Well, aren't you special?
I'm sure you could analogize them to the extent that an analogy is a figure of speech, a metaphor; but in fact we'll quickly discover that there are differences between redistributing money and redistributing sex that demand philosophical distinctions (logical and ethical).
You too easily assume that it's easy to demonstrate it's ethical to redistribute money but not sex.
A couple responses, and some confusion:
1. How is a critique of language misguided when what is being critiqued is Peterson's inarticulate and fairly superficial use of language?
2. What other meaning is he "advancing"? As far as I can tell, he's not advancing anything since he's not really in control of the meaning of his words.
2a. He is saying that enforced monogamy means something specific, but he's not advancing a meaning since, for his intents and purposes, that specific meaning is the meaning of the term.
2b. He has every right to say what he's saying, but he doesn't have the right to mean only what he says he means.
Isn't meaning created and spread by usage? So by taking a particular usage, and clarifying it, is doing the same thing as anyone else with language, which advances a meaning either implicitly or explicitly (if one were to state "I want to advance this meaning"). It appears he overstepped saying it was "common usage", but guess what - he begins to make it so by entering it into the public eye. Point 2b makes zero sense to me. You can mean what you want; one has no control over the infinity of potential subjective interpretations.
I wasn't even aware of the issue until after he had already offered an explanation of his commentary. I don't really have any issues with Peterson other than finding him relatively overrated and undeserving of the attention and accolades that he receives. Even so, I've not commented in any way shape or form about having an issue with what he said at all, despite your repetitive attempts to pin viewpoints on me throughout the discussion and your explicit (and false) claims that I misinterpreted him and attacked him because I didn't understand what he said.
As a professional speaker, I expect him to adequately anticipate how comments that he makes in an interview will likely be understood and clarify them at the time. He is clearly capable of doing this. The fact that he did not do so until later makes me feel that he was behaving in an opportunistic fashion in order to gain attention and please his supporters. You can disagree with me if you want.
The Federalist article that you linked in support of your viewpoints even says that it is not unreasonable to expect that he should have explained his commentary at the time rather than retroactively doing so.
Please refrain from falsely accusing me of being offended by overrated old men who can't even explain what they're talking about half the time without referencing fairy tales. I merely feel that he is an overrated speaker who chose not to clarify himself so that he could exploit the situation later.
If you actually read my first post here, you'll see that I said in the first place. You projected a bunch of anti-Jordan Peterson viewpoints onto me because you can't talk to multiple people at once without losing focus. I'm not Ein. Don't confuse me with him.
Three points I see to respond to here:
1. JP is overrated.
I didn't know his "rating" was a topic here. Where I would "rate" him is certainly lower than the people that line up to see him in person or donate to his patreon. But based on all of the testimonials out there, and his 12 Rules sales, he's helping out a substantial number of people, regardless of his other faults.
2. JP should have clarified himself at the time, and chose not to for the reactions from his base.
3. I'm mistaking you for Ein/I'm pinning viewpoints on you that don't apply.
These two kind of go together.
The fact that Peterson didn't bother to define his terms suggests (to me) that he anticipated the misinterpretation so that he could leap at the chance to point out the left's hypocrisy. But it's not hypocrisy; it's a legitimate reaction to suggestive language. He either has no grasp of discourse beyond his discipline, or he's intentionally sabotaging it.
The entire enforced monogamy situation basically proves that Jordan Peterson is a hack, at least as far as politics are concerned, since the only plausible reasons why he would have used that language without clarification are that he meant it at face value or that he planned for people to misunderstand him so that he could push back on their criticisms and act like he was being misrepresented. I believe that the latter is true, which means that he is intentionally trying to exploit a situation that he caused expressly so that he would have a reason to act like his critics are unjustified.
Anyone at his level should be able to tell how such a phrase is likely to be interpreted. If he's even half as eloquent and intellectual as his most ardent followers believe, then this situation is clearly his own doing with the goal of being misinterpreted for his own gains.
So you both had a similar issue with his choice of language. Pardon me for assuming you would have been happy had he explicitly clarified
either meaning up front. If you can state that you would have been, or at least would have been neutral on those positions (either forced marriage or socially normative monogamous marriage), I'll concede being way off base about you.
I'll submit (again) that if he chose his language for its potential ambiguity it was to rile his antagonists, not excite his base. I don't see anything anti-intellectual in that given the context. At least there's a legitimate point in criticizing him for claiming it's a common term or whatever in anthropology.
On a totally different subject: Taleb & Caplan on education. Closing statement by Taleb:
https://medium.com/conversations-wi...r-cowen-higher-education-college-fc4b845fe30e
The problem is, as society got rich, everybody wanted to reach education by imitating the aristocrats, with the illusion that it’s going to help them get rich.
When in fact, it’s the kind of thing you do when you’re already rich. This is where Alison Wolf and
Richard come in to discover that these educational things are effectively the product of societies that
are rich and definitely not causative to wealth.
Now that was funny.
