Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, koti said:

As much as I am not a huge fan of JP's persona I have to say that your twisting of his views is really something else.  

"Peterson said that if a student asked him to be referred to by a non-binary pronoun, he would not recognize their request: “I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.” He also argues against the existence of non-binary gender identities, or those that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍, saying “I don’t think there’s any evidence for it.”

In his own words, he insists it his "right" to only use pronouns of his choice, regardless of a person's wishes. I didn't twist his views at all - I simply chose an example (it/its/that) that I was reasonably sure would cause you offense. 

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Doesn't that just reinforce my point?

No it just demonstrates my point which was that the posting a picture on social media can actually work, but this was a practice you condemned

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

the poster took a picture of the dogshit and posted their indignation, instead of picking it up and solving the problem.

 

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

IIRC, Peterkin knows that Religious beliefs are one of the protected areas under Bill C-16, yet he has no problem being offensive to Catholics, by making fun of priests, and implying they all get up to bad behaviour.

That is the whole point that pretty much all of the opponents of C-16 fail to understand. It is not about being offensive. Note that all the laws that C-16 amends are already on the books since the 70s. How many of those folks have been arrested? How many folks where arrested for calling Lutherans Catholics, for example? By your own logic, if that was the case wouldn't heaps of folks making fun of religions already have been arrested, too?

As Arete, me and others have pointed out, the law is about discrimination so unless misgendering is part of a suite of discriminatory behaviour directed at a specific person based on their identity (or sex, or religion, or age), then and only then the law applies. 

I.e. the victim has to demonstrate negative outcomes for them, which is why discrimination cases are very difficult to win: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=5889&context=lalrev;Why

There is a lot handwringing about using the right pronouns and whatnot. That is not part of the law, regardless how folks like Peterson try to make it to be (again, folks like actual lawyers have already explained it, repeatedly). The fact that folks try so hard to build this alternative reality where it is all about petty pronouns and forcing you to speak in a certain way is disconcerting.

Edit: It seems that some folks want to build a victim complex by highlighting how things potentially closer to their heart are underreported. However, even if there are real grievance to be had here (I am not sayin there aren't) shouldn't it be rooted in actual facts? Even the comments above that the church burnings are not reported, I have read reports about them in national and international outlets as well as folks, including indigenous folks condemning them. I understand that the media landscape has made it easier to wrap oneself in a certain reality and it nowadays takes real effort to shake it off. On the other hand, I hoped that older folks more used to traditional media would recognize that trend and not fall into these social media traps (which Peterson really mastered).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Arete said:

I agree with him to a certain point. For example I won’t refer to a person who is biologically capable of baring children as a „he” despite if she demands it. I see it not as sign of disfespect of troglodyte like views but as a sign of my own sanity which I would very much like to keep. Empathy arguments do not work for me in this instance, if there is risk of suicide for that person then that is a job for pharmacology and a psychiatrist and not for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, koti said:

I agree with him to a certain point. For example I won’t refer to a person who is biologically capable of baring children as a „he” despite if she demands it. I see it not as sign of disfespect of troglodyte like views but as a sign of my own sanity which I would very much like to keep. Empathy arguments do not work for me in this instance, if there is risk of suicide for that person then that is a job for pharmacology and a psychiatrist and not for me. 

So after a hysterectomy or menopause that would be fine then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, koti said:

I agree with him to a certain point. For example I won’t refer to a person who is biologically capable of baring children as a „he” despite if she demands it. 

As per my first post in the thread: 

1) A significant proportion of humans are born either intersexed or phenotypically gender fluid. Gender dysphoria has physiological basis. Gender/sex is not binary - that's a biological reality.
2) You have no way to determine if an individual is "biologically capable of bearing children" based on physical appearance. 

3) You're demanding everyone else conforms to your delusional misunderstanding of biology, even at the expense of real harm to others.  

I therefore have no sympathy for your, or Peterson's asinine position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So after a hysterectomy or menopause that would be fine then?

No it would not, people who have various medical conditions have my full sympathy and empathy and can be sure they will never get hurt by me. As for menopause its really a low blow and it just shows that if you have to use these kinds of arguments, what youre trying to argue is ridiculous. The people from the below youtube clip can go f themselves btw.

 

47 minutes ago, Arete said:

As per my first post in the thread: 

1) A significant proportion of humans are born either intersexed or phenotypically gender fluid. Gender dysphoria has physiological basis. Gender/sex is not binary - that's a biological reality.
2) You have no way to determine if an individual is "biologically capable of bearing children" based on physical appearance. 

3) You're demanding everyone else conforms to your delusional misunderstanding of biology, even at the expense of real harm to others.  

I therefore have no sympathy for your, or Peterson's asinine position. 

Sure and that is your right. You can join the above in the YT clip for the fight. The difference bewteen you and me is that I don't want to legislate my subjective views by law and you do.

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Arete said:

Apologies - I did not mean to offend. I was simply attempting to point out that there's very clear objective evidence that discrimination toward transgender individuals both exists and causes harm. 

 

No offense taken, and I knew your intent.  (I wouldn't give a plus one to a post I was offended by)  Often, when a there is a partial quote, I like to note that it was such for other readers who may have not seen that post in its entirety and therefore not understand its overall thrust. 

To get back to your point, I think this thread could be concluded if we could successfully differentiate between behavior that is just rude and that which brings discrimination and harm.  That's why I worry when platforms like Twitter become public trials, where there is mostly chaos, piling on, and no factfinding procedure.  When these cases are settled in a courtroom, however, there is hope that legal precedents can be set that illuminate the difference between breaches of etiquette and breaches of law.  It's funny, we all can now grasp that a person's persistent choice of "n---er" in addressing a black person may be legal harassment, but somehow the use of an offensive pronoun to a trans person with the same persistence leaves many people defensive and even dismissing the force of the verbal act. 

The implication is that black people are a "real" minority group, with an authentic struggle for social equality and acceptance,  but trans people are not.  Some of the attitudes I've witnessed in my community seem to be based on this distinction, and some people are pretty open about it.  The error, as several have pointed out here, is that once we start saying an identity is "just in your head," we have a leverage to say that being Catholic, or Muslim, or gay, is "just in your head."  So what's really happening is a ghettoization of beliefs - some get protected, others not so much.  Believe in Sky Daddy Version 4.3, and you're protected by law.  Believe in your essential femaleness though born XY, and you're just some nutty person who has to take whatever is dished out.  Seems like a double standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, koti said:

No it would not, people who have various medical conditions have my full sympathy and empathy and can be sure they will never get hurt by me. As for menopause its really a low blow and it just shows that if you have to use these kinds of arguments, what youre trying to argue is ridiculous. The people from the below youtube clip can go f themselves btw

No I am just trying to figure out what parameters you consider to be objective enough to make the classification you do. You have specifically mentioned child-bearing, so fair enough I wanted to figure out whether that is a sufficient parameter. It relates to the points Arete (repeatedly) made. It requires us to ignore biological sciences (on a science forum no less) and if that is the case one would need to know whether other classifications are at least useful, if they do not follow the science.

It is also an invitation to think whether the classifications we make in daily life are indeed as universal as we think they are. Basically we could ask ourselves, if there is a person looking like what we would consider a man or woman based on clothing, behaviour etc. How should we treat them. Should we first determine what we think their sex it and then insist on addressing that way (and why?). And if so (and that is already a big if), what are the parameters that tell you that person has a perceived mismatch between sex and gender?  You brought up child bearing and rather obviously that is a) not an universal parameter an b) it cannot be used in casual determination as far as I know. 

But yes, youtube videos are obviously going to make everything better. At some point folks just want to feel outraged, don't they?

Fundamentally the argument goes in circles. A) we treat everyone with respect but we just don't want a law that forces us to.

If pointed out that the law is not forcing you treat folks with respect per se, just not discriminate against them it then goes to 

B) they are delusional and I do not want to engage in delusions.

That goes away from the forced by law argument but then becomes they are not real (somehow) and I just want to do things the "correct" way (which in the past included rather horrendous elements, but I digress). Asking who is going to be the arbiter of what is "correct' and why folks cannot just be civil with each together it somehow goes back to A.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is the whole point that pretty much all of the opponents of C-16 fail to understand. It is not about being offensive. Note that all the laws that C-16 amends are already on the books since the 70s. How many of those folks have been arrested? How many folks where arrested for calling Lutherans Catholics, for example?

Not about being offensive ???
How many people have lost their jobs, been severely financially impacted, or had to defend themselves against charges that someone brought up because they were offended that they did not use their preferred pronoun ?
( go back about 4 pages; theVat posted one such example, where there was no discrimination, simply offense taken )

Like I said in a previous post ...
If I said about gays or transexuals what Peterkin said about priests, that 'they deress funny and God only knows ( he does ! ) what they get up to in the closet', what would your response be ?
I'm willing to bet you would find that offensive.
So why the double standard.
Are we allowed to offend some groups, but not others ?

Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy ?
( I forget who asked, this thread moves way too fast to keep up )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It's funny, we all can now grasp that a person's persistent choice of "n---er" in addressing a black person may be legal harassment,

I think that actually that is not quite clear. In the US it seems that the courts are split whether the use of that word is so bad and historically loaded as a slur that it only is evidence for discrimination. Others consider it more of an utterance and does not pass the level of discrimination.

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

How many people have lost their jobs, been severely financially impacted, or had to defend themselves against charges that someone brought up because they were offended that they did not use their preferred pronoun ?
( go back about 4 pages; theVat posted one such example, where there was no discrimination, simply offense taken )

And yet that person was not fired, it was remark in the personal file, and he sued the university for it. Moreover, most firings are not based on laws per se. They can be for breach company policy. Because folks cannot behave themselves many companies have such policies in place to at least seem to sanction discriminatory or harassing behaviour (which makes it easier for them to fire folks for cause). 

If a Walmart greeter says "Welcome to Walmart, arsehole", they can be fired, even if they did not broke laws nor even used a pronoun. I.e. it is a policy and not a legal thing.

So since you consider it such a big deal, kindly let me know the rough number of folks charged under C-16 then? If failing that, how many folks were let go because of pronouns alone (i.e. without any further acts of discrimination). Again the one case you brought up was a policy breach that did not even result in firing (also was in the US, but that is probably not a big thing as they are similar provisions, I believe). 

Edit: Not to mention that it was a single case whereas these antidiscrimination laws have been around for close to a decade.

 

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

If I said about gays or transexuals what Peterkin said about priests, that 'they deress funny and God only knows ( he does ! ) what they get up to in the closet', what would your response be ?

Depends on how often you do it and how you do it. If it is wrapped in a clever joke I might laugh, if it is mean-spirited I would think you might be an arse. At no point would legal actions be involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

No I am just trying to figure out what parameters you consider to be objective enough to make the classification you do. You have specifically mentioned child-bearing, so fair enough I wanted to figure out whether that is a sufficient parameter. It relates to the points Arete (repeatedly) made. It requires us to ignore biological sciences (on a science forum no less) and if that is the case one would need to know whether other classifications are at least useful, if they do not follow the science.

 

It does not require us to ignore biological sciences, it requires us to obey biological sciences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

No I am just trying to figure out what parameters you consider to be objective enough to make the classification you do.

Can't speak for Koti, but why should I be offended if someone mis-pronouns me ?

As I've previously stated, language is a tool that is used to translate one person's ideas to a second person.
They are the one person's ideas; why should the second person have any input, or be offended by, the way the one person chooses to express his/her ideas ?
A book does the same thing with written words.
Should you be upset or offended, that the book doesn't mention you specifically, or your preferred pronoun ?

Oh wait!
Silly me, I forgot, the new PC pastime is re-writing classic books, because the language used at the time, offends 'modern' sensibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MigL said:


( I forget who asked, this thread moves way too fast to keep up )

That would be me, I presume I won't be able to stay for much longer as this thread has ran its course for me even before it started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The operative word is "persistent". Once is a slip; twice is rude; every day for a year is harassment. One joke about one priest is disrespectful; two jokes about the same aspect of the same priest is mean; putting his picture on the internet is harassment. Insisting that a person sit in the gallery with the women, because you think he looks as if he might be able to bear children, even if he experiences himself as male is discrimination. Lobsters don't have this problem. Peterson does.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, koti said:

It does not require us to ignore biological sciences, it requires us to obey biological sciences. 

Sure so long as we stick with an elementary school understanding of biology and ignore the inconvenient bits, like the existence of genetically intersexed humans, and XX individuals who are infertile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

Can't speak for Koti, but why should I be offended if someone mis-pronouns me ?

And many do feel the same way.

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

As I've previously stated, language is a tool that is used to translate one person's ideas to a second person.
They are the one person's ideas; why should the second person have any input, or be offended by, the way the one person chooses to express his/her ideas ?

You forget that communication is also a social tool. You interact with that person. So if I decide to repeatedly call you a feminized version of your name, for example, it could be considered endearing if you are good friends, or perhaps intimidating if, say I was your boss. You may be OK with it either way or not. You are free to express your satisfaction/dissatisfaction to me. I had only few interactions with transgender folks and have misgendered a couple of times for different reasons and the interactions were always amicable. I did agree to call them their chosen name, but they were generally fine when I got confused and made my he/she dance. Slightly embarrassing for everyone involved but no big deal.

As others noted, it only becomes a deal when it becomes a pattern of abuse. If I make it clear that I single them out. Same goes for religious folks. If I keep making disparaging comments about religion, religious students are likely to complain. If I on top single out the catholic student and make pedophile priest jokes at them, I may be in real trouble. Again, not an issue of law and something that has been around since human interaction and language existed. Why some folks think pronoun are such a big thing compared to all our other limits of social interactions, is still not clear to me.

You make it so that every non-binary person wants to have things just right for them. Yet in reality there are real persons and as far as I have seen the only demand is to have the same baseline respect as other folks. I have therefore no idea why folks would be upset about books in your example (unless somehow the author creates a caricature of e.g. transgender people, but I suspect that is not what you had in mind).

Of course there are always a small number of folks in every group that are unreasonable. However, I suspect that if we count the number of folks being offended to be "forced to use a pronoun" vs folks that are actually offended by certain pronouns the former would outnumber the latter. 

It is really that social media and certain news outlet make it so big of an issue that it appears to be a huge boogeyman of sorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, koti said:

 I am demanding above - do not ever refer to me as a ‚they’ as I find it offensive.

 

1 hour ago, koti said:

I won’t refer to a person who is biologically capable of baring children as a „he” despite if she demands it. 

 

3 hours ago, koti said:

The hypocrisy is both very aparent and very self explanatory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Arete said:

Sure so long as we stick with an elementary school understanding of biology and ignore the inconvenient bits, like the existence of genetically intersexed humans, and XX individuals who are infertile. 

I am excluding genetically intersexed humans, anyone who is infertile. There is nothing incovenenient for me in this, in fact I feel equal empathy for these people as I feel antipathy for those morons from the youtube video above.  

Good one zapatos. I wonder how long it would take me to chose the needed letters from your posts (which are there) to spell "I love being a biased d on internet forums"

Bez nazwy-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, koti said:

I wonder how long it would take me to chose the needed letters from your posts (which are there) to spell "I love being a biased d on internet forums"

Did you not really mean the posts I quoted from you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, koti said:

I am excluding genetically intersexed humans, anyone who is infertile. There is nothing incovenenient for me in this, in fact I feel equal empathy for these people as I feel antipathy for those morons from the youtube video above.  

How do you distinguish between a genetically intersex person asking you to use their preferred pronoun, and a "moron"? Can you sequence genomes with your mind? 

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Arete said:

How do you distinguish between a genetically intersex person asking you to use their preferred pronoun, and a "moron"? Can sequence genomes with your mind? 

I can sequence that:

”…about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth are diagnosable with gender dysphoria”

and you want to legislate by law to prosecute people for not using „proper” pronouns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, koti said:

I can sequence that:

”…about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth are diagnosable with gender dysphoria”

and you want to legislate by law to prosecute people for not using „proper” pronouns. 

You continue to dodge questions. It is getting old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.