Category Archives: Jordan Peterson

There is a palpable stress in the country. At the microeconomic level, recession has hit almost all sections as the experiential reality of shrinking economic choices, botched calculations, anxiety and uncertainty. Of course, COVID-19 has disrupted several sectors with unprecedented consequences. Though the massive agitation of the farmers and their blockade of the national capital is evidently a reaction to the controversial farm laws, it is also symptomatic of a deeper distress and disquiet.

Governments at the Centre and the states have reacted with varying degrees of sagacity and concern to the pandemic-induced stressful situation. No doubt, a few measures were announced that brought some relief in the dismal days of lockdown. Increased allocation for the rural employment guarantee scheme, a loan repayment freeze for a few months, encouragement to banks to lend more, some relief on interest payments (after the Supreme Courts intervention), a transfer of Rs 500 to Jan Dhan accounts, 5 kg of free wheat and rice for three months to the needy families, etc., are some of these steps.

The economic revival package announced in three or four tranches was aimed at creating the right policy environment to facilitate better flow of credit to productive sectors. However, taking care of the supply side alone cannot kickstart an economy weakened by poor demand. However, the source of this disquiet is not the adequacy or inadequacy of the economic revival package or other mitigating measures. The avowed policy preference of the Centre and several state governments in favour of the private players in several key sectors is translated in the collective psyche of the nation as an eagerness to shy away from the prime responsibility of the state, particularly in times of national stress.

The manner in which vital legislations were rushed through in Parliament without detailed discussion in the Standing Committee or Select Committee had sent wrong messages. A cursory look at the slew of recent legislative and policy initiatives of the Central government validates this perception. The new guidelines on Environment Impact Assessment, National Education Policy 2020, privatisation of profitable public sector units (even in a sensitive sector like petroleum), privatisation of railways, drastic amendments of the labour laws to suit managements and now, the three interrelated laws on agriculture and marketing of farm producethese and similar steps cumulatively declare governments implicit trust in the private sector.

This is not a critique of the policy of privatisation. However, when society is exposed to unprecedented vulnerabilities of still unmeasured dimensions, it is only natural to look to the government for relief, guidance and succor. What is seen, though, is the increasing harshness of laws and the regulatory nature of governments. The state is arming itself with stringent laws, admittedly to meet exigencies. The general perception that the government is predisposed to treat dissent as subversion has the potential to discourage free thought and silence non-conformist expressions.

When read alongside several instances of the UAPA and 120A of the IPC being invoked in seemingly innocuous matters, and the move to control streaming entertainment platforms, the stifling and controlling arm of the state appears to be more visible and active than the benevolent arm that ought to deliver relief and social justice. The regulatory might and muscle of the Central government has been amply demonstrated in enforcing the (ill-prepared) lockdown and enforcing restrictions. However, when it comes to health, education, agriculture and other such vital domains, the government seems to believe that the private sector would do a better job.

Naturally, the perception that government systems and programmes, with their inherent non-profit ethos, are being stifled or done away with to allow private players to take the lead is gaining credibility and acceptance. Government systems may not be the most efficient, but the ordinary citizen experiences a belongingness and has faith that he will not be cheated or excluded on considerations of profit. This faith and comfort are being eroded. At a time when the pandemic-induced crisis is creating havoc, implicit trust of governments in the private sector to accomplish efficiency and growth is psychologically destabilising.

These extraordinary times call for extraordinary sensitivity and receptivity. It is a truism that private sector-led growth has to have a trade-off with equity. This faith in the private sector is also an undeclared lack of faith in governments own machinery. That too makes ordinary citizens restless.Minimum government and maximum governance has been the maxim of the Central government. But the recent trends somehow proclaim maximum government in the regulatory domain and minimum governance in the welfare domain. The policy that legitimises the withdrawal of governments from core areas affecting the ordinary citizen needs a drastic reevaluation in the present gloomy context.

The health regimen that is effective while you are hale and hearty may be disastrous when you are sick. Privatisation may have its beneficial results, but not when the economy has hit an all-time low and unemployment has touched an all-time high. Every individual in this country is today puzzled and worried about the future. These are chaotic times, when you can ill afford to wait for economic growth to trickle down. There is no standard cure for a non-standardised crisis.

The present crisis makes it morally incumbent on the government to strengthen direct procurement of agricultural produce at minimum support prices, revitalise the public distribution system, overhaul government educational institutions and fortify public health infrastructure. Such signals will bring in the much-needed cheer in society. The space vacated by cheer and hope will be occupied by gloom and chaos. As Jordan Peterson says in the book 12 Rules for Life, Chaos isthe despair and horror when you have been profoundly betrayed. The sense of betrayal should notbe left unaddressed; it is the timefor reassurance.

K Jayakumar (k.jayakumar123@gmail.com)Former Kerala Chief Secretary & Ex-VC, Thunchath Ezhuthachan Malayalam Varsity

Read more:

Stressed times call for reassurance - The New Indian Express

Red pill is a term that comes to us from the film The Matrix. The hero is given the option between the blue and the red pill, and if he takes the blue pill, life will go back to normal, and if he takes the red pill, hell see the world for what it is, a hideous dystopia.

The idea has had a weird afterlife, starting with pickup artists who conceived of red-pilling as the idea that, if you understand how women supposedly think, then youll be able to manipulate them and youll be able to score. Mens rights activists started using it as a term for a conversion in worldview, specifically a conversion against feminism. And eventually, you started to see people on forums talking about being red-pilled on the JQ, the Jewish Question, meaning believing the Holocaust was a lie.

The notion that interests me is that of a screen reality and an actual reality. I think thats a common formation for people of all sorts of political persuasions. The notion that the world is an illusion and that underneath the surface lies some kind of deeper truth is a very deeply rooted notion for radicals of all kinds who are attempting to break through an established frame for viewing the world.

I wanted to play around with the idea of a complete breakdown and transformation of perspective. So I decided to create a fairly typical Brooklyn writer character whose frame of reference broadly fits with the acceptable New York Times opinion page version of the world, and to have him encounter an outside to that. First, this encounter with the outside takes the form of an anxiety that his assumptions dont match up with reality. And then he has a much more direct confrontation with a cultural figure who is a propagandist for far-right views.

The writer assumes he will be able to dismiss this figure out of hand, but he realizes he doesnt have as much ammunition as he thought. This failure to provide answers precipitates a deeper breakdown in perspective alongside a mental breakdown.

Link:

Hari Kunzru's Novel Red Pill Is a Literary Document of the Age of the Alt-Right - Jacobin magazine

In the face of so much uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, its tempting to search for answers that might help you regain some sense of control over your life. You might, for instance, find yourself reading the advice of self-appointed health experts and social media gurus, who love to make overblown and often blatantly inaccurate claims about using diet to avoid getting seriously ill from the novel coronavirus and spreading it to other people.

Their arguments can be summed up like this: A population full of strong bodies would effectively stanch the pandemics spread and hasten our return to normalcy. Also, eating the right food and fortifying ones immune system (through vitamins, etc.) is enough to personally inoculate oneself from the worst effects of COVID-19.

As science, its garbage. Worse, emphasizing healthy eating above all else is a way of casting doubt on the necessity of masks, social distancing and, on occasion, the efficacy of vaccines.

This focus on diet is shared by alternative-health gurus, medical quacks, social media grifters, and at least one celebrity chef and former presidential candidate. These people often dont deny Covids existence, or even its virulence. But they often imply that the climate of fear surrounding the pandemic is overblown and that mainstream authorities have deliberately ignored the issue of diet in their safety messaging. The true pandemic, they say, is Americas longstanding preponderance of diet-related disease, such as diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and obesity.

Perhaps youve seen these ideas echoed by friends on social media, where they tend to proliferate. Or maybe youve seen the misinformation emerge at its source: by various influencers or public figures who advance these claims online, often to audiences in the tens of thousands.

One particularly brazen tweet that was devoid of much context came from the UKs Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist who cites dieting as something of a panacea in the fight against COVID.

As Nicola Guessassociate professor at the UKs University of Westminster and Head of Nutrition at the Dasman Diabetes Institutetells Lifehacker, diet is and has always been an important aspect of ensuring overall health. But there is zero evidence to support claims that eating healthier will protect one from contracting COVID or succumbing to its more serious effects.

She writes in an email:

Eating a healthy diet and...exercise is sensible as it protects us from a lot of diseasesin my view there is no evidence and no justification for pinning healthy eating on COVID-19 (unless you have something to sell). Is it worth trying to eat more healthy during a pandemic if theres a chance it could protect you against severe infection? Sure, because there are no downsides to eating less sugar, junk food etc. Lets just not pretend that its going to prevent someone from getting COVID-19 and even dying from it there are 23-year-old slim athletes who have sadly died.

Eating healthy, exercising, and taking vitamins when needed are great ways to ensure your personal health in a general sensethis is knowledge backed up by over a century of scientific study. Still, its no substitute for a coherent public health policy involving traditional epidemiological tools in the midst of a raging pandemic. Heres what you need to know about the culture of dietary zealotry and how you can spot it in its many forms.

In recent years, dietary evangelists have accrued an increasing deal of clout in the public sphere. The craze has been spurred on by celebrities such as Gweneth Paltrow, whose wildly popular lifestyle brand Goop has touted raw food diets deemed potentially deadly by experts. Podcast host Joe Rogan has also helped amplify the dietary claptrap of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, who advocates a strictly carnivorous diet (both Peterson and his daughter, Mikhaila, claim a red meat diet cured their long standing bouts of depression).

Much of the dietary fundamentalism preaches different methods for boosting general immunity and thus warding off Covid. Paul Saladino, for example, a doctor based in Austin, Texas, recommends chowing down on organ meats and steak. The doctor T. Colin Campbell, on the contrary, is an advocate of whole food, plant-based dieting. He wrote this year: I doubt there are many people who will be content with repeated masking, social distancing, and contact tracing when changing our diet could do so much more, while simultaneously protecting social norms, job security, and our economy. UK celebrity doctor Aseem Malhotra, meanwhile, published a book promising a 21-day route to immunity through conscientious dieting that purports to prevent, improve and even potentially reverse the factors that can cause or worsen COVID-19.

Adherents of the trend arent always doctors. Australian celebrity chef Pete Evans was fined $25,000 by the countrys Therapeutic Goods Administration this year after making outlandish online claims about a device he invented called a Biocharger. Evans was charging $14,000 for the wellness platform, which he claimed was programmed with a thousand different recipes and theres a couple in there for the Wuhan coronavirus. The idea seeps into the echo chambers of YouTube and Instagram, but isnt confined to social media influencers: former Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson joined in as well.

David Gorski, M.D., an oncologist and editor at Science-Based Medicine, says the notion that diet can prevent or treat illness is nothing new. The idea that diet can somehow magically enhance the immune system so that we never (or almost never) get sick is a very old alternative medicine fantasy that takes a grain of truth and then vastly exaggerates it.

This kind of dietary dogma is often devoid of the scientific nuance that pervades modern immunology, especially in light of COVID-19s recent emergence and our evolving understanding of the virus.

Dr. David Robert Grimes, a cancer researcher, physicist, and author of The Irrational Ape, builds on that point, saying: dietary zealots often make vague statements about protecting ones immune system, but this is at best a truism and at worst mindless. He explained to Lifehacker that this thinking showcases a complete lack of understanding about immunology.

According to Grimes:

Boosting your immune system is often the last thing you want to do; ask anyone with an allergy, being attacked by their own immune system, for example. During Spanish flu, young healthy people died disproportionately because their immune system over-reacted. Not only do diet evangelists give too much credit to diets ability to modulate immune response, they fail to understand any subtlety whatsoever with it.

Its important to note that many of those who preach the dietary gospel are entrepreneurs or authors in their own right. Saladino peddles dietary supplements in addition to his book; an anonymous meat evangelist who goes by @KetoAurelius on Twitter sells beef liver strips along with a hyper-masculine mantra that lauds the supremacy of beef while casting doubt on the severity of the pandemic.

The appeal of healthy eating makes sense as a tantalizing alternative to the uncertainty posed by government-mandated lockdowns, school closures, and the economic calamity wrought by COVID in the face of paltry fiscal stimulus from the federal government. After all, changing your diet is relatively easy, and wouldnt it be great if all it takes is some moderate self-discipline to make a world of difference?

There is an alluring prospect here. It allows anyone who subscribes to this logic to believe theyre equipped with unspoken knowledge that the mainstream medical community is actively ignoring. According to Grimes, the notion gives [people] a sense of power and well-being: they know the causes and cures to disease, and thus they are effectively impervious to them. This sense of control is entirely illusory, but it often flatters the believers ego.

But consciously, or not, theres an implicit level of victim-blaming that necessarily comes with this kind of individualist approachthat whoever succumbs to COVID-19 must have been doing something wrong.

Gorski says theres a definite blame the victim vibe to these claims. They imply that its the victims fault if he dies of COVID-19 because he didnt eat right or live right. Of course, that leaves out the fact that the biggest risk factors for severe COVID-19 are unalterable: being male and increasing age.

Gorski points out that making individual dietary changes can, in fact, bode enormously positive results in terms of increasing overall metabolic health in the long term, but those lifestyle adjustments often take a huge amount of time.

He tells Lifehacker:

Its possible that by becoming less obese or by partially reversing type II diabetes or heart disease with diet, weight loss, and exercise, one might decrease ones risk of death from COVID-19, but that doesnt help NOW. Such interventions take months to years, not days to weeks.

While youre not going to be able to personally eradicate the spread of misinformation (thats an ongoing job for tech companies), you can equip yourself with enough to recognize all of its hallmarks: it often offers a reductive, quick-fix approach to a multi-faceted dilemma, valorizes individual efforts to protect themselves, sells various lifestyle products, and traffics in inflammatory rhetoric about the current slate of tools used to keep people safe in a pandemic.

See more here:

You Can't Beat COVID-19 With Diet, No Matter What the Internet Tells You - Lifehacker

Jordan Graham's supernatural horror film interweaves home video footage and occult testimonials from his own grandmother.

Don't ever let anyone tell you there's no original ideas in horror anymore. Sator, a new indie chill-festwritten, directed, produced, edited, scored, andshot by Jordan Graham, blends the foggy deep-woods supernatural horror of The Witch with his family's real-life accounts of the occultincluding actual testimonials from his grandmother,June Petersonto create a singularly unique horror hybrid.Below, we're hyped to exclusively bring you the Sator trailer in all its tension-building glory.

The film follows a man named Adam, recently rocked by a mysterious death in the family, who delves into the history of an insidious presence known as Sator that he believes has been stalking his bloodline for centuries. The script, based on Graham's actual family and their claims of making contact with Sator over the years, blends its narrative fiction with haunting home video footage and Peterson's real recollections.

Sator is quite personal to me, Graham said. It delves into my familys dark history with mental illness surrounding a supernatural entity, and uses home video footage to create an interwoven piece between documentary and fiction.

Check out the trailer below, followed by the film's official poster. Sator will debut on VOD on February 9, 2021. The film also starsMichael Daniel, Aurora Lowe, Gabriel Nicholson, and Rachel Johnson.

-

Here is the official synopsis for Sator:

Secluded in a desolate forest home to little more than the decaying remnants of the past, a broken family is further torn apart by a mysterious death. Adam, guided by a pervasive sense of dread, hunts for answers only to learn that they are not alone; an insidious presence by the name of Sator has been observing his family, subtly influencing all of them for years in an attempt to claim them.

Let's hope this one stays above water.

Vinnie Mancuso is a Senior Editor at Collider, where he is in charge of all things related to the 2018 film 'Aquaman,' among other things. You can also find his pop culture opinions on Twitter (@VinnieMancuso1) or being shouted out a Jersey City window between 4 and 6 a.m.

Continued here:

Sator Trailer Reveals a Deeply Horrifying Hybrid of Fiction and Fact - Collider

A woman holds a QAnon sign as reopen protesters demonstrate at the capitol in Salem, Ore., on May 2, 2020. Governor Kate Brown announced a plan yesterday that could see some parts of the state reopen by May 15. (Photo by Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

Want the best of VICE News straight to your inbox? Sign up here.

When Tom and his 27-year-old brother go back to their parents home in the Midwest for Thanksgiving and Christmas now, all they do is fight about QAnon.

Toms brother, who was his high schools valedictorian, experienced a specific incident at his liberal arts college that sent him down the rabbit hole. The president of a social justice club apparently spray-painted a swastika on campus to generate controversyand thus, more funding to his group.

Suddenly, everything became a conspiracy.

That event seemed to resonate with him, and I didn't really think much of it at the time, but in retrospect it was probably the beginning of his descent into the alt-right and conspiracy theories, Tom, 25, who didnt want to give his last name, told VICE News.

At first, Tom says, his brother became obsessed with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Then, he embraced PizzaGate, a theory that emerged in late 2016 linking Hillary Clinton to a child trafficking ring headquartered at a Washington, D.C., pizzeria, despite having voted for her. Finally, Toms brother pledged his allegiance to Q.

Unfortunately, through all this argument and debate, I've probably done more harm than good, Tom said. He's deeper than ever now, and it's strained our relationship. My brother, and I suspect all terminally Q-brained people, are 100% impervious to logic and reasoning.

As the 2020 holiday season approaches, the number of people sitting down to dinner with family and friends who are believers in QAnon has increased dramatically over previous years. QAnon has thrived during the global pandemic, boosted by delayed action from internet companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. The conspiracy movement has also managed to insinuate itself into otherslike 5G and anti-vaxxas well as piggyback on real campaigns such as Save the Children.

Unfortunately, through all this argument and debate, I've probably done more harm than good.

The result is that millions of Americans now believe Donald Trump is fighting a secret war against the deep state to uncover a cannibalistic child sex trafficking network run by the Democrats and Hollywood elite. Its a conspiracy pushed by Q, an anonymous poster on the fringe website 8kun who claims to be a government insider with top secret clearance.

While some like Tom may believe its futile to try to confront QAnon believers, experts say the holidays present the perfect opportunity for family and friends to intervene.

People who are into QAnon, they're often very deep down the rabbit hole, and they have withdrawn away from conventional sources of information like the mainstream media and even other people, so this almost-forced interaction with you might be the only chance that they have to get out in this particular timeframe, so you want to nurture that, Mick West, a conspiracy-theory debunker and author of Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect, told VICE News.

Most importantly, he says, take your time and dont rush into a conversation without having at least a basic understanding of what QAnon is all about.

It's very, very easy to say the wrong thing, or to take the wrong tack, and they're just gonna shut down and get angry with you, West said. So, youve got to do it with kid gloves and proceed carefully.

QAnon is just the latest in a litany of conspiracy theories and cults that have taken over and ruined peoples lives, but the movement has a unique quality that creates a complex and ever-changing narrative, which is much harder to counter than traditional conspiracies, whose foundational beliefs rarely change. That also allows QAnon to spread much faster because followers can pick and choose the aspects of the conspiracy that resonate with them, allowing them to avoid much of the hardcore beliefs, such as the existence of a group of elites running a Satanic, global, cannibalistic sex trafficking ring.

What is really, categorically different is that I was recruited in 1974 by women flirting with me in person, and what we're seeing with QAnon is an online recruitment and indoctrination regime, Steve Hassan, a cult deprogrammer who has dedicated his life to freeing people from cults after joining the Moonies in the 70s, a religious movement that brainwashed adherents to abandon their families and give over their lives and money to the church.

The online indoctrination process has been supercharged by social media algorithms designed to prioritize engagement, a technique that leads to increased radicalization, on platforms like YouTube in particular.

Tom says his brothers rapid descent into conspiracy theories was aided by a litany of familiar right-wing names on YouTube, including Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, the Corbett Report, and Tim Pool. While these figures dont necessarily support QAnon, they have proven to be gateways to more extreme content pushed by YouTubes algorithm.

But putting an exact figure on how many people follow QAnon is difficult, especially as many people identify with only the more acceptable aspects of the cult, such as saving children from pedophiles. An internal Facebook investigation in August, reported by NBC, found that QAnon groups on the platform had millions of members, while a survey by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue conducted in September found that as much as 10% of the U.S. population believed in at least some aspects of the conspiracy.

QAnon is also constructed like a game, with Q repeating the mantra research for yourself dozens of times in his cryptic updates. That structure leads followers to find their own interpretations, a technique experts say reinforces whatever conclusions they drawand makes it difficult to reason with them.

Instead, experts recommend empathy and engaging on a personal level with believers, as a way to rebuild trust and restart communication. By focusing on how QAnon began and the persons personal relationship to the cult, rather than trying to unpack the latest twist and turn of the conspiracy theory, family members can begin to engage with their relations and ensure they feel heard and understood.

The key here is to get them to listen to you and not just assume that you don't know anything about what's going on, so you can show them that you do know something. Then that gives you a much better foundation for actually moving forward, West said.

November 2, 2020 - Avoca, PA, United States: Man wearing a t-shirt with the QAnon symbol at a rally for President Donald Trump's reelection at Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport. (Photo by Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

The game-like nature also brings a community aspect to the conspiracy. Everyone works together to try to solve the latest cryptic message left by Q on the fringe website 8kun. The structure allows hardcore followers to bond over a shared passion, with the solutions then presented to a wider audience through mainstream channels like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Puzzle-solving is a special way to learn, and it encodes information into the brain in a different way than other learning, Reed Berkowitz, a game designer, wrote recently in an analysis of QAnons game-like structure.

And putting the onus on followers to come to their own conclusions instills a natural distrust for society and the competency of others.

While trying to keep up with the ever-changing narrative of QAnon is virtually impossible, understanding the core beliefs of the movement and the main figures is vital, so that you can ask informed questions that wont trigger an angry reaction.

[Ask] how they first learned about it, what made sense to them, and also what didn't make sense to them, and ask them questions about how their beliefs have shifted, especially if they've been involved over time, because QAnon keeps morphing, West said.

But sometimes, the only way people know how to intervene is to take dramatic action to help their loved ones.

Eight years ago, George Finchers stepdad retired from the Marines and moved to a tiny, rural village in North Devon in the U.K. to become a farmer. He also started to get into conspiracy theories.

When Fincher, 25, and his family dismissed his theories, the 63-year-old turned to Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson, before stumbling across 4chan and opening an account.

Then it was a hop, skip, and jump away until he was a full-blown Qultist and Donald Trump was the Second Coming of the messiah, Fincher told VICE News. He really became an angry bastard after that.

Fincher confronted his stepdad about the conspiracies he was spreading, arguments that descended into shouting matches and name-calling. Fincher even studied message boards like 4chan and 8kun to try to show how the so-called evidence was being manipulated.

But none of this worked. So Fincher and his mum did the only thing they could think of.

It got to the point where my mum just turned the internet off and said that if he turns it back on again and starts looking at his conspiracies, then she'd leave him and he'd be left on his own, Fincher said.

But turning off the internet isnt a cure-allnor a solution that would work for most families.

Finchers stepfather continued to talk about QAnon even after the internet was cut off, and during the coronavirus lockdown in the U.K. earlier this year, he continued to spiral.

He got incredibly aggressive. It never led to violence, but when you have an angry old man, who has been trained to kill, get aggressive, then that's not exactly a friendly home environment.

Its simply impossible to stop people speaking about their beliefs, so if the QAnon believer in your family brings up the subject, experts recommend hearing them out.

If the believer starts wanting to proselytize, be polite and listen, and ask questions in a nonconfrontational, non-judgmental way, Hassan said, pointing out that the way QAnon followers are portrayed in the media has made it harder for them to be deprogrammed.

The media keeps saying how crazy it is, how stupid it is, and they are encouraging this narrative that people believe in QAnon are crazy or stupid, and I think that's a big part of the problem.

But maybe the most important thing to remember is that any effort made this holiday season is the beginning of a process that will take a long time to succeed. And throughout it all, family and friends need to remember that the person they knew is still in there, just hiding behind the QAnon personality.

It's not a one-time interaction process; it has to be incremental over time, Hasan said. That's why family members and friends are the best agents to effect change over time, because they can also say, Hey, I grew up with you, we used to play basketball together. Do you remember? That brings up warm feelings and your real self, not your cult self.

Link:

How to Talk to Your QAnon Family During the Holidays - VICE

How do you measure freedom of speech? Its not a rhetorical question, though it is a timely one. According to think tank Civitas, the University of Cambridge along with 35 per cent of UK universities now falls into the red category for free speech.

Analysing campus policy, events and a survey, wherein nearly a third of staff reported workplace harassment and bullying, the results of Civitass traffic light ranking just 14 per cent of universities were designated green are enough to make a libertarian squeal. The issue of quantifying something we perceive to be a fundamental right is, once again, making headlines but surely, free speech will be defined differently depending on who youre asking.

Its a problem as old as language itself. My freedom to do or speak as I please can never be absolute if yours is to be total, too. My right to insult you undermines your freedom not to have your feelings hurt. Every system of law strives to balance these conflicting liberties, charting Venn diagrams with varying degrees of mutual reliance between their circles. The Cambridge row, it seems to me, is no different.

One example cited by Civitass researchers involves a eugenicist and a pretty window. The commemorative glass was commissioned in 1989 to honour the legacy of one Sir Ronald Fisher, a fellow (and eventually president) of Cambridges Gonville and Caius College, who died in 1962. Students petitioned the college to remove the window, and, in June this year, the powers-that-be obliged.

Far from striking cold fear into my heart, that story makes me happy. Isnt objecting to something, talking it out and reaching an agreement, completely emblematic of how free speech ought to work?

Theres a dangerous little platitude floating to the surface of my mind, thinking of Fisher and the hoo-ha of his desecrated shrine. You know the one: everyones beliefs deserve respect. That is so patently untrue that I practically convulse when I hear it. Heres a very short extract from a very long list of people whose beliefs, Id venture, do not deserve respect: eugenicists; men who think they can beat their wives; members of the KKK or Britain First; homophobes and cult leaders; and that guy I met at a party who explained hed voted for Brexit because there was a Polish person working at his local Costa. In short, something doesnt become sacred simply because it is sincerely believed, and just because something is sacred doesnt make it any more than a belief.

Lets say that Person A believes trans rights activists are dangerous and wrong. Trans rights activists, on the other hand, believe that Person As views are harmful and reductive. Youll have your own stance on that imaginary stand-off but subtracting personal feeling from the equation, were left with two viewpoints, which would fight to the death if left to their own devices. Should we strive instead for peaceful(ish) coexistence or allow one to triumph a kind of Darwinian showdown of thought?

The dons at Cambridge raised a similar point, voting earlier this month to amend the phrase respectful of to tolerate in a series of updates to free speech rules proposed by the universitys council. Although the switch in terminology might not sound like a leap, the distinction is a crucial one not least because it renders no-platforming practically impossible, for all its prominence in Civitass report.

While the recent news cycle might lead one to believe that no-platforming was hauled from the knapsack of the radical left only a few years ago, its been used as a form of protest since the 1970s. At the 1974 NUS conference, for instance, students resolved to deny a platform to openly racist or fascist organisations or societies in response to the rising profile of the National Front.

While the criteria for such no-platforming has arguably shifted since then, the essential idea remains the same. Especially in an educational environment, surely the right to object to ideas comes under the same banner as the right to have those ideas in the first place? This latest vote might be summarised as you dont have to be nice, just dont veer into hate speech as an instruction to visiting speakers. But again, isnt it subjective? Take Jordan Peterson and Nigel Farage, who both fell prey to the brutal no-platforming brigade of Cambridge before the recent vote. Today, in theory, theyd be welcome but fairs fair. If were hosting the Nigels and Jordans of this world, theyll have to accept a bit of backchat.

Not all ideas are created equal. Some come encased in a carapace built over centuries of repetition that almost obscure them from view the patriarchy, or institutional racism, are so monolithic that its hard to step back far enough to recognise them as ideas like any other, rather than representations of some sacred natural order. Other ideas are new, vulnerable, soft and fledgling rights for anyone not white and/or male are concepts in their societal infancy, and require our careful nurture. They need us to shout louder on their behalf, if only to counterbalance the scales, which place an established system of thought on one pan and a feather on the other.

A spokesperson for Cambridge University says that rigorous debate is fundamental to the pursuit of academic excellence, which is hard to object to; whether that commitment to debate ought to cover the view that some opinions dont deserve a public airing seems less clear. The university will always be a place where freedom of speech is not only protected, but strongly encouraged, continues the statement; thing is, speaking requires spates of listening if its to graduate from monologue to conversation.

The Civitas report will no doubt reignite the old guards accusations of snowflakery See?! They got rid of my favourite eugenics window! but, as ever, the hysteria about woke censorship sheds light on the debates truly fragile side. The freedom to speak, Im afraid, must make room for the possibility of being spoken over.

Read this article:

Freedom of speech at universities is not under threat it is actually thriving - The Independent

Article content continued

Lets put aside the debate as to whether COVID will take a Christmas break, but instead focus on the application of select rules and privileges to certain groups. When Premier Legault says, to get through the pandemic we need the strength of our families and that family is the basis of our lives, does he include Jewish families, who already sacrificed Passover, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur among other gatherings, in this group? What about Hindus, Sikhs, and Jains, who scaled back or cancelled Diwali celebrations; or Muslims who similarly forwent Eid and Ramadan; and African Americans who will have to curtail Kwanzaa? And, Ill give you 10-to-one odds that Chinese New Year celebrations will not be permitted as well.

Shouldnt all groups have to sacrifice equally? Shouldnt rights and responsibilities be an all or none proposition? Dont all people, regardless of their cultural background, need the same ties of family to get through this difficult period? Well, according to Premiere Legault, we say no.

Jonathan Goldman, Montreal

Re: Archive those Trumpists before its too late!, and other thoughts on the U.S. election, Rex Murphy, Nov. 13

In the 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump received almost 74 million votes. Thats more votes than any other presidential candidate in U.S. history, except for one. (Joe Biden received more than 80 million.) So what lesson will the Democratic Party learn from this? Will they conclude, along with people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that almost 74 million of their fellow citizens are ignorant morons; or even worse, deplorable profiteers who deserve to be blacklisted? Or will they conclude that people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have no place in the Democratic Party?

Read more:

Letters to the editor: Jordan Peterson's publisher mustn't give an inch to 'wokeflakes' - National Post

Around Thanksgiving, many of us try to pause and reflect on the things we are grateful for in our lives.

Gratitude doesnt come easy for humans, but on the fourth Thursday in November many of us do our best to try to be grateful, at least for this one day of the year.

There are many things for which Im grateful. We live during a time noteworthy for its peace and plenty, both of which are remarkable compared to any other period in human history. Im grateful for the good health I enjoy today and the relative lack of suffering Ive had to endure in more than four decades on this earth. In my personal life, Im thankful for the friends and family who have given me so much, and for a devoted wife who has given me three healthy children, and much more.

Its good to be grateful for such things, I think, but last night it occurred to me I was also missing something. My daughter had just finally fallen asleep, and I was re-reading Jordan Petersons book 12 Rules for Life on the floor. (We read books together at bedtime.)

Someone had remarked to me recently that Peterson talks about gratitude in the books second chapter, Treat Yourself Like Someone You Are Responsible for Helping. Sure enough, near the end of the chapter Peterson mentions a miracle of life he feels a profound, dumbfounded gratitude for: the persistence of humans in severe pain to continue bearing lifes burdens.

It is they, Peterson argues, who hold society together through little more than grit and tenacious spirit.

Most individuals are dealing with one or more serious health problems while going productively about their business, Peterson writes.

If anyone is fortunate enough to be in a rare period of grace and health, personally, then he or she typically has at least one close family member in crisis, he continues. Yet people prevail and continue to do difficult and effortless tasks to hold themselves and their families and society together.

Its easy to forget the number of people in pain in this world. By the nature of his profession, Peterson, a clinical psychologist, is more aware than most of the pain humans endure.

What shocks Peterson, and makes him profoundly grateful, is the masses of suffering people who do not give in to despairbut instead continue to bear responsibility despite the slings and arrows of life.

People are so tortured by the limitations and constraints of Being that I am amazed they ever act properly or look beyond themselves at all, Peterson writes. But enough do so that we have central heat and running water and infinite computational power and electricity and enough for everyone to eat and even the capacity to contemplate the fate of broader society and nature, terrible nature, itself.

"All that complex machinery that protects us from freezing and starving and dying from lack of water tends unceasingly towards malfunction through entropy, and it is only the constant attention of careful people that keeps it working so unbelievably well, he continues. Some people degenerate into the hell of resentment and the hatred of Being, but most refuse to do so, despite their suffering and disappointments and losses and inadequacies and ugliness, and again that is a miracle for those with the eyes to see it.

In a sense, this is the flip side of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rands popular 1957 magnum opus on individualism and capitalism. Rand saw the Atlases of the world as the productive entrepreneurs who worked tirelessly to create value despite looters seeking to steal the fruits of their labor.

The Atlases of the world, as Peterson sees it, are the millions and millions of faceless people who persevere in the face of adversity and suffering that would drive so many to despair.

This is why people must treat themselves like someone they are responsible for helping. We must care for ourselves so we can bear the burden and suffering that life will inevitably inflict upon us, Peterson argues.

You need to consider the future and think, 'What might my life look like if I were caring for myself properly? What career would challenge me and render me productive and helpful, so that I could shoulder my share of the load, and enjoy the consequences? What should I be doing, when I have some freedom, to improve my health, expand my knowledge, and strengthen my body?'

Heaven, Peterson explains, will not arrive on its own. And if we fail to strengthen ourselves, we may find its opposite here on earth.

So this Thanksgiving, I can only express my deepest thanks to all the people who continue to persevere despite the chaos and pain, who refuse to succumb to despair, resentment, envy, and cruelty.

You, too, are the Atlases of this worldparticularly during this season of despair and suffering.

See original here:

Why Jordan Peterson's Message on Gratitude Is More Important Than Ever | Jon Miltimore - Foundation for Economic Education

So when a writer is on the nose what do you? The issue arose this week when it was reported that staff at Penguin Random House in Canada had objected to the local arm of the worlds largest publisher handling the latest book, Beyond Order, by psychologist Jordan Peterson because of his popularity in far-right circles.

Credit:

The Peterson kerfuffle comes after staff at Hachette in the US objected to publication of Woody Allens memoir and a Perth bookstore refused to stock the Harry Potter novels after author J.K. Rowling was slammed on social media for her views on transgender people.

And it comes not long after Pan Macmillan took pre-emptive action by dumping chef and alternative-health advocate Pete Evans: Those views are not our views as a company or the views of our staff. Book chain Dymocks followed suit by recommending to its franchisees that they return their stock.

Henry Rosenbloom, publisher at Scribe, says as he deals with serious non-fiction he is happy to handle books that he disagrees with. It is an essential part of our democracy, but they have to be well argued and not just fantasy. I have published people a long way to the right of me and Scribes position. I like publishing contrarians, offering new interpretations, historical revision and political arguments.

But he is uncertain what he would do if he were presented with a book by someone such as Peterson. The staff would have significant influence in any decision, he said. In the end, it would boil down to whether it would be morally acceptable to publish the views of a particularly controversial figure.

Mr Rosenbloom says a publisher couldnt take on a book such as Allens if the staff was strongly opposed. Like titles Mr Rosenbloom has rejected, Allens was later published by another house. There are legitimate arguments to be had about his behaviour, but hes entitled to tell his story.

And there is nothing wrong with a publishing house having a particular position or character provided it is authentic. Mr Rosenbloom says as a publisher Scribe has been warning of global warming since the late 1980s so he would never publish a climate-change denier.

The problem for big booksellers such as Dymocks is that there is a disconnect between what is stocked on its shelves and what is available on its website. Titles available online amount to many millions and the sites are automatically updated by data feeds. So although Dymocks might, say, be careful to stock only a carefully annotated edition of Hitlers Mein Kampf, there may be other editions on the website.

Rejecting titles grates with Readings managing director Mark Rubbo, although he agreed about those by Evans because of his use of neo-Nazi imagery.

A lot of my younger staff feel quite strongly about certain books. My argument is were not censors; were selling books to adults. We do have discussions but as a bookseller its about an exchange of ideas. With cancel culture we are getting more pressure, but if a book seems terribly unsuitable we wont go out of our way to shout about it to the rafters.

Should the industry be worried as a consequence of the recent flare-ups? Ms Inglis thinks not.

Were talking a lot more about them because of the impact of social media, people can communicate much more easily and make their feelings known. We always want to back stories that are good even if we dont necessarily agree with them. But when it comes to something thats dangerous, thats a different kettle of fish.

Jason Steger is Books Editor at The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald

Read more from the original source:

Publish and be damned. Don't publish and be damned - Sydney Morning Herald

He became an icon to some and an effigy to others for suggesting that dominance hierarchies are as old as evolution. This is where the lobsters come in. Peterson uses their territorial and mating habits as an archetype of the behaviours that play out across different species, including humanity. He urges readers not to behave like a defeated lobster, but to change their habits to literally stand up straight to create a positive feedback loop that will improve their brain chemistry and set them on the path of success.

Among the most surprisingly controversial of Petersons recommendations is the idea that you should clean up your own room. It seems he hit a raw nerve with activists when he added: I dont know how you can protest the entire economic structure of the world if you cant keep your room organised.

Loading

It is interesting to contrast the reaction to Peterson with the reaction to another book Penguin released the same year as 12 Rules. Robin DiAngelos White Fragility has triggered no anguish within staff ranks. It is also a type of self-help book, which encourages white people to see everything through a prism of race in order to become actively anti-racist. DiAngelos central point, that we are often blind to the structures we are socialised into, is sound. She argues that, as a consequence of this socialisation, white people cant help being racist. It seems she knows a lot of people who recite anti-racist mantras but have never engaged with the intrinsic and extrinsic barriers to change. She therefore takes this hypocrisy to be typical of all white people and charges companies up to $US30,000 a session to lecture their employees on it.

That is not to say she is insincere. DiAngelos personal anecdotes repeatedly describe situations in which she has behaved badly toward black people in her life, or had racist thoughts. She seeks atonement for her own racism in foisting a very Catholic concept of the indelible stain of whiteness on those who are Caucasian by birth or have been conferred honorary whiteness by virtue of their success as a race. Mind you, the idea she perpetuates of whiteness as equated with success is a pernicious piece of racism in itself. For what its worth, DiAngelo is Jewish.

So the great irony of these two self-help books is that their authors seem to need them most. But neither seem particularly helped by the insights in their defining tomes. Granted, Robin DiAngelo has faired better, taking in tens of thousands consulting fees off the back of her bestseller, while Peterson spiralled into anxiety and dependence following the release of his.

Loading

Nonetheless, they have made a big impact in the Western world. Contrasting the theses of the books offers us a window into the new political alignments taking form. If Petersons core thesis is we must fix ourselves, DiAngelos thesis is we must fix other people.

This perhaps explains why the authors have been labelled conservative and progressive respectively, or at least why people identifying with these classifications gravitate towards the author with whom they perceive themselves as aligning. Penguin junior staff are drawn to the notion of fixing a radicalised father or protecting a non-binary friend from being negatively affected.

Mervyn Griffith-Jones, the barrister who led the prosecution of Penguin over the publication of Lady Chatterleys Lover, would have approved. As he announced in his opening statement, the novel was not something "you would even wish your wife or servants to read.

This notion that we must guard the supposedly feeble-minded and less educated under our protection from ideas that might lead them into dissent from our own worldview sits comfortably with the demands of the Penguin activists. The circle of history is almost complete; both the publisher and the lobster might be surprised at the side of history theyve ended up occupying.

Parnell Palme McGuinness is managing director, strategy and policy, at strategic communications firm Agenda C.

Parnell Palme McGuinness is managing director of Agenda C.

Read more:

The ghost of Lady Chatterley's lover protecting today's feeble-minded - Sydney Morning Herald