Jordan Peterson explains how tyranny is normalized

“Things get to terrible places one tiny step at a time,” Peterson told Joe Rogan in a past interview. “If I encroach on you and I’m sophisticated about it, I’m going to encroach two millimeters. I’m going to encroach right to the point where you start to protest, then I’m going to stop.”

“I’m going to wait, then you’re going to calm down, then I’m going to encroach again. Right to the point where you protest, then I’m going to stop,” he continued.

“I’m just going to do that forever, and before you know it, you’re going to be back three miles from where you started.”

more on site… IMHO a very interesting read!!!


Yeah! I’m that old!

Inch by inch…


As with everything involving JP this is a poorly thought out explanation.

Nowhere in his example does it suggest that person he is encroaching on has moved.
His hypothetical encroacher self encroaches until the hypothetical victim of this JP harassment says stop. No where does it say the victim has moved. So hypothetical JP encroaches again on the person who has not moved. Victim says stop. Cycle repeats. No one has gone anywhere because fuzzy thinker JP has not built into his silly simplistic story of tyranny the victim actually moving. The conditions of JP’s example actually describe a person getting told to stop being a creep over and over again, and gaining precisely zero ground.

He is also absolutely wrong about tyranny in general. It can happen slow or fast. There was nothing small in the steps to tyranny of the Khmer Rouge. It can begin with small steps or it can happen quite quickly.

1 Like

I think we have two different definitions of encroachment. The object is to push for freedom in the opposite direction. We can push hard or push easy. He is not saying we are being pushed he is saying push. If that is not what he is saying he should be.

Sounds like just a bunch senseless babble, lips flapping in the wind saying a whole lot of nothing.


Dude, Kalifornia :man_shrugging:t4:


If the offense moves and the defense encroaches it is not a penalty on the defense. If the defense encroaches and the penalty is not seen or called and he sacks the quarterback it is tyranny. Correct me if I am wrong.

Metaphorically speaking, it’s the verbal equivalence of “encroachment upon one’s personal space”. For example, when speaking with someone, move closer to them in small increments until you are very close to them. The natural reaction is for the one encroached upon to restore their personal space is by backing up. If the “encroacher” continues to proceed as above and the " encroachee" continues to back up, the “encroachee” loses any ground they ever had. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the “encroachee” may take back lost ground by administering several knuckle sandwiches- hard, fast and often. As such, extreme care must be taken to be sure you don’t misapprehend what is about to happen. Peace, Brother.


It’s starting to read like Terms and Conditions


The main point of JP’s metaphor is meant to be applied broadly, describing populations rather than individuals. He’s not speaking of simply “accomplishing” tyranny but of “normalizing” it. I believe the scenario holds up fairly well.

Consider the history and progression of encroachments on our rights protected by the 2nd Amendment. Most of the restrictions have come about slowly, one small step at a time: sometimes on a national scale, sometimes on the state or even county level. Sure, some people get upset and argue against it before adoption. That’s part of the process of crafting the final rule, which stops just short of inciting actual rebellion. Then, five or ten years down the road, that formerly new rule has become the old, normal rule, forming the starting point for another restriction.

A savvy politician goes for little victories in pursuit of their grand agenda, especially when that agenda aims to make sweeping changes to fundamental traditions or mores. They don’t try to do it all at once, or even convince the majority. They take small bites and persuade just enough of the electorate to make it happen. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Just because that strategy won’t work on you or me doesn’t mean it won’t work on just enough of the people to slide it through.


I’m not going to say you’re wrong.
But, try a better analogy.


Unlike real life, sports have rules.


@Richard56 explained it well. I agree with him. I can’t say it any better.

You SIR are Brilliant!
(I like that!)


adonde nosotros vamos uno nosotros ir todo!!!
Nessun passo sul serpente

Just like the NICS background check system.

I’m 26. Was born in 1997. In 1993 the Brady bill was signed.

That was 4 years before I was even born. Now before I even buy a gun, I have to be at least 18, for rifles and 21 for handguns.

Now unless you’re with people who actively hunt, own guns, or teach anything about guns- you will be clueless.

I was one of those people, but not entirely, still had my wits about political ideas and freedom especially after what was taught from our 8th grade American history.

So I turn 21 year is 2018, Brady bill has been signed for the past 25 years. You would of had to be born before the 1970’s to remember what it was like before the NICS system.

So people 50+ can remember what it was like and they’re slowly dieing off.

People 50 and below won’t remember because that’s how it always been and the below number is always increasing as the 50+ is always decreasing.

Your ways of life are slowly dieing off, and people today won’t understand how good you had it.


:blush: I know, but it’s still nice to hear it once in a while. :blush:
:man_bowing: :bowing_man: :man_bowing: :bowing_man: :man_student: :man_student: :man_bowing: :bowing_man: :man_bowing: :bowing_man: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Don’t write us ‘Gummer’s’ off yet Brother
Most of US still have a lotta fight left in us for YOUR Rights and Future generations coming up!
Speaking for myself only I don’t plan to leave you the KEY’S to the KINGDOM
worse off than when I was a young Buck.
We’ll NEVER QUIT! Till this ship is righted and back on course.
The Only Easy day was yesterday!

adonde nosotros vamos uno nosotros ir todo!!! (is that correct!) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Nessun passo sul serpente

1 Like

Give them an inch…


Oh yeah brother , Oh Yeah… :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like

Citing California doesn’t address what I have said, or amount to a reasonable point in Peterson’s defense.
There isn’t testing of boundaries in California. Laws are passed and people fight about them via the electoral and legal testing of all laws. But even if you think California represents a wholly unjust politics, there is no testing, CA politicians just pass laws, that impose changes in CA life. There is no boundary testing.

And Peterson is making a statement about the way tyrannies arise. HE suggests that it is always small steps. This just isn’t the case. Consider the tyranny of Hamas. They were elected to power and then immediately imposed tyranny upon Gazans but killing or otherwise driving out political opposition/critics. This is just one example. Peterson is not a very serious thinker, and a bit of a serial liar.