Why Jordan Peterson?

"Why Jordan Peterson?". A few minutes after I posted an Instagram story of my visit to Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's tour, I received this message from a friend. "He is anti-diversity, and you are a minority living in a foreign country!". This message reminds me, again, of how our mind nowadays prioritizes political stances and emotion-triggering labels that shield us from useful information in our surroundings. Thus, I intend to use this blog to communicate the reason why I choose to approach Peterson, and why he is valuable to us.

Part I: Why I Admire CERTAIN PARTS of Jordan Peterson

I got to know of Peterson when I was attending my community college in 2018. A close friend sent me the link to his debate with a feminist TV host. It's worth noting that I didn't possess a political stance of any kind (in fact, even now I don't either). I literally had to google "what is a leftist/rightist" after learning Peterson was tangled with several political controversies. Now come to think of it, I'm actually glad that was the case, so I was able to perceive his materials from a completely neutral standpoint. I remember my first impression was liking how he was unbelievably knowledgeable: always being able to back up his claims with scientific studies and draw references from different domains such as philosophy, literature, religion, and so on. I also admired his boldness and his persistence to get to the root of an argument: this showed me that he cared about the truth, whether it's ugly or not.

Finally, there is a sense of genuineness in his character. His questioning and reasoning convey that he prioritizes communicating his thought and shedding light on where an argument could be flawed; more importantly, he does this without actively using contempt and belittling to create a show. This contrast, for example, Ben Shapiro's character. I have watched countless clips of Shapiro "bringing down" audiences that raise a different point of view. His acts of smirking and using the speed of his speech to build up the "mic-drop" moments indicate that a considerable part of his character enjoys painting a show for his followers. Not surprisingly, a lot of Americans buy that. In this individualistic culture, people worship that image of the beast that tears down its enemies. People enjoy feeling like the audience in an arena, seeing gladiators fight to their death. People indulge in the euphoria when they see the on-stage bloodshed. Consequently, people habitually attribute the roles of "the hero" and the "anti-hero" to every scenario; conflicting voices always have to turn into a fight that involves a winner and a loser. Shapiro cleverly uses this culture, while Peterson places much more emphasis on the original subject that he aims to deliver. This is why I have invested much more time in listening to Peterson: he is less driven by the desire to stir up emotions to please his audience; he is much more of a scholar than an entertainer.

To sum up, my fondness for CERTAIN PARTS of Peterson's character is based on a long-term, politics-free evaluation. Paying attention to him does not make me a blind worshipper. When I digest his words, I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal; I listen as someone who is interested in how a strong claim can be crafted, how to explore a topic in a rational manner, how to interpret an argument from different standpoints, and how the dots from different field of knowledge can be connected.

Part II: The Woke Dynasty

In The Hunger Games: Mocking Jay Part II, the tyrannical Capital ruled by president Snow was torn down, and President Coin became the successive leader of the new Panem. However, behind her promises to restore equality and freedom was a sugar-coated plan for tyranny: Katniss soon found out that toward the end of the war, Coin posed as president Snow and bombed the innocent at the front line, so Snow's troops would fully turn against him; even after the Capital was overthrown, she called for a vote to hold yet another hunger game, this time using the children of the Capital leaders as tributes; she even requested Katniss to execute President Snow in front of the public eye, hoping this symbolic gesture will legitimize her image for the new Panem.

On the day of the execution, Snow is tied to a stake at the public square, while Coin stands above on her podium. Katniss aimed her arrow at Snow but decided to let it fly through Coin's heart. She was saving the people from another tyrant - one who is even more malevolent than Snow.

The Woke culture we are in has some resemblance to Coin's scheme of ruling the new Panem. Politicians and influencers have learned to use labels such as "love", "freedom", "diversity", and "be yourself" as a backstage pass to our brain. We've seen many cases of people questioning or contradicting the Woke culture being "executed" by the social justice warriors. If you question obesity, you are fatphobic; if you don't admit the identity that transgender claims, you are transphobic; if you agree that there is even a slight difference between men and women, you are a sexist. As we are constantly exposed to these ideas, not only do more people start to associate them with so-called "justice" and "freedom", but they also (intentionally or unintentionally) become habituated to using these labels propagated by the Woke culture as camouflage for irrationality. If you are obese, you now have a reason to keep being irresponsible about your health, because "you are beautiful the way you are". If you are a woman, you now have an excuse for incompetencies because "I can't achieve my goals because our society is built on patriarchy".

I find the immune system of the physical body an accurate analogy for this self-sustaining phenomenon created by the Woke culture. The Woke culture has glamoured many people into becoming the "white blood cells" that destroy any disturbance to its "harmony"; since Woke has become part of their body (identity), anyone who voices their concern triggers an automatic response of the Woke mob; they immediately label them as "antidiversity", "conservatives", and other names; brain-washed by the media, they also feel empowered by a sense of mission to bash and eradicate them like what an immune system would do to cancer cells. However, keep in mind that, while dealing with cancer cells, the immune system often mistakenly attacks our healthy body cells due to its inability to distinguish their differences; another example of a "blind spot" of the immune system is that a virus can sometimes hide inside a host immune cell to escape from its detection; while this does not generate immediate, acute responses of our body, it causes a chronic deterioration beyond our awareness. This is what blindly following the mainstream culture promoting "diversity and inclusion" can potentially do to us: we will become the self-sufficient immune system of the Woke Dynasty: made-up of zombies that preach and attack recklessly. Yes, this type of harmony does feel legit and indulging, because it is portrayed with the symbol of love and freedom. Who would be stupid enough to turn that down, right? The devil, though, is indeed in the details.

Part III: Where The Woke Dynasty Is Taking Us

Some people might ask, "what's wrong with giving people the freedom to be who they are? It's not like they are hurting anyone!". I cannot consider this type of comment more short-sighted. If we continue advocating for (Woke-styled) freedom of expression and identity without promoting critical thinking and rationality, many will abuse this freedom and become destructive not only to themselves but also to society. It's like giving a child a shopping cart and letting them do the grocery shopping on their own. What they end up picking might be pleasurable in the short-run, but health-sabotaging in the long-run. Similarly, people will take advantage of the so-called "freedom and diversity" to legitimize their ignorance, narcissism, irresponsibility, and egocentrism. Meaning will become increasingly relative: everyone can just live in accordance with their definition of what's real; it will become harder and harder for us to reach a consensus on how to define a subject. We will, ironically, become what we seek to avoid - isolated, easily offended, and defensive. Chaos will become our master.

As a minority myself, I do love the fact that our generation and the next value diversity and inclusion. I do believe that the standard of beauty shouldn't be grounded by the unachievable goals set by the fashion industry; I do believe that being transgender doesn't make you any less valuable of a human being; I do believe that women were disadvantaged in many ways and deserve equal opportunities as men. However, while pushing our world toward a more open-minded domain, we still need to constantly ask ourselves, "where do we draw the line?". Do diversity and inclusion mean we can spontaneously create identities completely based on our subjectivity? Do they mean that any voice that contradicts the minorities' wishes is considered hate speech? Do they mean that social constructs can completely override biology and science? Do they mean reality can be bent toward how we wish it to be? If those are the terms that we sign up for, aren't we just creating another system of oppression legitimized by the subjectivity of the Woke culture? We need to realize that a tyranny in the name of love is just as dehumanizing as the tyranny of exclusion and inequality that we seek to combat. What's scary about the prior is that it slowly consumes your mind and manipulates your actions beyond your awareness.

That is why we need someone like Jordan Peterson: not because he has the power to "roast" feminists and transgender people, but due to the fact that he asks his audience to pause and re-evaluate the culture amplified by the Left. Remember, it's not about how exciting the fight is; it's not about who wins and who loses at the end of the show; it's about promoting moderation in the speed of expanding the domain of diversity and inclusiveness; it's about maintaining a rational system of approaching open-mindedness. It's about having the vision to see a diverse set of consequences while aiming for equality.

We truly need to learn when and how to neutrally filter out information that can be useful to us while inhibiting our irrational scream at the back of our mind "I don't like this person because he/she is (a) [label}". Otherwise, we are doomed to fall asleep in another Matrix.