Wesley Yang calls for moderation in The Shocking Truth about Jordan Peterson, I'm not sure I agree entirely with his argument, though my thinking around how best to counteract alt right adjacent thinkers has begun shifting after reading Nagle's Kill All Normies. I think there needs to be room for a more compassionate response to those who are under his magnetism.
Posted May 29, 2018, 5:44 PM UTC
It's important to "be precise in our speech" about Peterson -- no slippery slopes to Nazism, long and accurate quotes, and so on -- but this article's radical centrism is a sham. The indecisiveness of the "two balanced sides" shtick is appropriate for less important people like pop stars. Despite his real benefits for pulling some people out of depression, he's clearly a net negative for society, and should be treated as such.
The problem is when people can't or won't differentiate between "nuance" and "plausible deniability"
Crypto-lobster. White-washing attempt. He wrote an article in Esquire basically praising JP.
Agreed.
The problem, always, with a call for moderation, Cui Bono?
Admitting, I was much closer to the alt-right at the start of this "culture war", not ideologically possessed, but rather, thematically. I never bothered with Tumblr, and instead found my digital home in the Chan's as a youth, though only briefly. Eventually shock simply for the sake of shock became nihilistic for me, and honestly, I needed something more meaningful. Though what that meaning should be is a little harder to arrive at.
Throughout life one finds oneself constantly reminded of ones place within the "hierarchy" of the Dunning-Kruger-Effekt, and it's usually at the bottom (though it could be argued that even this realization is itself evidence one is ascending the metaphorical cave). The internet has allowed any to become an autodidact in whatever thing one so wishes. Unfortunately, the internet has also wrought the mollification of all humanities worst impulses. Just as easily as one can challenge their biases, they can find themselves redoubled in that cave. Skepticism about elementary scientific fact could have you believing the Earth is flat. This is assuming one is challenging, rather than simply confirming their biases.
Taking a step back, the call to moderation is itself, prima facie, virtuous, because it seems reasonable, prudent, wise even. However, the answering call, who benefits, at least in Peterson's case, can quickly strip this veneer, and reveal the rot underneath.
Thanks for the reply. Very consequentialist line of argument there. One other problem of the article is that writer is basically accusing JPs detractors of bad faith or misinterpretation, but himself fails to provide any examples of the correct or "canon" interpretation. It's always the reactionaries who are being "misunderstood".