Eine immer wieder von Jordan Peterson aufgeworfene Frage ist, wann gehen bestimmte politische Einstellungen zu weit, wobei er meint, dass das für den rechten Bereich noch recht gut zu beantworten ist, aber bei den linken Theorien die Abgrenzung schwieriger ist und dort auch radikal angegriffen wird.
Dazu fand ich diesen Text ganz interessant:
Dr. Peterson has been asking this question a lot recently and brought it up during the recent Munk debate. I can tell he believes this is a serious issue that we need to figure out, and I believe that too. He believes that certain language are indicators, with words like inclusivity, equity, and diversity when used together being one. Here’s my take on the topic:
Dr. Peterson has talked in the past how the right wing exists to defend the hierarchies that are natural to humans and animals(lobsters) and are absolutely necessary and inevitable when value structures exist. He says that the left wing exists to defend those who are disadvantaged by these hierarchies, and that this was absolutely necessary as well because hierarchies tilt toward tyranny and people stack up at the bottom of hierarchies and destabilize them.
I believe the right wing can be separated into the good right and the bad right with a difference of one word. The good right defends hierarchies based on INDIVIDUAL merit. The bad right defends hierarchies based on GROUP merit. The right goes too far when it attributes accomplishments of individuals to the group or groups that they associate, implying that they can take credit for them. This is even earlier than the racial superiority claims that Peterson argues are the marker for when the right goes too far, and I believe this is so.
I believe the distinction between the good left and the bad left can be made with the same word change. The good left defends disadvantaged INDIVIDUALS. The bad left defends disadvantaged GROUPS. This, I think, is ultimately the difference between liberals and leftists, and people are socially conditioned to think like a leftist because “helping disadvantaged groups” sounds like a very good thing. The problem is that you cannot attribute individual disadvantages to groups, you cannot attribute a group to be responsible for the actions of individuals, and you cannot claim that being a part of a certain group automatically makes an individual more or less advantaged or “privileged.” The left goes too far when it attributes the actions and/or circumstances of individuals to the collective group and implies that an individual that is part of a certain group is characterized by the broad characteristics of that group.
Long story short, people go too far on the right or left when they play identity politics. When they invoke tribalism. Throughout history, that game has led to catastrophe.
Diese Ansicht würde bei sehr vielen linken und rechten Theorien zu Problemen führen, weil dort Gruppentheorien eben sehr verbreitet ist. Gerade eine der bekanntesten linken Theorien teilt eben nach Arbeiter und Kaptialist in Gut und Böse.
Insofern wird hier erheblicher Widerstand gegen eine solche Einordnung bestehen, denn eine rein individuelle Betrachtung macht gerade das ideologische (bei rechts und links) und die Vorteile eines Sündenbocks zunichte.
Eine andere Antwort war diese:
I would like to offer an answer to Dr. Peterson’s question, “When does the left go too far?”
During the recent debate on political correctness being related to “progress”, Dr. Peterson asked multiple times, “When does the left go too far?”
Dr. Peterson contends that the conservatives go too far when they start making claims of their superiority over other groups based on race or nationality (or some other postmodernist criteria for division whose mere mention implies a power struggle).
I think that Reverend Dyson accurately, albeit subconsciously, answered the question on stage responding to Dr. Peterson during their recent debate.
Rev. Dyson, to his own discredit, called Dr. Peterson an “mean mad white man”. Thereby attempting to remove Dr. Peterson’s identity and replace it with a postmodern trope that makes it easy to discount Dr. Peterson’s views.
With a slight tweak of Dr. Peterson’s original definition, we could say that both the right and the left go too far when they attempt to belittle or discredit the views of the opposite side by reducing them to their epithet tropes based on utterly meaningless and self-serving divisions.
Edit: I added this next sentence in reply to a comment and I thought it belonged here. The point that the respondent made was that the left and right definitely have different goals or different ways of expressing identity politics:
The left wiping out personal identity in favor of „optimized group dynamics“ is on one side, and the right constantly reinforcing it’s own identity over others is on the other side. I think that makes it easy, or at least apparent to define when either side goes too far.
This kind of affront has happened to me as well (and probably most of us on the internet). I have actually had a respondent on youtube say to me, “Your opinion doesn’t matter because you are a white male.” The strangest thing about that was, of course, that the person saying it was a white male. Apart from that being the basic definition of a racist statement, my detractor couldn’t even carry through his own logic to realize that he had negated his own point. He couldn’t even admit (or understand) that it was a racist statement. Every time I think about that guy, who is a friend of a friend, I remind myself, “Hey, don’t be a fucking idiot.” Which I would consider rule number 13 for life.Thanks Dr. P!
P.S. can we please just get Stephen Fry talking to Jordan Peterson? For an hour every week? Just an idea. I think that would make for A) a much better debate, B) a debate about the selected topic, and C) someone do a photoshopping of what their love child would look like… because i just made myself laugh thinking about that.
„Abwertung der Meinung der anderen Seite durch die Reduzierung der Meinung zu einem Klischee/einer Metapher/einem Trope , ohne das diese Unterscheidung wirklich Gehalt hat“ ist etwas schwieriger zu handeln.
Es umfasst „die Meinung eines Schwarzen/Ausländers etc ist wertlos im Vergleich zu einem Arier, weil sie eine niedere Rasse sind“ und „Mansplaining“ oder „weiße heterosexuelle Männer erhalten nur ihre Macht“. Natürlich werden beide extremen Seiten bestreiten, dass die Unterscheidung kein Gehalt hat.