Why the hate for wisdom?

[Louisabell]

I'm 5 months older than him... I know the 1990's political 'scene'. esp at academic institutions - very well.

I know exactly where he's coming from...  the pulpit of a traditionalist, straight, white, patriarchal conservative, privileged male dominant egregore.

I don't think anyone should force anyone to speak a certain way; so I do see where he was in reacting to that. I think he's softened his stance somewhat since he first reacted to it also.

It's basic politeness to respect people when they ask you call them by a certain pronoun, name, etc.

I don't think he's a "bad" person and I don't feel ill will towards him - to me - he's a dinosaur - incredibly "old fashioned' - but he's a conservative training ground pathway through to more extreme ideologies.

He embodies and has 'tapped into' the "backlash" against "social justice" by those most likely to lose power from social justice - by having to share it with everyone - the boys club.

I've been schooled by POC it was hard - but I listened and learnt - men need to do the same - listen to women. And stick up for women. We're being murdered at a sickening and disproportionate rate every day.

Day in day out.

https://www.whiteribbon.org.au/understan...tatistics/

and yes- men experience violence also - but no where near the same and most usually from other men.

To any of his fans - please realise pointing this out isn't being misandrist - it's wishing for a shift from patriarchy to fraternity.

Yeah personally I think Jordan Peterson is over-rated.

My point was more that if even the person who championed against the gendered-pronoun bill could show some compassion with using someone's preferred pronoun, then it goes to show that it must be quite a moderate view point.

Some people have explored these complex and highly sensitive issues by making very nuanced arguments, touching on those "politically incorrect" topics with careful consideration. They build larger audiences because they present some well thought out/researched arguments. My issue is the way that these arguments get filtered down the line, fractured and then debased.

Then you have people without any medical or mental health training saying that people who want to identify with the opposite gender they were born with must be mentally ill and if anyone has a problem with that then they must be rejecting the "facts".

Similarly with the term SJW. I have read the book "SJW's Always Lie" by Vox Day. A popular book in these anti-progressive thought circles. Apparently, according to the book, SJW's follow the below three laws:
1. SJWs always lie
2. SJWs always double down
3. SJWs always project

So... who in this thread has acted like this? Who here is a SJW (as they define it)? Nearly everyone in this thread at one point or another has said "I can see where you're coming from"... Unless you want to believe that anyone who agrees with a leftist policy or has a progressive position on an issue is a SJW? But I mean at that point, it's equivalent to calling anyone who agrees with more conservative policies a fascist.

And yeah, I don't agree with people barricading doors at college campuses so that people can't attend lectures given by people like Milo Yiannopoulos or Ann Coulter, but it's totally hyperbolic to say that something similar is happening here on this forum. Also many times the police have been called to protect these speakers' free speech. Usually the problems arise when college administrators tell the police to stand down because they want to protect student's right to protest (BTW they don't have a right on private property).

So yeah, if the anti-progressive/conservative/libertarian side loses the ability to argue with nuance and balance and turns to histrionics, then they will just turn into the SJWs of the right (and this is already starting to happen in my opinion), except they won't even have the "niceness" of progressive ideals behind them.