Jordan Peterson | ContraPoints

I honestly don't think these interviewees know what they're talking about. The most objective argument I have to support this is that they keep talking about "whites" as a race. Never "white Americans", "caucasians", "white europeans" etc etc, just "whites" or "white people". Which is hugely problematic considering the entire concept of white as a race is incredibly modern. Before the 19th century, there wasn't a concept of whiteness, you belonged to a nation rather than a race. And it kind of makes sense, since where do you even draw the line on white? Are Egyptians white (Rami Malek...)? What about much of the middle east, many Syrians could pass for either white or Arabic? Or some western Asian countries, like most of the -istans? Ultimately, the idea of a white race was created on classist principles. The Irish were accepted as whites, despite being persecuted for centuries, as they were seen as "better than black". They weren't seen as white at all since that concept had not been created until mass immigration to the US. There's a good quote on this: [1] >The Irish, arriving poor, were in direct contact and competition with the African Americans whose social class they shared. They managed to become identified as white through their complicity in the oppression of blacks. Despite, or perhaps because of, calls from Daniel O’Connell in Ireland for the Irish in America to support the abolition of slavery, the American Irish felt their tenuous position in America would be we

> The tough part for me to communicate here is how _ironic_ your assumption here is. You are _literally_ doing what Peterson argues is the feminine and chaotic. You are playing the role of the overprotective mother. I don't know if irony is the right word for it, but I find it interesting that you've been arguing that Petersons man-order/woman-chaos is somehow not normative and negative to women, and then go and use 'feminine and chaotic' in a pretty much purely negative way. What I find more interesting is that this exemplifies what bothers me about Peterson schtick. So much of what he says isn't actually saying all that much, because it's couched in "one could argue that", "I'm just observing x", "an interesting thought" style statements, while at the same time the very choice of statements seem to imply something nonetheless. The frustrating thing is that I find much of this 'implied' message rather concerning, but it's difficult to talk about because he (and his fans) can deny all of it. Or accuse me of reading too much into his words, vilifying him, etc. I think this comment expresses my unease with Peterson quite well (the whole thread/discussion is worth reading): [link] And then there's the famouns Contrapoints video: [this video] To be clear, I'm not accusing you personally, of all this, just that your comment reminded me of these thoughts. Furthermore, I ultimately do not know the details of what Peterson believes (I mean, who does?), and if his book and talks help peopl