[devonin]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

It's also why I think Jordan B. Peterson is so evil. He has a sizable fanbase; people listen to him. He's also fairly good with rhetoric, so he's able to say something innocuous like "lobsters are motivated by serotonin" to present a sinister, subliteral dogma without having to use the words "systems of oppression are necessary for human societies to progress". And, of course, because all he's talking about is lobsters, he's able to wriggle his way out of any criticism with "that's not what I meant!" He assumes no responsibility for his TRUE denotations and more or less forces the task of interpretation of all his statements onto others. It's a classic case of cowardly dog-whistling --- despite his power and influence, he doesn't want to dirty his hands by actually admitting what his actual beliefs are. Beliefs that he knowingly tries to convey to his impressionable audience.

Just as an aside, Peterson says extremely explicit and absolute things ALL THE TIME. Like, the idea that he's somehow using rhetorical technique to avoid responsibility for his actions is silly. He will literally go on record saying things like "A woman who wears a dress to work should expect to be sexually harassed" or "Birth Control is responsible for the destruction of Western Civilization"

His -followers- try to avoid being called to account for supporting somebody who says those things by insisting that he can only be understood in a greater/larger context but anybody with the slightest bit of knowledge or facility with rhetoric knows that Peterson is 100% grade-a Bullshit.

To the actual thread:

Yes, people with power or authority are obliged to be more careful about how their words could be used to translate into actions by others. Yes, if such a thing happens that they think is a misinterpretation or mischaracterization of their words, they should be obliged to state such, clearly and right away.

The rich have no obligation to help the poor, the fed have no obligation to help the hungry, the happy have no obligation to help the sad. Innately. These people can choose to accept a responsibility to help others but should not be criticized if they choose not to do so.

It is immoral to have wealth, full stop. If you are rich you absolutely have an obligation to help the poor. You're a human. Basic application of empathy and compassion should make you obliged to help people when you can. I do not believe it is possible to be a billionaire and not also evil. Yes, even the ones who donate some pittance of a percentage of their billions to good causes.