Over the years, Jordan Peterson has gotten more and more aggressive and polarizing. I suspect that social media attention has been a huge influence, because the new Jordan Peterson (NJP) sounds like the old Jordan Peterson's (OJP's) loud aggressive clickbaity twin. Where OJP might have written an academic paper for other scientists, or delivered an hour-long carefully-thought-out lecture, NJP sends an angry tweet full of insults.
For example, after losing a court battle against the College of Psychologists of Ontario, he talked about it as such: "Don't bloody well lecture me ... some dimwit judge with a liberal bias did ... lecturing me about taking responsibility for what I say." I highly recommend watching the video. The tone is also part of the message: https://youtu.be/M5PESEbY_H0?t=74
Or when in December 2021, the Prime Minister of Canada tweeted this to encourage people to get a booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (keeping in mind that there were at no point any mandates for boosters, this was purely an attempt at advertising the fact that booster doses were available and recommended by the healthcare professionals):
> Justin Trudeau: "If you’re taking care of some last-minute Christmas shopping this week, here’s something else you can add to your list: a booster. If you’re eligible for one but haven’t gotten it yet, please, do so now. And if you don’t have your first or second dose, now’s the time to get it."
NJP replied to the tweet as such:
> NJP: "Up yours @JustinTrudeau. Seriously. You'd have to kill me first."
I cannot imagine OJP saying any of these things with this tone and this level of imprudence. OJP was generally cerebral, intellectual, academic, deep, calm, polite. He was a well-respected academic through and through.
NJP, on the other hand, is irritable, imprudent, aggressive, abrasive, impulsive, rude. He is a sensationalist yelling pundit through and through.
Yes, that's precisely why I don't like him, thank you for articulating it so clearly! I want to compel the people around me to speak a certain way, and I have built an identity around that, and Peterson's cutting social commentary shakes me to my core.
For the things he says. I'd encourage you to look for criticism of him online. He his the obligatory subject of plenty of video essayist on Youtube, it's kind of a meme at this point.
He has been widely criticized by legal scholars for misrepresenting the Canadian Bill C-16, which extends the human rights act to cover transgendered people. Peterson, a clinical psychologist, claimed that it would compel speech.
This is probably what the article is referring to. Before the incident Peterson was a respected academic psychologist, but was widely criticized for his amateur legal analysis of C-16. He has since continued to ruin his reputation by making transphobic tweets about Elliot Page, body shaming the plus sized model Yumi Nu, climate change denial, and generally expressing right wing views on a range of issues.
In your opinion, would it be a misrepresentation to say that C-16 makes it easier to fine employers that refuse to use employee pronouns for harassment?
>He just seemed to say sort of "be a decent person and work hard".
We live in a world where even that statement is controversial.
There is a zeitgeist of re-engineering society. Peterson and his tired schtick of "just keep doing the things that were successful for previous generations" interferes. It is unwanted.
I've only briefly heard him, but why is he so polarizing? He just seemed to say sort of "be a decent person and work hard".