This is a bit deep and kind of off the expat theme for here, but it might ring a bell. I'll provide a summary, and others are welcome to comment on this take, even if their own isn't really as developed or spelled out.
I just watched a great Jordan Peterson interview, a Canadian psychologist (clinical psychologist and college professor) involved with gender pronoun issues, although that's far from what his central message is. I won't say much about gender pronouns except that for him the issue is free speech, using or not using whatever words you want, so people being "trans-gender" and how that's interpreted sort of isn't the point.
This video is more about ideology, about how the far left and far right fall into making two different kinds of mistakes. He butts heads with the far left a lot more, who he frames as SJW's, social justice warriors, and that's one of the most central themes in this video interview (link at the end).
To them (the more extreme left) he's against people defining their own gender identity as they want. Per his take he has absolutely no problem with that, he just opposes a law in Canada requiring people use one of dozens of non-binary gender pronouns to address people. How could a law tell you to use a pronoun? That part gets complicated, so I'll essentially just skip it. Literally that is what the law says, although it's a bit vague; I've read it. Of course more was going on with what it meant, the background context, and how it was going to end up being applied.
The ideologies part is what's interesting to me. As I see it that really breaks into two completely different sets of issues, related to people being conservative or liberal (left or right), or else radically conservative or liberal. People favoring government non-interference and limiting transfer of wealth from the wealthiest to poorest (the right) versus supporting basic rights and social services for the lowest class (the left) is sort of a real issue. It seems to me that in the US that gets a bit twisted, and politicians use one of those two narratives (and separate values related to gay rights and such) as a cover, and then just support the special interests of their own wealthy supporters instead, not really actively pursuing either set of goals.
He doesn't go into it here but it is interesting in other videos how he links psychological characteristics (measured personality traits) as mapping back to that left and right divide. The short version: people who value order and authority and oppose social change tend to be conservative, and people who value compassion and empathy as an ideal and embrace social change tend to be liberal. Conservative perspective and approach works much better when conditions are stable, in both governing strategy and in business approach, and a liberal outlook maps onto creativity and inclination to change that works well when circumstances require change. The personality type mapping to liberal outlook matches with being an entrepreneur, the opposite (personality type inclined towards being conservative) to being an upper level manager or CEO.
Radical ideological positions are something else altogether. The extreme left (post modern philosophy, communism) accepts that everything is more relative (there are less absolutes, I guess with fixed genders working as one example), that people are free to define themselves outside the constraints of any inherent starting point, and that equality of outcomes is a good ideal for all people (everyone should be the same, should get the same benefit of societal wealth). Some of that last part doesn't work really well paired with capitalism. The extreme right believes that authority should dictate social order to fix problems that naturally occur in social systems where that's not happening (guidance from the top, more or less, and rigid norms established by past tradition).
What happened in the Soviet Union and Communist China during the 20th century are examples of why the first extreme is problematic. Lots of millions of people were killed in both places rounding off what seemed to be problematic extremes in society that required extreme forms of adjustment, clearing out systems and actual people (killing them) in order to make big changes. Of course the Nazis are the paradigm for the far right extreme going bad, and everyone knows how that went. It just doesn't work to say that everyone is going to be the same, or else, based on those two different approaches that aim towards different goals related to that.
Someone might well argue that a law dictating pronoun use and communists demolishing social systems are two completely different things. It is hard to see why he's linking the two; it requires understanding his message about the underlying patterns in a way that doesn't come across in a two hour video. And it's not as if there's any guarantee his read on everything is right. I completely accept his read on those underlying patterns, and what he's saying about psychology is hardly even open for debate, once you understand what that part is. The rest of the interpretation--extending all that to other positions--is more open to criticism.
What do you think?
Jordan Peterson podcast interview
Jordan Peterson, Western culture and risks of ideologies
We think your topic thread(s) were debated, to the point of exhaustion, during the 1970s. 
It's a 2 1/2 hour interview! Cripes. BKK: I think one or two of the points you mention in your long post are maybe worth discussing, but not the whole shebang!
Right, it's not supposed to be breaking news, a general summary instead. His point is that lots of what he's expressing is only accepted knowledge. Not everyone has a psych degree, or kept up to keep mapping it all out, and most of what he's saying wouldn't be for people who do have that kind of background.
I suppose that the related controversies are more of the same too; it's only so interesting hearing about someone misunderstand someone else. If the content is unfamiliar it's not a natural introduction to it, that format.
I studied engineering and philosophy instead so parts were new to me (not so much in this video, in others going into different details). Even in philosophy classes you tend to not run across clear summary takes on what post modern thought is doing. Something you'd expect to be simple, like an American Pragmatism definition of truth, just never comes up, unless you take an epistemology course. Since there are a dozen or so main categories of philosophy to focus on (branches, not schools of thought, which expand from there) unless you cover a degree's worth you'd never cover it, and maybe not even then.
One of the reasons for the current strength of populists in many Western democracies is that the traditional, one-dimensional view of politics being merely left-right does not apply any more (or maybe better to say: even less so than in the past).
In addition to left-right, you can be anywhere on the conservative-progressive scale (denoting a preference for known and tested solutions in a evolutionary way against new and revolutionary ones), more or less liberal (meaning the level of state interference in everyday affairs you prefer) and a number of other dimensions.
This cannot be reflected any more by a limited (in some countries only two!) number of parties, whom people then invariably get annoyed by, leading to the rise of the populists.
Policy fatigue and a temporary leaning towards more radical approaches are a normal and maybe inevitable development in healthy democracies.
More dangerous, however, is the influence on the rest of the world, where the thus perceived "crisis" of Western-style democracy (and the lack of leadership its current state induces) is giving totalitarians of all shades good arguments to pursue their way of oppression and aggression, leading to many of the wars and other problems we see.
The world could be a better place, but it isn't ...
A "healthy" democracy, eh? Now that's a phenomenon, that even the ancient Greeks failed (miserably) at bringing to fruition. Thus, speaking to de-noting a preference for known and tested solutions, the historically proven way of “the real world” is fascist. It always has been, and always will be. Period!
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, spoke to the intention of eradicating such historical “flaws” within Western “civilized” societies, but has yet to reach fruition, despite being “democratically” ratified, 228 years ago, this coming September 30th. Obviously, it ain't gonna ever happen, and anyone, who believes otherwise (all things of current global events considered), is totally delusional.
Again, this OP topic thread was debated, to an “exhaustive” conclusion, more than 4.7 decades ago. The message was delivered, via the music medium of time. One, either “got the message”, and then passed it forward to their own posterities, or they did not. Done! Now,........moving "progressively" along.
Are you saying that most of the world‘s countries are fascist and the USA not a democracy?
If so, you are mistaken!
Even I have to defend the political system in the USA in that respect: it is ruled by who the majority votes for and there are robust and open exchanges of opinions possible in a number of media (as the current debate about the president clearly shows, and his dismissal at the next election - or earlier? - will, too) .
Also, not all totalitarian or otherwise onerous regimes (of which there are of course still too many in the world) are fascist - look that word up on Wikipedia!
Jordan Peterson is amazing. Love watching his stuff!
I found the introduction to this topic far from inspiring and held off clicking the link at first. Eventually I decided to give the OP a chance and went to the link. I initially recoiled at the length of the clip but came back later when I had more time and finally strung together a few blocks of time to complete it. I had never heard of either individual, interviewer or interviewee, but I really enjoyed the interview. Thank you very much for posting the link and I will be looking for more on both individuals.
Cool! Much as I like pointless and mean spirited arguing with people who have completely different takes on things that was the intention, that hopefully someone would find value in the lead.
I found out about Peterson from the first podcast interview (this is the third) and went onto watching his University of Toronto course lecture series on meaning on YouTube. There must be plenty of other high level content in different places online but it was a revelation to me. I've read some psychology in the past, and studied more philosophy, but apparently I had next to no grasp of what most of the field was about.
beppi wrote:Are you saying that most of the world‘s countries are fascist and the USA not a democracy?
If so, you are mistaken!
Even I, as a notorious anti-American, have to defend the political system in the USA in that respect: it is ruled by who the majority votes for and there are robust and open exchanges of opinions possible in a number of media (as the current debate about the president clearly shows, and his dismissal at the next election - or earlier? - will, too).
Also, not all totalitarian or otherwise onerous regimes (of which there are of course still too many in the world) are fascist - look that word up on Wikipedia!
FYI ~ The Electoral College of delegates decides "who" will occupy the Oval Office, and not the vote-casting masses of the American people. Thus, it comes as no surprise, that you also have no clue, regarding the realities of the U.S. political machine. The average U.S. citizen doesn't have a clue either.
beppi, you may rest, assured of a "blissful-life" club membership, within in huge constituency.
bkk tea blog wrote:Cool! Much as I like pointless and mean spirited arguing with people who have completely different takes on things that was the intention, that hopefully someone would find value in the lead.
I found out about Peterson from the first podcast interview (this is the third) and went onto watching his University of Toronto course lecture series on meaning on YouTube. There must be plenty of other high level content in different places online but it was a revelation to me. I've read some psychology in the past, and studied more philosophy, but apparently I had next to no grasp of what most of the field was about.
L. Ron Hubbard (Dianetics), evolved to become The Church of Scientology.
I've read Dianetics before. It's interesting but I didn't see much value in it. It struck me as a bunch of things he made up.
bkk tea blog wrote:I've read Dianetics before. It's interesting but I didn't see much value in it. It struck me as a bunch of things he made up.
Ditto! You have arrived. 
Peterson is summarizing the basic established understanding of psychology, the opposite of making things up.
Heaven forbid, that I should refute the opinion(s) of an obviously verbose "know-it-all".
Bookmarking for future consumption. I'm a big fan of JP.
Articles to help you in your expat project
Working in Taiwan depends on your skill set and the job you seek. Expats can find a wide range of jobs around the ...
Getting married in Qatar could be a hassle for newbies. However, knowing the right procedure and information can ...
If you are looking for a job in the Dominican Republic (DR), here are some tips and suggestions. Job hunting can ...
Health is a major issue when moving abroad. Are expats eligible for the Mauritian health system? What are the ...
If you are moving to the Dominican Republic, one of your primary concerns is likely to be the healthcare system ...
Brazil can be a romantic country, and you may want to marry here. Perhaps you even want to remain in Brazil ...
Share your expat experience and get in touch with other members