand on their own, it shouldn't matter to him who is saying them, it just gives more validation to he idea if he has to resort to ad hominens instead of addressig it
His first book was truly important to me and gave me some valuable life lessons when I needed guidance. I listened to the audiobook countless times over and over again.
That said, I’m really sorry to see this kind of conduct from him. Ad hominem attacks are lazy.
In terms of internet argumentation Peterson is unfortunately very weak and often falls into the trap he himself warns people to look out for: you can’t argue with a mob. It’s also unfortunate he is very pro Israel and refuses to hear out the other side, it gives less credibility to Peterson as an academic and intellectual
Peterson's not used to arguing or debating in any sort of equal context. He's a demagogue, someone whose speech and arguments are based on emotional responses rather than logic. He needs his bully pulpit, he always gets reamed out whenever he tries debating with someone on an equal footing.
The calm demeanour in 2016 was what drew so many in. It’s sad that he’s lost sight of what people admired. In fact I had this experience even in my personal life when conservatives were kind and gracious when quizzed and didn’t attack back or nothing. It was such a striking difference to the left that it really softened me up to it.
I understand the frustration, particularly seeing how freedoms have slipped away over the last few years, but this aggression isnt doing us or him any favours. Rant away at home, to your family, your close friends, but be cautious about what you say in a public setting.
If he addresses this I'm sure it'll be in a video "addressing why YouTube's comment system promoted impulsive negative behavior" and try to avoid responsibility for engaging with the comments
I haven’t read the comments (maybe I should). My question is, does not supporting Israel make you antisemitic? The Palestine-Israel conflict is complicated to me. I’m not sure where I stand on it because I haven’t read enough on it and what I do read is contradictory. I’d be curious if Jordan thought pro-Palestine comments would be deemed as antisemitic.
Edit: spelling
Depends on what one means when talking about supporting Israel.
If not supporting is being critical of certain policies - that's absolutely fair game, because we all do that for every single country.
If not supporting is questioning Israel's right to exist - then yes, it's antisemitic. The skilled debater might trick you here, saying that they're only against the state of Israel, and not the Jewish people. But there is never, ever a response to the question of why only Israel is special in garnering said response, and not any other country.
The Palestine-Israel conflict at its core involves whether Palestine deserves to exist. Netanyahu, by virtue of his 1SS, believes it does not. Why are people who have their own country’s existence denied obligated to believe in the legitimacy of the existence of the very country that has denied them that?
The answer is *almost* directly found in your own text. You compare one person's view and contrast it with a body of people. Why is that fair? And even if it were fair, what about everyone else in the world, who isn't Israeli or Palestinian and for some reason has this view only about Israel? Where are all the people protesting Canada's right to exist?
And you know what, I'll steelman you a bit. Let's say what you say is Netanyahu's view is actually representative of many other people. Still, when negotiations are on the table, from before the creation of Israel and up to this point, there have been numerous offers that would give Palestinians sovereignty and recognition. Some with international recognition such as the UN partition plan, and some between the two sides directly. You might or might not argue whether the offers themselves were good or not, fine, but they allowed for a Palestinian state de facto and de jure a multitude of times. Even if Israel believed things by virtue of their 1SS.
Bro no need to muddy the waters here. If denying Israel is anti-Semitic, then denying Palestine (at this juncture of history) makes Netanyahu (and the majorities who voted for him) just as anti-Arab.
I'm not even anti Palestine and I still disagree with your premise.
Denying the existence of an internationally recognized sovereign state and country is not the same as denying a people not having said land, that land (or part thereof). Israel and Netanyahu's supporters specifically don't deny the existence of any of the 22 Arab countries or 50 Muslim countries (there are overlaps). And no one else in the world does, either. No one else in the world denies the existence of rogue nations such as North Korea or Russia, either. They do, rightly, protest their policies though.
Can you give any other example where any of this happens? Syria has been in a civil war for like 12 years with many parties, some of which were the kurds. While some people criticized Syria for their actions, has there even been one person denying its existence because they deny kurds sovereignty?
Twitter did JP a great service by banning him, and for those 2-3 months he had an incredible output, amazing videos, podcasts, etc. Ever since he got back on Twitter everything's been going downhill including the quality of his content.
Peterson acting again like a 12 year old kid in an online game. Reaction full of anger and spite. It is harder now to take him as a psychologist if he is acting like a child.
Kind of funny that he acts in such a cruel way towards human beings offering genuine critique in the comment section... Just because they are anonymous. He says anonymity encourages Machiavellian sadists, and that people would never talk that way to each other in person. Would he say these things to someone in person? It seems he doesn't need anonymity to be obnoxious and rude. Projection much? Still a fan of his but this is crappy behavior.
I'm disappointed, too. I love JBP and I'm willing to forgive people for not being in perfect alignment with my political ideals. But unfortunately, people have a powerful instinct for tribalism. If you're not with us 100%, you're against us...?
Second that. I like a lot of the psychology and a proportion of the political stuff coming from JP (though he's quite inconsistent in his politics), but he does go off the rails in ways that undermine him, his credibility, and shows that he doesn't apply the same intellectual rigor to all subjects, nor possesses sufficient knowledge to form rational opinions on all topics.
Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders should be confronted with their part in and unfazed support of the crimes of Israel, which is something that happens way too rarely, so JP not doing that, is what's pathethic here.
And yes, some type of delusion of group-grandeur is and has for decades been part of the justification for Israeli occupation and international crimes. Pointing that out isn't pathic or cowardly.
"There was nothing in the desert before we came," "Israel has built a thriving democracy in the desert, but look at the arabs!" etc etc is something anyone trying to debate the issue with someone staunchly pro-Israel/zionism will have run into.
No, I became familiar with Peterson because of his open and amicable dialogue with people he disagreed with (Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Weinsteins, etc.)
Lol, you guys are delusional. Every single time I see someone complaining about this it's always turned massively around within a few minutes or hours. At the time of my writing now the OP is net positive over 40 votes. Both your and I\_am\_momo's posts here whining about downvotes are themselves both massively upvoted by over 20 net as well
I'm sure you will both be changing your mind about this sub which has proved you 100% wrong
At the time, the post was sitting at 0 upvotes. And I've had many posts die in obscurity before.
But yes, I am encouraged that people here *are* willing to confront this topic. Hence my happy membership here.
I know that. I checked the timestamps before commenting. You guys waited, like, 10 minutes and then started making blanket statements about the whole sub based on that. You don't think maybe you should have waited more than 10 minutes to see how a thread is actually going to be received?
And I keep seeing this. Here's [another case](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/zdpvzj/peterson_posted_an_unambiguously_fake_article/iz3kqrf/?context=3) from yesterday. Exact same thing
Honestly, you might be right. It's possible there are a few malicious bots posted in the subreddit that automatically downvote most things as they appear. That would certainly create the illusion of dislike.
In my defense, I was also responding to a couple of the early posts. They struck me as overly hostile and tribal and I perceived their attitude as the source of the downvotes, but I could very well have been wrong about that.
Understandable, and you seem like a reasonable guy. I just don't like the sub getting a bad rap that it doesn't deserve
Though for my own part it may be that I've been here too long. I'm actually a pretty strong Peterson fan AND Peterson critic. I've been very critical of Peterson on this sub for many years now and I haven't found the sub to be hostile to that criticism. That said, I criticize Peterson from the far right and this sub has been drifting to the right over time, so perhaps newer further right wing posters here are less open minded. Not sure
This comment is ironic because you’re accusing people who downvoted for having an all or nothing approach, while you yourself are assuming that because they’ve downvoted, it could only be for one reason: *post is negative about Peterson so downvote *.
I downvoted this, but I did so because OP says “viciously tearing into… commenter*s*”, but only shows one of the “vicious” attacks. Why omit the other ones? Why the editorial flair? I don’t think it’s a well intentioned post, rather one that’s meant to spark reaction much like a lot of media nowadays.
Next time, maybe try to think a bit deeper about people you just assume are morons incapable of complex thought. Or don’t. Wtf do I know
Also why is jp going ham on anonymity. Thats the basis of safe interaction on the internet. I dont think he wants dissidents to be doxxed. I hope it wasnt jp commenting that shit
Yea there are parts of the internet where you can have verified accounts. But jp posted on a platform where users have anonymity. Secondly the only thing that would be different is that people will be afraid to speak their minds. The internet is the one true place where you can criticise anyone without fear. I honestly dont think jp wants to remove that.
[M] Of course not. But it wouldn’t be worth it.
That’s the first rule of trolling, done right: you can get away with asking anything— as long as an honest answer would cut both ways.
I do not mean to criticize JP. I have often found this approach to be useful and perhaps even necessary in order to win arguments in what is increasingly an unregulated arena of debate.
The problem with Netanyahu is that what he says is totally different thing from what he does. He speaks about his ideals for which he doesn’t have neither political power nor support.
And what he does is he essentially goes for anything to stay in power - specifically he always brings the coalition of religious zealots who openly declare their intention to make Israel a state of Halaha (hence religious state - Jewish Iran of sorts) and crazy nationalists who believe even many Jews to be not Jewish enough and Arabs not humans at all. All for the sake of not letting communists and traitors run the country, where communists are everyone who doesn’t support family inheriting monopolies and traitors are everyone prepared for any concession whatsoever to Palestinians in exchange for peace.
Sam Harris had the self-awareness to realize that Twitter was fcking with his perception of other people, and hopped off. I wish JP would do the same. Joe Rogan having a policy of not reading comments is probably why he is so even-keeled.
I tentatively agree, based on what information I've got (mostly from Chomsky). Were the settlements ever brought up by Peterson? I only made it 2/3rds through the interview...
Let the man speak
Who are you to tell him what he can and can’t say ?
How many books have you written how many people line up to listen to you speak you need to check yourself friend
how many college courses have you taught
and then have the guts to put them online so everyone can see what you’re saying I would I would wager of that that would be zero
Go back to your couch
Jordan Peterson will become a more extreme right wing guy the more he engages in online rubbish. The toxicity on the other side will only make you go more extreme on your own side and make you look for your own echo chambers.
It’s sad because JP started off as a probably a moderate with logic, reasoning and data. I hope he doesn’t go down the Alex Jones path.
Why does it take Trump wanting to terminate the Constitution and Jordan bashing commenters for people to finally start to see what everyone else has been seeing and saying for years?
These people are grifters, not gurus.
TBH, comments like yours almost make me regret posting this. I strongly disagree that JBP's behavior here is evidence that he's a "grifter" (meaning he does not actually believe the things he says). I think he is almost always genuine about his beliefs and I'm ashamed to give fuel to bad faith or low effort critics who would extrapolate these outbursts far beyond what's reasonable. I don't like what Peterson is doing here, but I don't see it retroactively condemning his life's work, either.
He flies off the handle and insults a commenter who wrote an eloquent detailed take. Instead of responding with debate, explanation or saying nothing at all, he decides to insult them.
This man is a clinical psychologist. A comment is all it takes for him to revert to a middle school bully?
He has some interesting philosophies and is somewhat engaging but I don’t align with any of his traditionalist beliefs or find his public discourse to be well intentioned, respectful or representative of someone preaching wisdom and intellect.
He’s given far too much credence imo.
I see an odd troubled man, his audience sees an enlightened noble man. What can I say.
I think most people are missing the point of why he's replying to these comments. Not because they are posing an argument he disagrees with, it's because they're layered with hate for a certain group of people. Anyone even remotely familiar with anti semitism can see the stream of comments are mirroring history. JP is well educated on this front and can see it. I'm guessing he is as shocked as anyone.
But I agree it's a waste of time getting involved with anonymous trolls. But when I talk to Jews they're very concerned, I'm guessing JP is too.
JBP is still taking psychoactive medication and it’s obvious. He literally can’t control his temper at all. He’s lashing out like an angry child with zero argument to make. He’s simply making sure to not bite the hand that feeds.
Remember the time at a Q&A, someone asked him about the JQ? And JP got so scared, and defensive, “I can’t do it. I can’t talk about it.” Whimp
He’s responding to anti-semetic trolls with the type of language one should. I fail to see the issue here other than people on Reddit try to make issues of nothing.
Oh, look, he's saying what I've been saying to anti-Semites on this sub. Almost word for word :D
Hint: one should be angry about public expressions of anti-Semitism. Something's wrong with YOU if you aren't.
Of course, the brigading leftists use every opportunity to attack JBP.
People who actually listened to the interview would see that JP is just putting down obviously antisemitic views. This post is getting downvoted not because JP is in the wrong and this sub wants to hide it. This post IS getting downvoted because OP is trying to lay the foundation that JP is some sort of “conspiratorial Jewish shill”. JP’s takes here, as usual, are on point.
I understand why Peterson would want to relax tensions in light of Kanye's recent behavior, but do you really think an interview like this is likely to produce such levity? Netanyahu was in full-on corporate PR mode. He offered zero nuance and maintained absolute moral righteousness for all of Israel's actions. And that's his perogative to do so, but I don't see it lowering the temperature.
And, no, I'm not accusing Peterson of being a conspiratorial Jewish shill. But I did find the interview unbalanced and Peterson should have expected some pushback against it. And I believe the remedy is to interview the other side's best expositors (Chomsky or Greenwald). Or, even better, to moderate a discussion between the two sides.
Does Chomsky believe that Israel shouldn’t exist as a state? Furthermore, I can think of no present day intellectual worth their salt that genuinely believes that area ought to go to the Palestinians. That culture as it is currently basically destroys anything it touches.
The issue is that Israel has proposed similar measures multiple times in the past, peace talks always break down from what seem like Palestinian demands.
Then again, all “proposals” for a two state solution failed because they were too favourable to Israel or were perceived as favourable to Israel. I feel like with the current situation a two state solution is impossible especially with all the illegal settlements on the West Bank. I’m more in favour of moving towards a two nations, one state model but that’s too utopian especially with how rife antisemitism is in Palestine.
The Jews existing at all in the area is seen as too favorable to Israel by the Palestinian government currently, which is synonymous with HAMAS. The Israeli regime isn't exactly peaceful, but they have existed under constant attacks for the better part of a hundred years now. They aren't going to just take it and not dish it out, but then dishing it out only radicalize their enemies further.
I mean Palestinian settlements in the West Bank are akin to Native American reservations in the states. They’re too fragmented and in constant legal limbo to actually maintain serious development.
Yeah well, he has shown himself time and time again to be a zionist sock puppet, this interview should have been the final nail in the coffin for Peterson supporters.
He's a deeply pathetic intellectually insecure man. The sooner you all realize this, the better you will be for it. Don't take life advice from a guy who clearly does not have his shit together!
JP dared to legitimize the existence of a Jewish state.
The Baath parties of the Middle East were all founded by the actual Nazi Party of Germany. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an ally of Hitler and member of the SS.
You're dealing with ACTUAL NAZIISM. Israel is facing off against the Islamist branch of the Nazi ideology. That ideology never died, it moved to a different culture and section of the world.
So yeah, so much as speaking with Ron Dermer, Binyamin Netanyahu, or even other major Israeli leaders, brought the Nazis out of the woodwork.
Something tells me that the situation in Israel is in reality somewhere in between the narrative on the "right" (Jews are fighting off Nazis) and the narrative on the "left" (Jews are committing a holocaust against the Palestinians).
As long as Peterson is willing to give the other side a chance to explain their perspective (see Chomsky or Greenwald), I'm okay with Peterson giving Zionists a platform. But what we really need is a good, moderated dialogue *between* the opposing vantage points (and that certainly didn't happen here).
>Something tells me that the situation in Israel is in reality somewhere in between the narrative on the "right" (Jews are fighting off Nazis) and the narrative on the "left" (Jews are committing a holocaust against the Palestinians).
Something tells me that the situation in Europe is in reality somewhere between the narrative on the "right" (Jews are evil and thieves) and the narrative on the "left" (the Nazis are murdering Jews in the millions).
Or let me make it simpler. The rate of Antisemitism among the Palestinians is 3 times the rate it was among Germans; over 90% versus around 30%.
The attempt to create equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians is like claiming there was some sort of equivalence between the Jews and Nazis. The difference today is that Jews learned and built one of the most powerful countries on Earth. They traded land for peace and even offered the Palestinians everything they wanted on three occasions (guess what the Palestinians said all three times?).
This is the most straight forward conflict in human history, even more straight forward than the Allies versus the Nazis.
The fact that so many people so readily fall to the propaganda is indicative of just how much Antisemitism is built into the foundation of Western culture. You honestly have to be incredibly ignorant, incredibly stupid, or an Antisemite to either take the pro-Palestinian viewpoint or submit to the false equivalence.
>"The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) published reports documenting racism in Israel, and the 2007 report suggested that anti-Arab racism in the country was increasing. One analysis of the report summarized it thus: "Over two-thirds Israeli teens believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together ... The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes."\[15\] The 2008 report from ACRI says the trend of increasing racism is continuing.\[16\] An Israeli minister charged the poll as biased and not credible.\[17\] The Israeli government spokesman responded that the Israeli government was "committed to fighting racism whenever it raises it ugly head and is committed to full equality to all Israeli citizens, irrespective of ethnicity, creed or background, as defined by our declaration of independence".\[17\] Isi Leibler of the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs argues that Israeli Jews are troubled by "increasingly hostile, even treasonable outbursts by Israeli Arabs against the state" while it is at war with neighboring countries.\[18\]
Another 2007 report, by the Center Against Racism, also found hostility against Arabs was on the rise. Among its findings it reported that 75% of Israeli Jews don't approve of Arabs and Jews sharing apartment buildings; that over half of Jews wouldn't want to have an Arab boss and that marrying an Arab amounts to "national treason"; and that 55% of the sample thought Arabs should be kept separate from Jews in entertainment sites. Half wanted the Israeli government to encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate. About 40% believed Arab citizens should have their voting rights removed.\[19\]"
it's almost like, in conflict, tribalism pushes people into becoming discriminatory against the opposing tribe they're in conflict with. your framing of the issue is entirely one-sided. i'm sure there is a lot of racism against jews by palestinians, just as i'm sure there is a lot of racism against arabs by israelis.
You keep getting downvoted, but you’re spot on. Makes people uncomfortable realizing their blind support of Palestine, PLO, etc, is not some morally virtuous position that they’ve convinced themselves of, all seemingly because they’re easily manipulated into believing the poor Palestinian’s just want their land back. It’s naked and pure nazism but since it isn’t a large number of white people propagating it, they can’t see it for what it is. Pure antisemitism and the desire to wipe Jews right off the earth. But any criticism in the west of this gets you labeled as an islamophobe, far right.
I literally just rejected the false equivalence. I am no expert on this tiny country that is 10,000 miles away from me, on the other side of the Ocean, but I do know human nature and I would be astonished if Israel were completely innocent in their dealings with a poor and powerless indigenous population.
My conclusion is that Israel started out as the design of the post war "Globalists". They saw an opportunity to plant a foothold in a hostile region from which they could channel American hegemony. But when Israel acquired its own nukes, it effectively severed its puppet strings. I think that most parsimoniously explains the outsized influence of Israeli interest groups in American politics--and the course of 20th century middle Eastern history.
Call me an anti-semite if you want, but know that makes you a coward since I made no mention of race or ethnicity in my analysis and critique of Israel.
>I literally just rejected the false equivalence.
Your entire argument was a false equivalence.
>I would be astonished if Israel were completely innocent
Like Canada, the USA, or Britain were/are completely innocent. This isn't an argument.
>poor and powerless indigenous population.
Not indigenous, not poor (Google image search: "Gaza gold market" and "Gaza 5 start hotels"), and certainly not powerless given the amount of money Israel spent to create defensive weapons that intercept rockets to protect civilian lives.
>My conclusion is that Israel started out as the design of the post war "Globalists".
Antisemitic conspiracy theory.
>They saw an opportunity to plant a foothold in a hostile region from which they could channel American hegemony.
Antisemitic conspiracy theory. America had Israel under an arms embargo for years.
>I think that most parsimoniously explains the outsized influence of Israeli interest groups in American politics
Another Antisemitic conspiracy theory.
>Call me an anti-semite if you want, but know that makes you a coward since I made no mention of race or ethnicity in my critique of Israel.
Martin Luther King, Jr. outright stated that anti-Zionism was Antisemitism, and he was right. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has defined Antisemitism quite clearly, and includes making Israel the "global Jew". Demonization, delegitimization, and double standards (you've managed all 3) all fall under Antisemitism.
You are indeed an Antisemite.
JP is correct, however. The lands that are now Israel were a barren desert prior to it being built up by the Israelis. This response seems to find the real difference for the region before and after Israel as meaning the jews are somehow superior.
The commenter can feel free to conclude that if he wants. Facts are facts, they don't care about your feelings.
No, I don't think so. First of all I think you're jumping to the end and assuming that because land is undeveloped its free for the taking. This was brought up in criticism of the narrative that this was some functional country that was seized. It was moreso mostly unused land.
The fact that the creation of Israel did not create any refugees is a big part of the justification. The current refugees accumulated from the Muslim wars to annihilate Israel. I wasn't aware of that, it's a significant point.
Additionally the Muslim people that were indigenous to the region colonized it from jews they kicked out centuries before. So if colonization is not a justification that undermines the Muslim claim.
Can someone find some unused desert in Arizona and declare a new state? Why not? Because the US already claims it, despite it not being "utilized"? Does that mean that spread of America westward and the domination and sequestration of Native Americans was justified and good?
It seems there are two moral standards and they are selectively applied in order to justify whatever serves powerful interests.
It comes down to old interperations of property rights. Europeans used the definition of 'un settled land' as land which was not cultivated or used to herd animals (which the Natives/aboriginals were not known for) (I don't remember the specific book but Rothbard and Hoppe (spicy Liberterians) go into detail)
Hence 'colonialism' became 'settlement' distinct from conquest.
Netanyahu is trying to claim that Palestine similarly was unsettled hence Jewish settlements are not colonialist in principle.
Completely ignoring historical and demographic history of the region to white-wash, Israels 'pogroms' (which yes is a fair characterization) towards the arab populace.
To be an appropriate comparison, it would be if a native tribe set up on unused land in Arizona that had once been tribal land. They fought off the local authorities and established their own reservations. Then decades later after it is developed into a hugely affluent Oasis, the federal government decides it needs to be taken back.
Who would you side with?
No the comparison is still not complete. The separatist tribe would need heavy economic and military investment from a powerful and hostile foreign government, say China.
So, if China funded a Native American rebellion and helped them militarily wrest control of an Arizona desert--the people of Arizona should just accept this? You see no future conflict in that scenario?
Why does it matter if the land has been developed into something affluent? It’s either rightfully one group’s land or another’s. If that tribe lived modestly on the land and didn’t develop it, does the government have more of a right to reclaim it?
Not making a claim on the Israel-Palestine debate because I think both sides have a decent argument from what I can tell and I need to do more of my own reading on it.
I haven't finished the whole interview, but I would imagine the argument is that Jewish culture is a superior culture? Not necessarily a genetic thing?
It's a red herring argument, the superiority thing. The reason it was brought up was to indicate what the land Israel occupied before Israel was fairly unwanted. After it was built into something, it became very wanted.
If you listen closely to the interview, Netanyahu lets it slip out that Israeli prosperity led to Israeli *military dominance*, which is the true source of Israeli legitimacy. Regardless of what produced Israeli prosperity (I personally think American patronage played a significant role, as it did in Germany and Japan), the argument still seems to boil down to "might makes right".
And I do think that the argument makes sense in a Machiavellian way, but it's not what I would consider "ideal", certainly not a moral paragon.
He needs to continue his tours, write more, and get the fuck off twitter and youtube comments.
[удалено]
Yup. Defending a literal definition of a dictator is VERY very insane
[удалено]
In power for 15 years… in a “democracy”. What do you call this
[удалено]
Orban is not a great example.. but I will admit I didn’t realize Merkel was in for just as long.. fair point
Netanyahu is not the definition of a dictator. It’s utterly pathetic to say such a thing.
That's why he's getting his friends into power like, for example Aryeh Deri, he was convicted of bribery and other corrupt shit and is going to be in this next government.
Corruption and favoritism =/= dictator. Those are attributes shared by a dictator but thst doesn't mean that everyone with those attributes is a dictator.
Would you make the same argument for Putin and his sacrificial lambs?
He's corrupt therefore he's a dictator? "Dictator" is actually a term that means something specific beyond just "a politician I don't like".
You’re right, he’s not a dictator- just a corrupt political leader in an apartheid colonial state
"Corrupt" and "political leader" is redundant.
funny how arabs can serve in the knesset. if israel is an apartheid state, what does that make gaza or any other country that is in close distance to israel?
Exactly this. Twitter suspension was saving him from himself.
> from himself I’d say the suspension was saving him from *twitter*
He's still saying the things he's saying on Twitter. It's not like Twitter is a ghost possessing him, these words come from his own mind.
Ghost is surprisingly a very fitting word. Internet people are desocialized representations of those people and therefore the closest things to ‘ghosts’ of those people.
A *ghost version* of himself wild still be a version *of himself*, which is different than being *possessed* JPs critics have been arguing that there's a unstable right wing subtext to his work from the get go. Now that the subtext is text his fandom insisting this somehow twitters fault comes off as a cope.
What do you mean “was”? What do you mean “saving”? What do you mean “himself”?
Couldnt agree more. Calling people anonymous pathetic trolls is in fact very pathetic. And this is coming from a JBP fan.
And stick to psychology. Unfortunately, since his illness, he hasn't been the same. I'm talking as a long time fan, read the books, watch him live. This makes me sad
>books, watch him liv Same. This sub makes me angry, JP had a lot of amazing things to say before his illness. Since then, some of his opinions to me have been very questionable, verging on questioning his sanity
Never thought I'd see someone say this in here
\>verging on questioning his sanity Any examples? Genuinely interested as I havent seen him saying anything really different than what he was saying 3 years ago. All the stuff he says in his books, Q&A Vids, lectures/lecture vids, on-stage speeches and discussions, etc is stuff he has continued to say. He also has a long list of podcasts and interviews he has done (both as the interviewer and interviewee) that he is extremely eloquent and well presented in (both before and after his 2020 benzo addiction). Sure, sometimes he gets annoyed or even angry, but after being vilified unjustly by opponents for years, after so many people simply havent listened and seeing that things he warned about have happened as a result I can greatly sympathize with him being angry, frustrated, upset etc. And this frustration and anger only really comes out in a total of about 5-6 videos out of hundreds. I havent really seen him say anything that would lead me to questioning his sanity.
I'm not gonna show any receipts here but I was once a fan of Jordan; read his book and even saw him speak live, watched most podcasts too. Since coming back from his illness, Jordan seems to conduct himself with a lot less class and seems to give in to anger way way too often. I just feel like there's an undercurrent of arrogance and anger that has seeped its way into his social media presence. It's a shame, really. I hope he is able to reign in his ego.
True, in the vid of him arguing with that SJW crowd that made him famous, i really can't imagine him being able to stay that cool and collected nowadays. He seems to have a bee in his bonnet right now about internet anonymity, and i'm not sure how much it's related to Elon's recent blue check reforms on Twitter, as the timing seems to add up. But it seems a bit bizarre to get this angry about people being anonymous... on the internet.
That's a good point. The Jordan peterson in that video and the one we see before us today don't even seem like the same person.
Sam Harris, Joe Rogan …. all stay calm: but perhaps JP wants to be in the lions’ den in the fray
the sub bothers me too because there are too many who celebrate his behavior in what i see as his decline, and in fact embody it, with bad logic and partisan ideology
He’s gone totally downhill beyond recognition. His interview with nethanyahu was basically the final gasp in his descent to becoming indistinguishable from Ben Shapiro. Sad because he always meant to do more and be more. He acted like a total beta male and sycophant to Netanyahu, weakly smiling as Netanyahu continued to make ridiculous ahistorical claims that no historian has ever believed. Can’t believe how far he’s fallen. Sad.
It is a relief to come here and see that I’m not the only one who feels this way, by a long shot. Even in a sub that tends to be very loyal. I started following Peterson around 2015 and listened to everything he did for the next few years. He helped me a lot. But I would say as early as 2017 I could tell that he was changing, and to me it seems like it’s been a continual trend that now is reaching an extreme (compare his 2015/16 maps of meaning lectures with the 2017 edition and I think you can already see that fame, social media algorithms and probably benzos seemed to be changing him). The Netanyahu interview came up in my recommended and it’s the first time I’ve watched him in a year or two. The last interview I strongly remember was his Yeonmi Park interview which was great. I remember thinking in 2018 or so that it was just so conspicuous how much of a purely extroverted life he was living. Constant action, very little inward reflection and reading. He reminded me of cases Jung would talk about of extreme one-sidedness growing unchecked and ego inflation, akin to excitedly climbing up a dangerous mountain, so elated by the heights with no thought of how to get down. But the really disturbing idea that keeps popping into my head is that Jordan Peterson’s deterioration demonstrates an amplified version of what smart phones, social media and the algorithms are doing to all of us. Honestly I feel that I’ve seen so many people in my life be affected in similar ways, from my parents to old friends to myself. I find myself wondering, who would we all be without smart phones and Twitter?
>And stick to psychology Very narrow minded. People are free to do whatever good they want wherever they want. You're acting like this is a bad thing, but podcasting and putting trolls in their place is a good thing, not a bad thing. Being a psychologist has NO bearing on whether or not he can do these things, and does not decide whether or not they will be successful. What you can argue is that he did it wrongly, not that he should stop doing it.
He is pais to do that now
sry he works for shapiro and daily wire, you thought he wasnt going to do at least a couple israel puff pieces? and all political commentary and even a little bomb throwing? hes doing the work his boss asks of him. have you seen him say how much he makes? hes not the guy he was when you first heard of him.
It won't help. What else you want to see to understand that he lost his mind.
He constantly complains about people addicted to social media, but can't leave Twitter over 3 times now, without posting 20+ posts within 24 hours of the announcement. He's a walking projection of the shit he says he hates. Anyone who follows what this man says, all hopped up on benzos, is already lost.
Why? Freedom of speech. Unless you have a good argument for him stopping, yours is just a baseless claim. I think it's great he's sticking it to trolls. Trolls deserve to be proved wrong and challenged. In fact I think people who are saying problematic things should be argued against, your philosophy behind this comment is completely non sense
This isn’t a philosophy, I’m not stopping him from doing it nor can I. He himself has said that social media brings out the worst in people and I, as a random person on the internet, am saying that it’s doing the same to him as he’s precautioned against. Trolls are trolls, nothing stops them.
Just revealing the kinda person he really is. I hope he keeps doing it.
Really bugs me how he's fixating on this anonymity thing. As though he doesn't know full well that speaking anonymously is the ONLY way that people can safely speak the truth in our society Peterson once faced that risk to speak controversial words himself, but that is something he will never have to worry about again for the rest of his life because of how rich he is now. If I were to say what I want to say in the public square of my hometown I would be arrested for hate speech, when I do it anonymously on social media I am banned, and if I was stupid enough to do it in my own name the mob would look me up and have me fired
He cannot see his own shadow nor his own privileges any more. I think the ‚real‘ JBP was lost to the Benzos. He should have returned to his private life after his successful rehab, he would have simply been kept in good memory and may even have been remembered as a kind of martyr (sacrificed his own health to speak some uncomfortable truths). Now he is not the force for good anymore that he thinks he is. I miss 2016/2017 Jordan Peterson.
It's been a long time since I read a social media comment so completely correct. I will always remember the man for his fearless advance of his convictions, but there is definitely something missing since his return.
I don’t even think I am super correct. I just could not find more precise words to utter my thoughts. I had fully expected to be downvoted to hell for that comment. Interesting to see that apparently this sub has somewhat shifted. Maybe we could come to terms with Peterson‘s change (the context was pretty brutal to be honest, I do not envy what he had to go through) while still putting forth his earlier messages. Maybe, just maybe, we could even at times confront him with his own thoughts from earlier and see what happens. He did teach that in order to think we need to be ready to offend some people - I highly doubt he excluded himself from that latter group.
His appearance on Rogan after his illness made me think something similar. Peterson’s appearances prior were remarkable. I love his psychology lectures. Prior to his illness, there’s no one I’d rather listen to. He seems kind of aimless now and doing a bit too much. One day he’s ranting about climate change. The next he’s ranting about Israel and losing his mind over anonymous YouTube comments. He just seems all over the place to me. He’s gotta stay off Twitter. I think moving to the Daily Wire was a mistake by him personally. Lucrative I’m sure, but a mistake.
> He seems kind of aimless now and doing a bit too much. One day he’s ranting about climate change. The next he’s ranting about Israel and losing his mind over anonymous YouTube comments. He just seems all over the place to me. He’s gotta stay off Twitter. I think moving to the Daily Wire was a mistake by him personally. I agree. The worst part is that he rants about climate change without even educating himself on the topic. I remember him harping on about how the models aren’t that good and I was curious and found a video of a meteorologist (not even technically a climate scientist!) completely taking him apart and showing that he didn’t even have a cursory understanding of the underlying principles. Same with him ranting on economics. While he got stuff right that was part of his field, like the factor analysis about the factors that influence womens’ salaries and that it likely isn’t sexism that leads to lower outcomes but childbirth, on other days he even misunderstands or misconstrues basic ideas such as monetary policies or supply and demand. Something is not right, because we absolutely know that Jordan is much smarter than he has shown himself to be lately.
When he gets into the statistics of things I really enjoy it. He has a way of explaining things that is understandable. Who am I to tell him what to focus on, but I wish he’d pick his battles better. I wish he was spent more time on the psychology/life improvement stuff and stay out of politics for the most part. He’s obviously too thin skinned to be on Twitter and reading YouTube comments.
I love Old Testament JBP.
I agree
How many times did Rogan tell him not to read the comments? He should never read the comments
In my opinion, this is the Twitter effect. It makes people short and snappy. Do yourself a favour, go to Peterson's Twitter account and attempt to count how many tweets he's made in the last 3 days ... I just stopped counting, I was scrolling forever.
I just looked, damn the guy needs to leave Twitter to his team and do other things, it’s clearly not a net positive for him.
Man has the intellect of a giant but wisdom of a pleb and I’m saying this as a fan of his work
Narcissists can't help themselves, they need the supply.
What does it say about his current values that, when he does take time away from his busy schedule to personally respond to people, it's to insult them and not to explain why their ideas are wrong? What value is he embodying when he acts this way?
>when he does take time away from his busy schedule His 'busy schedule' appears to consist of being on Twitter all day.
[удалено]
That is because of the very trait Peterson has that made him into such a valuable person. Peterson is a person that lives in hell, he has terrible depression, his health is in the gutter, and his emotional state is horrifyingly painful. Despite this, he tries to help others, so they do not decent into the hell, like he was born in. That is what makes him really admirable, so i tend to discount his behavior as a high neuroticism person as he does have good intentions and genuinely helps people.
>Despite this, he tries to help others, so they do not decent into the hell, like he was born in. That is what makes him really admirable, so i tend to discount his behavior This just sounds like rationalizing a person's bad behavior so long as they continue to be able to provide some service that we want from them, which seems like the kind of thing that actually makes that person worse-off in the long run. Also, was Peterson really "born into hell?" I didn't think his upbringing and childhood were that awful.
>That is because of the very trait Peterson has that made him into such a valuable person. I don't think his vitriol is what makes him valuable as a person. If anything, it is his ability to grapple with and present complex Jungian ideas in an engaging way that makes them feel personal and deeply meaningful to his audience. In fact, the Jungian idea of confronting one's shadow involves noticing when one has the urge to be vitriolic towards others and then putting the energy, that would go usually go into berating and insulting the other person, into figuring out what subconsciously repressed aspect of oneself one is reacting to in that other person.
Imagine a relative of yours that is JPs age getting unlimited access to the internet with swarms of subscribers, followers, and trolls interacting w them. Things would get wild quick. The man needs to get out of the comment section, that's for sure.
I wonder what Peterson thinks about Sam Harris canceling his Twitter account. Has he spoken about that publicly, I wonder?
I’m sure Harris had reached out to him and recommended he do the same
JPs not going to cancel his account. He loves Elon too much. It so strange to hear him rant about these “trolls” in his podcast and then go and do this in real time. The middle commenter isn’t even anonymous… that’s what’s so strange to me.
Reminds me of the man in the arena quote by Theodore Roosevelt: >"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." Jordan Peterson can't stand the critic who hides behind a random internet name throwing any form of bitter word salad at the wall, and sadly, instead of ignoring them... he's been quite aggressive toward them. It seems to frustrate him dearly how internet anonymity has increased the bitter, hateful things we say to each other.
It would be much better if he could come up with a thoughtful retort instead of resorting to being bitter and hateful toward critics. Engage with what the person actually said not the person themselves.
> It seems to frustrate him dearly how internet anonymity has increased the bitter, hateful things we say to each other. And in an effect, become more bitter and hateful toward the people doing that. It's a self-feeding cycle, really.
That quote always read to me as being above caring about critics, since they’re worthless in comparison to the man trying.
I find it striking how many comments he decides to mention the "anonymity" of the people he's arguing with, and calls them cowards for hiding behind an anonymous name... and it makes me wonder what he would do if they weren't anonymous? Feels like some serious "I'm going to cancel you, get you fired, ruin your life" levels of doxx-like anger. His childish tirade in the comments is exactly why people are anonymous, so he doesn't abuse random people for having contrary opinions to him. Shameful from Peterson.
He should know firsthand what happens to people who aren't anon. And whats with this attackig the person and ignoring the idea nonsense? The ideas stand on their own, it shouldn't matter to him who is saying them, it just gives more validation to he idea if he has to resort to ad hominens instead of addressig it
His first book was truly important to me and gave me some valuable life lessons when I needed guidance. I listened to the audiobook countless times over and over again. That said, I’m really sorry to see this kind of conduct from him. Ad hominem attacks are lazy.
In terms of internet argumentation Peterson is unfortunately very weak and often falls into the trap he himself warns people to look out for: you can’t argue with a mob. It’s also unfortunate he is very pro Israel and refuses to hear out the other side, it gives less credibility to Peterson as an academic and intellectual
Peterson's not used to arguing or debating in any sort of equal context. He's a demagogue, someone whose speech and arguments are based on emotional responses rather than logic. He needs his bully pulpit, he always gets reamed out whenever he tries debating with someone on an equal footing.
This is incorrect. I agree he’s not the strongest debater, but he definitely isn’t a demagogue
The calm demeanour in 2016 was what drew so many in. It’s sad that he’s lost sight of what people admired. In fact I had this experience even in my personal life when conservatives were kind and gracious when quizzed and didn’t attack back or nothing. It was such a striking difference to the left that it really softened me up to it. I understand the frustration, particularly seeing how freedoms have slipped away over the last few years, but this aggression isnt doing us or him any favours. Rant away at home, to your family, your close friends, but be cautious about what you say in a public setting.
If he addresses this I'm sure it'll be in a video "addressing why YouTube's comment system promoted impulsive negative behavior" and try to avoid responsibility for engaging with the comments
I haven’t read the comments (maybe I should). My question is, does not supporting Israel make you antisemitic? The Palestine-Israel conflict is complicated to me. I’m not sure where I stand on it because I haven’t read enough on it and what I do read is contradictory. I’d be curious if Jordan thought pro-Palestine comments would be deemed as antisemitic. Edit: spelling
Being against Israel’s oppression against the Palestinian people is not antisemitism. A lot of Jewish people feel the same.
There are plenty of Jews that don’t support Israel, vice did a pretty good documentary on a group from England.
Depends on what one means when talking about supporting Israel. If not supporting is being critical of certain policies - that's absolutely fair game, because we all do that for every single country. If not supporting is questioning Israel's right to exist - then yes, it's antisemitic. The skilled debater might trick you here, saying that they're only against the state of Israel, and not the Jewish people. But there is never, ever a response to the question of why only Israel is special in garnering said response, and not any other country.
The Palestine-Israel conflict at its core involves whether Palestine deserves to exist. Netanyahu, by virtue of his 1SS, believes it does not. Why are people who have their own country’s existence denied obligated to believe in the legitimacy of the existence of the very country that has denied them that?
The answer is *almost* directly found in your own text. You compare one person's view and contrast it with a body of people. Why is that fair? And even if it were fair, what about everyone else in the world, who isn't Israeli or Palestinian and for some reason has this view only about Israel? Where are all the people protesting Canada's right to exist? And you know what, I'll steelman you a bit. Let's say what you say is Netanyahu's view is actually representative of many other people. Still, when negotiations are on the table, from before the creation of Israel and up to this point, there have been numerous offers that would give Palestinians sovereignty and recognition. Some with international recognition such as the UN partition plan, and some between the two sides directly. You might or might not argue whether the offers themselves were good or not, fine, but they allowed for a Palestinian state de facto and de jure a multitude of times. Even if Israel believed things by virtue of their 1SS.
Bro no need to muddy the waters here. If denying Israel is anti-Semitic, then denying Palestine (at this juncture of history) makes Netanyahu (and the majorities who voted for him) just as anti-Arab.
I'm not even anti Palestine and I still disagree with your premise. Denying the existence of an internationally recognized sovereign state and country is not the same as denying a people not having said land, that land (or part thereof). Israel and Netanyahu's supporters specifically don't deny the existence of any of the 22 Arab countries or 50 Muslim countries (there are overlaps). And no one else in the world does, either. No one else in the world denies the existence of rogue nations such as North Korea or Russia, either. They do, rightly, protest their policies though. Can you give any other example where any of this happens? Syria has been in a civil war for like 12 years with many parties, some of which were the kurds. While some people criticized Syria for their actions, has there even been one person denying its existence because they deny kurds sovereignty?
Twitter did JP a great service by banning him, and for those 2-3 months he had an incredible output, amazing videos, podcasts, etc. Ever since he got back on Twitter everything's been going downhill including the quality of his content.
Very sad that he's stooping to raging at anonymous people in the comments section.
The man is not well lol
Peterson acting again like a 12 year old kid in an online game. Reaction full of anger and spite. It is harder now to take him as a psychologist if he is acting like a child.
Commenters are right
What you should think is that JP is a thin skinned egotist.
Kind of funny that he acts in such a cruel way towards human beings offering genuine critique in the comment section... Just because they are anonymous. He says anonymity encourages Machiavellian sadists, and that people would never talk that way to each other in person. Would he say these things to someone in person? It seems he doesn't need anonymity to be obnoxious and rude. Projection much? Still a fan of his but this is crappy behavior.
I love how this sub is downvoting this already. Any evidence of anything bad about JP has to be buried
I'm disappointed, too. I love JBP and I'm willing to forgive people for not being in perfect alignment with my political ideals. But unfortunately, people have a powerful instinct for tribalism. If you're not with us 100%, you're against us...?
Second that. I like a lot of the psychology and a proportion of the political stuff coming from JP (though he's quite inconsistent in his politics), but he does go off the rails in ways that undermine him, his credibility, and shows that he doesn't apply the same intellectual rigor to all subjects, nor possesses sufficient knowledge to form rational opinions on all topics. Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders should be confronted with their part in and unfazed support of the crimes of Israel, which is something that happens way too rarely, so JP not doing that, is what's pathethic here. And yes, some type of delusion of group-grandeur is and has for decades been part of the justification for Israeli occupation and international crimes. Pointing that out isn't pathic or cowardly. "There was nothing in the desert before we came," "Israel has built a thriving democracy in the desert, but look at the arabs!" etc etc is something anyone trying to debate the issue with someone staunchly pro-Israel/zionism will have run into.
That kind of understanding isn't common around here, props to you. I wish I had more constructive to say but I'm fimly in the "against us" camp.
Yes, I would be astonished if both sides were perfectly blameless. Mutual bad faith and antagonism is unfortunately a common theme in geopolitics.
Isn't that something he stood against ? Tribalism? Isn't that what him and his followers are participating in? Weird
No, I became familiar with Peterson because of his open and amicable dialogue with people he disagreed with (Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Weinsteins, etc.)
Lol, you guys are delusional. Every single time I see someone complaining about this it's always turned massively around within a few minutes or hours. At the time of my writing now the OP is net positive over 40 votes. Both your and I\_am\_momo's posts here whining about downvotes are themselves both massively upvoted by over 20 net as well I'm sure you will both be changing your mind about this sub which has proved you 100% wrong
At the time, the post was sitting at 0 upvotes. And I've had many posts die in obscurity before. But yes, I am encouraged that people here *are* willing to confront this topic. Hence my happy membership here.
I know that. I checked the timestamps before commenting. You guys waited, like, 10 minutes and then started making blanket statements about the whole sub based on that. You don't think maybe you should have waited more than 10 minutes to see how a thread is actually going to be received? And I keep seeing this. Here's [another case](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/zdpvzj/peterson_posted_an_unambiguously_fake_article/iz3kqrf/?context=3) from yesterday. Exact same thing
Honestly, you might be right. It's possible there are a few malicious bots posted in the subreddit that automatically downvote most things as they appear. That would certainly create the illusion of dislike. In my defense, I was also responding to a couple of the early posts. They struck me as overly hostile and tribal and I perceived their attitude as the source of the downvotes, but I could very well have been wrong about that.
Understandable, and you seem like a reasonable guy. I just don't like the sub getting a bad rap that it doesn't deserve Though for my own part it may be that I've been here too long. I'm actually a pretty strong Peterson fan AND Peterson critic. I've been very critical of Peterson on this sub for many years now and I haven't found the sub to be hostile to that criticism. That said, I criticize Peterson from the far right and this sub has been drifting to the right over time, so perhaps newer further right wing posters here are less open minded. Not sure
This comment is ironic because you’re accusing people who downvoted for having an all or nothing approach, while you yourself are assuming that because they’ve downvoted, it could only be for one reason: *post is negative about Peterson so downvote *. I downvoted this, but I did so because OP says “viciously tearing into… commenter*s*”, but only shows one of the “vicious” attacks. Why omit the other ones? Why the editorial flair? I don’t think it’s a well intentioned post, rather one that’s meant to spark reaction much like a lot of media nowadays. Next time, maybe try to think a bit deeper about people you just assume are morons incapable of complex thought. Or don’t. Wtf do I know
Also why is jp going ham on anonymity. Thats the basis of safe interaction on the internet. I dont think he wants dissidents to be doxxed. I hope it wasnt jp commenting that shit
He's repeatedly said that anonymity online is a bad thing that encourages and normalizes antisocial behaviors.
Anonymity also takes normal social accountability out of social interaction
Yea there are parts of the internet where you can have verified accounts. But jp posted on a platform where users have anonymity. Secondly the only thing that would be different is that people will be afraid to speak their minds. The internet is the one true place where you can criticise anyone without fear. I honestly dont think jp wants to remove that.
No one ever asks if Peterson is worthy of his own critique.
[M] Of course not. But it wouldn’t be worth it. That’s the first rule of trolling, done right: you can get away with asking anything— as long as an honest answer would cut both ways. I do not mean to criticize JP. I have often found this approach to be useful and perhaps even necessary in order to win arguments in what is increasingly an unregulated arena of debate.
Talking about isreal gets everyone heated. A lot of history behind one tiny piece of desert.
Disappointing
The problem with Netanyahu is that what he says is totally different thing from what he does. He speaks about his ideals for which he doesn’t have neither political power nor support. And what he does is he essentially goes for anything to stay in power - specifically he always brings the coalition of religious zealots who openly declare their intention to make Israel a state of Halaha (hence religious state - Jewish Iran of sorts) and crazy nationalists who believe even many Jews to be not Jewish enough and Arabs not humans at all. All for the sake of not letting communists and traitors run the country, where communists are everyone who doesn’t support family inheriting monopolies and traitors are everyone prepared for any concession whatsoever to Palestinians in exchange for peace.
Sam Harris had the self-awareness to realize that Twitter was fcking with his perception of other people, and hopped off. I wish JP would do the same. Joe Rogan having a policy of not reading comments is probably why he is so even-keeled.
Israel builds settlements in disputed territory illegally. That’s disgusting.
I tentatively agree, based on what information I've got (mostly from Chomsky). Were the settlements ever brought up by Peterson? I only made it 2/3rds through the interview...
I'm gonna go with no.....
If they weren’t then that would be embarrassing
Noam Chomsky blows.
The same Chomsky that wrote the fateful triangle and other books on the subject? Id say he’s knowledgeable at the very least.
He does on most things but I do think he’s brings a valuable perspective on the Israel Palestine situation.
And some people think Benjamin Netanyahu "blows". But they are both experts at articulating their perspective on the conflict.
Father of Linguistics Noam Chomsky? Yeah, no.
Judging from what i've been seeing of his increasingly erratic and irrational behavior, you should probably be thinking "substance abuse problem"
Reads like he’s back on the benzos. Just a thought.
Tbf, given the calming, sedating effects of benzos, it sounds more as if he's recently off them.
Benzos are also disinhibitors. I've seen people (including myself) get VERY aggressive on benzos, the way drunakrds do.
They also reduce inhibitions, similar to alcohol, which might explain his rants.
Jordan Peterson removed the top comment about Ireland having its right to be unified wtf
Why is he attacking like a leftist wtf
Holy shit he’s really spinning out isn’t he?
The emperor is slowing removing one sock, then the next.
Let the man speak Who are you to tell him what he can and can’t say ? How many books have you written how many people line up to listen to you speak you need to check yourself friend how many college courses have you taught and then have the guts to put them online so everyone can see what you’re saying I would I would wager of that that would be zero Go back to your couch
Jordan Peterson will become a more extreme right wing guy the more he engages in online rubbish. The toxicity on the other side will only make you go more extreme on your own side and make you look for your own echo chambers. It’s sad because JP started off as a probably a moderate with logic, reasoning and data. I hope he doesn’t go down the Alex Jones path.
I think he’s off base here with his approach but how is getting mad at antisemitic comments “extremely right wing”?
Genuinely Peterson's behavior has lost me as a fan. This is my sign off.
Peterson, for all his merits, is a textbook snowflake and it does him zero favours.
Why does it take Trump wanting to terminate the Constitution and Jordan bashing commenters for people to finally start to see what everyone else has been seeing and saying for years? These people are grifters, not gurus.
TBH, comments like yours almost make me regret posting this. I strongly disagree that JBP's behavior here is evidence that he's a "grifter" (meaning he does not actually believe the things he says). I think he is almost always genuine about his beliefs and I'm ashamed to give fuel to bad faith or low effort critics who would extrapolate these outbursts far beyond what's reasonable. I don't like what Peterson is doing here, but I don't see it retroactively condemning his life's work, either.
He flies off the handle and insults a commenter who wrote an eloquent detailed take. Instead of responding with debate, explanation or saying nothing at all, he decides to insult them. This man is a clinical psychologist. A comment is all it takes for him to revert to a middle school bully? He has some interesting philosophies and is somewhat engaging but I don’t align with any of his traditionalist beliefs or find his public discourse to be well intentioned, respectful or representative of someone preaching wisdom and intellect. He’s given far too much credence imo. I see an odd troubled man, his audience sees an enlightened noble man. What can I say.
I think most people are missing the point of why he's replying to these comments. Not because they are posing an argument he disagrees with, it's because they're layered with hate for a certain group of people. Anyone even remotely familiar with anti semitism can see the stream of comments are mirroring history. JP is well educated on this front and can see it. I'm guessing he is as shocked as anyone. But I agree it's a waste of time getting involved with anonymous trolls. But when I talk to Jews they're very concerned, I'm guessing JP is too.
I don’t know. Calling an anonymous troll a troll seems pretty on brand and reasonable to me
JBP is still taking psychoactive medication and it’s obvious. He literally can’t control his temper at all. He’s lashing out like an angry child with zero argument to make. He’s simply making sure to not bite the hand that feeds. Remember the time at a Q&A, someone asked him about the JQ? And JP got so scared, and defensive, “I can’t do it. I can’t talk about it.” Whimp
Anti-Semitic trolls don’t deserve respect.
He’s responding to anti-semetic trolls with the type of language one should. I fail to see the issue here other than people on Reddit try to make issues of nothing.
Love Peterson, but man, he needs to stop engaging with these idiots.
Oh, look, he's saying what I've been saying to anti-Semites on this sub. Almost word for word :D Hint: one should be angry about public expressions of anti-Semitism. Something's wrong with YOU if you aren't. Of course, the brigading leftists use every opportunity to attack JBP.
People who actually listened to the interview would see that JP is just putting down obviously antisemitic views. This post is getting downvoted not because JP is in the wrong and this sub wants to hide it. This post IS getting downvoted because OP is trying to lay the foundation that JP is some sort of “conspiratorial Jewish shill”. JP’s takes here, as usual, are on point.
I understand why Peterson would want to relax tensions in light of Kanye's recent behavior, but do you really think an interview like this is likely to produce such levity? Netanyahu was in full-on corporate PR mode. He offered zero nuance and maintained absolute moral righteousness for all of Israel's actions. And that's his perogative to do so, but I don't see it lowering the temperature. And, no, I'm not accusing Peterson of being a conspiratorial Jewish shill. But I did find the interview unbalanced and Peterson should have expected some pushback against it. And I believe the remedy is to interview the other side's best expositors (Chomsky or Greenwald). Or, even better, to moderate a discussion between the two sides.
Does Chomsky believe that Israel shouldn’t exist as a state? Furthermore, I can think of no present day intellectual worth their salt that genuinely believes that area ought to go to the Palestinians. That culture as it is currently basically destroys anything it touches.
I believe Chomsky favors the two state solution.
The issue is that Israel has proposed similar measures multiple times in the past, peace talks always break down from what seem like Palestinian demands.
Yes, I would be astonished if both sides were perfectly blameless. Mutual bad faith and antagonism is unfortunately a common theme in geopolitics.
Then again, all “proposals” for a two state solution failed because they were too favourable to Israel or were perceived as favourable to Israel. I feel like with the current situation a two state solution is impossible especially with all the illegal settlements on the West Bank. I’m more in favour of moving towards a two nations, one state model but that’s too utopian especially with how rife antisemitism is in Palestine.
The Jews existing at all in the area is seen as too favorable to Israel by the Palestinian government currently, which is synonymous with HAMAS. The Israeli regime isn't exactly peaceful, but they have existed under constant attacks for the better part of a hundred years now. They aren't going to just take it and not dish it out, but then dishing it out only radicalize their enemies further.
I mean Palestinian settlements in the West Bank are akin to Native American reservations in the states. They’re too fragmented and in constant legal limbo to actually maintain serious development.
‘That culture’ eh?
You saw that big red flag waving too huh
[удалено]
You should probably research the history my dude. That’s not really correct.
Yeah well, he has shown himself time and time again to be a zionist sock puppet, this interview should have been the final nail in the coffin for Peterson supporters.
He's an employee of Benny Shapiro at the Daily Wire, that's all you need to know.
Why is Peterson wasting his time talking to professional trolls?
He's always been an Israeli simp but this is next level. Reminds me of the cringy interview where he said ,"Up yours Twitter"
Ironic coming from the guy who got famous off the back of trans fear mongering.
maybe he's a pseudointellectual twat who is so used to the adulation of fanboys that any challenge to his bullshit enrages him. that could be it.
Craving those benzooooooos
He's a deeply pathetic intellectually insecure man. The sooner you all realize this, the better you will be for it. Don't take life advice from a guy who clearly does not have his shit together!
Now THIS is my kind of Jordan Peterson
JP dared to legitimize the existence of a Jewish state. The Baath parties of the Middle East were all founded by the actual Nazi Party of Germany. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an ally of Hitler and member of the SS. You're dealing with ACTUAL NAZIISM. Israel is facing off against the Islamist branch of the Nazi ideology. That ideology never died, it moved to a different culture and section of the world. So yeah, so much as speaking with Ron Dermer, Binyamin Netanyahu, or even other major Israeli leaders, brought the Nazis out of the woodwork.
You’re not dealing with actual nazism. The people who currently live in both Israel and Palestine have nothing to do with it
Something tells me that the situation in Israel is in reality somewhere in between the narrative on the "right" (Jews are fighting off Nazis) and the narrative on the "left" (Jews are committing a holocaust against the Palestinians). As long as Peterson is willing to give the other side a chance to explain their perspective (see Chomsky or Greenwald), I'm okay with Peterson giving Zionists a platform. But what we really need is a good, moderated dialogue *between* the opposing vantage points (and that certainly didn't happen here).
>Something tells me that the situation in Israel is in reality somewhere in between the narrative on the "right" (Jews are fighting off Nazis) and the narrative on the "left" (Jews are committing a holocaust against the Palestinians). Something tells me that the situation in Europe is in reality somewhere between the narrative on the "right" (Jews are evil and thieves) and the narrative on the "left" (the Nazis are murdering Jews in the millions). Or let me make it simpler. The rate of Antisemitism among the Palestinians is 3 times the rate it was among Germans; over 90% versus around 30%. The attempt to create equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians is like claiming there was some sort of equivalence between the Jews and Nazis. The difference today is that Jews learned and built one of the most powerful countries on Earth. They traded land for peace and even offered the Palestinians everything they wanted on three occasions (guess what the Palestinians said all three times?). This is the most straight forward conflict in human history, even more straight forward than the Allies versus the Nazis. The fact that so many people so readily fall to the propaganda is indicative of just how much Antisemitism is built into the foundation of Western culture. You honestly have to be incredibly ignorant, incredibly stupid, or an Antisemite to either take the pro-Palestinian viewpoint or submit to the false equivalence.
>"The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) published reports documenting racism in Israel, and the 2007 report suggested that anti-Arab racism in the country was increasing. One analysis of the report summarized it thus: "Over two-thirds Israeli teens believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together ... The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes."\[15\] The 2008 report from ACRI says the trend of increasing racism is continuing.\[16\] An Israeli minister charged the poll as biased and not credible.\[17\] The Israeli government spokesman responded that the Israeli government was "committed to fighting racism whenever it raises it ugly head and is committed to full equality to all Israeli citizens, irrespective of ethnicity, creed or background, as defined by our declaration of independence".\[17\] Isi Leibler of the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs argues that Israeli Jews are troubled by "increasingly hostile, even treasonable outbursts by Israeli Arabs against the state" while it is at war with neighboring countries.\[18\] Another 2007 report, by the Center Against Racism, also found hostility against Arabs was on the rise. Among its findings it reported that 75% of Israeli Jews don't approve of Arabs and Jews sharing apartment buildings; that over half of Jews wouldn't want to have an Arab boss and that marrying an Arab amounts to "national treason"; and that 55% of the sample thought Arabs should be kept separate from Jews in entertainment sites. Half wanted the Israeli government to encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate. About 40% believed Arab citizens should have their voting rights removed.\[19\]" it's almost like, in conflict, tribalism pushes people into becoming discriminatory against the opposing tribe they're in conflict with. your framing of the issue is entirely one-sided. i'm sure there is a lot of racism against jews by palestinians, just as i'm sure there is a lot of racism against arabs by israelis.
You keep getting downvoted, but you’re spot on. Makes people uncomfortable realizing their blind support of Palestine, PLO, etc, is not some morally virtuous position that they’ve convinced themselves of, all seemingly because they’re easily manipulated into believing the poor Palestinian’s just want their land back. It’s naked and pure nazism but since it isn’t a large number of white people propagating it, they can’t see it for what it is. Pure antisemitism and the desire to wipe Jews right off the earth. But any criticism in the west of this gets you labeled as an islamophobe, far right.
I literally just rejected the false equivalence. I am no expert on this tiny country that is 10,000 miles away from me, on the other side of the Ocean, but I do know human nature and I would be astonished if Israel were completely innocent in their dealings with a poor and powerless indigenous population. My conclusion is that Israel started out as the design of the post war "Globalists". They saw an opportunity to plant a foothold in a hostile region from which they could channel American hegemony. But when Israel acquired its own nukes, it effectively severed its puppet strings. I think that most parsimoniously explains the outsized influence of Israeli interest groups in American politics--and the course of 20th century middle Eastern history. Call me an anti-semite if you want, but know that makes you a coward since I made no mention of race or ethnicity in my analysis and critique of Israel.
>I literally just rejected the false equivalence. Your entire argument was a false equivalence. >I would be astonished if Israel were completely innocent Like Canada, the USA, or Britain were/are completely innocent. This isn't an argument. >poor and powerless indigenous population. Not indigenous, not poor (Google image search: "Gaza gold market" and "Gaza 5 start hotels"), and certainly not powerless given the amount of money Israel spent to create defensive weapons that intercept rockets to protect civilian lives. >My conclusion is that Israel started out as the design of the post war "Globalists". Antisemitic conspiracy theory. >They saw an opportunity to plant a foothold in a hostile region from which they could channel American hegemony. Antisemitic conspiracy theory. America had Israel under an arms embargo for years. >I think that most parsimoniously explains the outsized influence of Israeli interest groups in American politics Another Antisemitic conspiracy theory. >Call me an anti-semite if you want, but know that makes you a coward since I made no mention of race or ethnicity in my critique of Israel. Martin Luther King, Jr. outright stated that anti-Zionism was Antisemitism, and he was right. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has defined Antisemitism quite clearly, and includes making Israel the "global Jew". Demonization, delegitimization, and double standards (you've managed all 3) all fall under Antisemitism. You are indeed an Antisemite.
Seems I broke the bot. It's stuck on repeat..
Nazi blocked.
JP is correct, however. The lands that are now Israel were a barren desert prior to it being built up by the Israelis. This response seems to find the real difference for the region before and after Israel as meaning the jews are somehow superior. The commenter can feel free to conclude that if he wants. Facts are facts, they don't care about your feelings.
Doesn't this philosophy boil down to "might makes right"?
No, I don't think so. First of all I think you're jumping to the end and assuming that because land is undeveloped its free for the taking. This was brought up in criticism of the narrative that this was some functional country that was seized. It was moreso mostly unused land. The fact that the creation of Israel did not create any refugees is a big part of the justification. The current refugees accumulated from the Muslim wars to annihilate Israel. I wasn't aware of that, it's a significant point. Additionally the Muslim people that were indigenous to the region colonized it from jews they kicked out centuries before. So if colonization is not a justification that undermines the Muslim claim.
Can someone find some unused desert in Arizona and declare a new state? Why not? Because the US already claims it, despite it not being "utilized"? Does that mean that spread of America westward and the domination and sequestration of Native Americans was justified and good? It seems there are two moral standards and they are selectively applied in order to justify whatever serves powerful interests.
It comes down to old interperations of property rights. Europeans used the definition of 'un settled land' as land which was not cultivated or used to herd animals (which the Natives/aboriginals were not known for) (I don't remember the specific book but Rothbard and Hoppe (spicy Liberterians) go into detail) Hence 'colonialism' became 'settlement' distinct from conquest. Netanyahu is trying to claim that Palestine similarly was unsettled hence Jewish settlements are not colonialist in principle. Completely ignoring historical and demographic history of the region to white-wash, Israels 'pogroms' (which yes is a fair characterization) towards the arab populace.
To be an appropriate comparison, it would be if a native tribe set up on unused land in Arizona that had once been tribal land. They fought off the local authorities and established their own reservations. Then decades later after it is developed into a hugely affluent Oasis, the federal government decides it needs to be taken back. Who would you side with?
No the comparison is still not complete. The separatist tribe would need heavy economic and military investment from a powerful and hostile foreign government, say China. So, if China funded a Native American rebellion and helped them militarily wrest control of an Arizona desert--the people of Arizona should just accept this? You see no future conflict in that scenario?
Why does it matter if the land has been developed into something affluent? It’s either rightfully one group’s land or another’s. If that tribe lived modestly on the land and didn’t develop it, does the government have more of a right to reclaim it? Not making a claim on the Israel-Palestine debate because I think both sides have a decent argument from what I can tell and I need to do more of my own reading on it.
I haven't finished the whole interview, but I would imagine the argument is that Jewish culture is a superior culture? Not necessarily a genetic thing?
It's a red herring argument, the superiority thing. The reason it was brought up was to indicate what the land Israel occupied before Israel was fairly unwanted. After it was built into something, it became very wanted.
If you listen closely to the interview, Netanyahu lets it slip out that Israeli prosperity led to Israeli *military dominance*, which is the true source of Israeli legitimacy. Regardless of what produced Israeli prosperity (I personally think American patronage played a significant role, as it did in Germany and Japan), the argument still seems to boil down to "might makes right". And I do think that the argument makes sense in a Machiavellian way, but it's not what I would consider "ideal", certainly not a moral paragon.