Hacker News Reader

Comment by api | Hacker News Reader

Alt-right vs. "SJW" left posts get flagged around here. Usually I agree and one of the reasons I hang around here is to stay away from that whole scorpion fight.

Personally I view both as two sides of the same coin. Both the alt-right and the social justice left are totalitarian, intolerant, and intellectually shallow. I find their argumentative styles, emotional reactivity, and style of engagement with the larger culture to be strikingly similar to the point that I see them as different manifestations of some underlying social or psychological disorder.

I actually used "vouch" on this one, which I rarely do, because it's interesting and a bit more substantial than the usual fare.

View on HN

This notion that the Alt-right is just another side of the coin is, I think, a misdirection. In fact I think the whole Alt-right label is entirely arbitrary and doing a significant amount of harm by polarizing the discussion. Black and white representations of the world leave us confused and frustrated.

Truth is the world is complex. We're dealing with multi-variate problems to use JBP's term. The societal benefits of free speech and open dialog are harmed by polarization. Reductionist generalizations pollute truth with doubt. Our societal discussions should be liquid and multi-dimensional.

Though Peterson is often characterized as alt-right, I think that's quite unfair. He's often grossly mistaken about things, but doesn't believe in bigotry, nationalism, etc..

I'm not sure if he makes the leap, but it's not hard to go from his soft biological determinism to "well then this is the way things should be." For example if women "don't want tough careers" then it follows that claims of discrimination by women can be dismissed as without merit.

I do definitely see him as an apologist for aspects of the status quo. That being said that does not mean I'm a fan of all his detractors. There's a totalitarian strain of liberalism I don't much like either.

Also... his Twitter feed contains enough alt-right material for me to see him as at least sympathetic.

I haven't seen his twitter feed, granted.

To your first point, to make that leap would be to conflate "is" and "ought". Yes, many people do make that error, but you can't accuse him of doing it when others do.

The is/ought issue is one of the core philosophical issues under the surface here. It goes to the heart of what it means to be a liberal (broadly defined) or a conservative.

To be a conservative is to tend toward deriving "ought" from "is," or at least skepticism toward attempts to change the status quo.

Sure, but you can't accuse him of doing this unless he actually makes these arguments.

Doing so equates to the same fallacy that intelligent design adherents make, which is that since evolution yields ugly, selfish behavior, it must be wrong, or at least we should keep our mouths shut abou tit. Peterson is just pointing out how things are, not how we should design our policies.

I think he should probably be more responsible in qualifying his statements to prevent his simple minded followers from jumping to the wrong conclusions, but that's about as strong of an indictment as I think one could make against him, at least in this context.

There are no arguments or talking points in the interview that are specific to the collectivist alt-right. Peterson is clearly an anti-authoritarian individualist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com