Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MigL said:

How else would you protest what you believe to be unjust treatment of your sdaughter ( son ) ? I can point you to plenty of threads where members of this forum have advocated breaking the law to protest unjust treatment.
And you only think those news outlets distort  stories because they have a different agenda than yours.

So now you are fine with disobedience? But I assume we have moved on from the notion that this was all about pronoun use?

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Was this team composed of one or more clinical psychologists ?
Tell me again ... What is Jordan Peterson ?
Is he not a clinical psychologist and a Psychology professor at one of Canada's most prestigious shools ?

Based on his publication records he has not worked in the area of gender-related mental health so not sure what his specialization is. That being said, there are recommendations by professional psychology associations and if Peterson follows those (even if they run counter his personal convictions), it may fall within the realm of his expertise. If he does not, it would be akin to an antivaccination MD.

I am not sure what your ultimate point is, but I am pretty use that I probably am not going to an ob/gyn when I need a proctologist. And I would be critical regarding medical advice if they have developed their own idea about diseases and conditions that are not based on established medical frameworks.

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Everyone has claimed that it's a courtesy to use someone's preferred pronoun.
So, if I don't address Koti as 'thou', am I simply discourtious, or am I a bigot ?
( bigotry carries a lot more baggage, and consequences, than being rude )

Perhaps the criticism folks not using thou will be criticized for using you and thou wrongly. Thou was the second person singular and the use of the plural form you is obviously wrong as there is only one koti.

Bigotry depends on context on motivation. Just using a word does not tell folks either. And that is the crux of the anti-pronoun folks, they see the use in isolation (like in an online forum) and do not seem to realize that all is context-dependent. This is why also why folks do not simply get arrested for using a certain pronoun and why folks generally are not offended by accidental misgendering.

In real life folks often also visually represent themselves a certain way, which already gives social cues how they want to be addressed and it I would assume it to be normal to follow such cues. Online you can make rather outrageous claims without any effort which cuts away a lot of the context. 

I also want to add that we have not pivoted away from argument A) (legal challenge) and are now again at B) (I don't wanna). Here the argument is you can be an arse if you want and you won't be legally challenged. However other folks might consider you an arse, including your employer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, koti said:

Horseshit.

Such an erudite and eloquent argument. Did you learn that from the Harvard College Debating Union? Color me completely convinced of the veracity of your point of view.  

To summarize:

1) You have the right to be a small minded bigot. 

2) You don't have the right to hurt other people because of your small minded bigotry. 

If that makes you feel oppressed, then as per my first post in the thread 6 pages back, I'll play you a melody on my tiny violin. 

I think we're probably done here.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, iNow said:

You’re neither, because koti was just acting childishly, arguing in bad faith, and doesn’t actually identify as “thou.”

You have no means of measuring that so you either have to comply with my ridiculous request or face consequences of not adhering to your own rules.

3 hours ago, Arete said:

Such an erudite and eloquent argument. Did you learn that from the Harvard College Debating Union? Color me completely convinced of the veracity of your point of view.  

 

 

I got it from iNow from this thread. And I agree that we're done.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

I know that I often lead by example, but you missed the key part. I explained in my own post where I used this word why I did. You, however, used it in isolation and moved on as if it alone was somehow sufficient. 

It will surely be a loss for everyone if you take your ball and go home, what with your calm, well reasoned, dispassionate and inclusive approach to hot button topics.

No. Stop. Please. You’re like a lighthouse in the storm and we’ll all simply be lost at sea. Without your clear inclusive leadership, our boats will be battered upon the cliffs. Our chances of survival will fall to nearly zero if you should follow through on this dying swan threat and should you choose to extinguish your bright illuminating bulb and collaborative posting style. No. Stop. Please.  🙄

I was not refering to me leaving the site, I was refering to this site eventually leaving the internet if things keep going the curent direction. It’s really astonishing how far away we are on simple concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, koti said:

You have no means of measuring that so you either have to comply with my ridiculous request or face consequences of not adhering to your own rules.

I got it from iNow from this thread. And I agree that we're done.

I was not refering to me leaving the site, I was refering to this site eventually leaving the internet if things keep going the curent direction. It’s really astonishing how far away we are on simple concepts.

Are you posting drunk koti?

When I do and read my nonsense the next day, I don't double-down to try and save face; I hold up my hand's.

2 hours ago, koti said:

It’s really astonishing how far away we are on simple concepts.

Indeed, respecting other peoples choice's, if it doesn't affect you, is a no brainer; "if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person."...😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Who gives a ...... ....?

So you are not here for a discussion, just to preach ?

 

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If koti points out the proper spelling of his name to you, yet you insist on capitalizing it and using a y at the end instead of an i for reasons of your own

I capitalize everyone's name; the 'y' was a slip-up.
My bad.

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

now you are fine with disobedience? But I assume we have moved on from the notion that this was all about pronoun use?

No I'm not fine with civil disobedience.
And I wasn't last year either, when all of you were with the protests and riots.
( and I implied as such in my post )

 

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

When I do and read my nonsense the next day, I don't double-down to try and save face; I hold up my hand's.

Most of the time we can't tell if you're posting drunk or sober.
( sorry bud, I couldn't resist 😄 . And this thread is definitely lacking in humor )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

And I wasn't last year either, when all of you were with the protests and riots.

Slight correction: Support was for the right of protest and need for systemic improvements, not for destruction of property nor rioting.

Comments were made that focusing on the marginal few who harmed property was a smokescreen and distraction to avoid focus on and discussion of the core issues.

Made this exact distinction clear over 20+ times in those various threads, but alas… our actual stance gets once more maligned for purposes of scoring points. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Most of the time we can't tell if you're posting drunk or sober.
( sorry bud, I couldn't resist 😄 . And this thread is definitely lacking in humor )

No worries, think of it this way; when you can easily refute my post, I'm probably drunk, when you can't I'm probably not. 😇

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, koti said:
12 hours ago, iNow said:

You’re neither, because koti was just acting childishly, arguing in bad faith, and doesn’t actually identify as “thou.”

You have no means of measuring that so you either have to comply with my ridiculous request or face consequences of not adhering to your own rules.

Consequence = 0

Demanding to be addressed in the singular/familiar/condescending* form of the same pronoun to which we are accustomed is not a point of grammatical correctness in this case - since you don't seem to able to give a reason in terms of English usage. Nor can it be a statement of identity, since you have not - and thou hast not - articulated a reason for the reduction in status. 

(*The familiar 'thou' - in French, tu - was used for close friends and family, children and social inferiors. The proper form for peers and superiors is second person plural: you - or vous - and for the exalted, such as high-ranking priests and aristocracy, the formal third persons, thus: "Does Your Eminence deign to sit at one's humble table?" )  

Even more to the point, there can be no discrimination, substantial or social harm to an internet construct, as it has no human rights.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

So you are not here for a discussion, just to preach ?

Was there something to discuss that has not yet been amply covered three or four times?

Quote

Who gives a ...... ....?

If that's preachment, I wish all priests were as succinct. Indeed, I wish Dr. Peterson were as succinct.

 

Edited by Peterkin
misattribution of quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Was there something to discuss that has not yet been amply covered three or four times?

From your point of view, obviously not.
But the point of discussion is to explore alternate viewpoints.

As you don't want to do that, or simply don't care, you are preaching.
We have rules against that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I capitalize everyone's name; the 'y' was a slip-up.
My bad.

Sure, but what if someone purposely told you there was an important reason they didn't want their username capitalized (it's a family thing, or a cultural thing, or a religious thing, or...), and they'd appreciate it if you'd remember not to do it when spelling their name. And if you kept "slipping up" and substituting a y where that person prefers an i, it would be somewhat like the experience of transgenders who place a great deal of importance on how they're addressed, and consider it a matter of respect (or lack thereof). To them, your slip ups may eventually looked planned and purposeful, to insult or otherwise show a lack of respect for their choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, MigL said:

From your point of view, obviously not.
But the point of discussion is to explore alternate viewpoints.

As you don't want to do that, or simply don't care, you are preaching.
We have rules against that.

What's so wrong with a preacher? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2021 at 3:07 PM, TheVat said:

I'm glad to hear you've evaluated their sensitivity to racism and found it appropriate and not excessive.   Let me know if they ever get uppity and you need to advise them on that.  

No thanks, no need to do anything, they don't require advice from me or anyone.

They have handled racism all their lives, faced adversity many times. They just don't waste time whining about it feeling sorry for themselves, they act in a productive way to attempt to educate or change people's views towards them. They are my good friends, decent honest hard working people.

What makes me smile about this thread is that its been suggested that: thinking I'm perfect, insensitive, uncourteous... when all I'm suggesting is that there are some cases where people are whining about things to seek either attention or sympathy therefore have mental health issues that require addressing firstly.

It's a bit like feeding an alcoholic more alcohol cause that makes them feel better.   

On 10/15/2021 at 12:03 PM, dimreepr said:

If we're a little bit kinder, life is a little less unfair; being tough is a weakness too, being sensitive to that is a strength.

For good balance we need a good base.

I have no problem with being kinder towards people. But if I interpret you correctly I think your balance is tipped opposite mine and maybe somewhere in the middle is about right. 

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Their soapbox stances elevate their ears above the discussion, turning them into monologues.

Depends on the preacher and the intent.

On 10/15/2021 at 2:41 PM, iNow said:

And that's fine. You clearly see yourself as perfect already. No worries. I simply won't count you as a willing ally when trying to leave things better than how we found them and when seeking to minimize needless ostracization and social reinforcement of traditional outgroups. 

In which case your stated claim that you attempt to be kind and courteous is specious. You signal with words that you're kind and courteous, but then fail when it matters to actually act in a manner which is either of those things... Instead, you dismiss people and their requests as "ridiculous." That's neither kind, nor courteous despite your claims of being both. 

Your view is pretty irrelevant when it comes to how strangers identify themselves, but even so... Nobody is asking that you change it. You can keep any views you hold or want.

People are simply asking that when their name is James you stop insisting on calling them Sally. They're not even asking that you be kind. They're just asking that you be courteous. No changes in personal views required. 

Society is not stationary nor stagnant. We are ALWAYS evolving culturally, and hopefully getting better as we do. Personally, I see that as a good thing.

One might even argue that it will NEVER end. We ALL will be asked someday to adjust our views and choices of words. You. Me. Everyone... and when that happens, we can either choose to be good neighbors and accept our personal roles in expanding inclusivity for others who have traditionally been scorned and ostracized and targeted for violence, or we can instead hold firm for arbitrary reasons to legacy words and pigeonholes that are exclusionary, hurtful, and often downright dehumanizing. 

If someone brands you as a bigot or suggests you're being offensive toward them, then IMO that shouldn't trigger fear. It should trigger self-reflection and a willingness to improve... to close a blind spot in your mental model of the world that you maybe didn't even realize existed... but YMMV.

 

Of course I'm perfect, aren't we all?

You are correct, my courteousness extends only to the point just short of ridiculous, so it all depends on the request and how I feel about it. I don't believe this would be any different for anyone else either. If you say different I don't believe you and would assume you are an hypocrite.

If James wants to be known as James and not Sally I'm good with that, I'll do my best to adhere, however if I slip up from time to time don't whine and make a big deal out of it. The world has bigger problems to solve.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I have no problem with being kinder towards people. But if I interpret you correctly I think your balance is tipped opposite mine and maybe somewhere in the middle is about right. 

Then you have misinterpreted me, the more people who speak up about unfairness the bigger the base/middle; it's about being kinder to all people, even us whiney snowflakes.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Depends on the preacher and the intent.

Indeed, a good preacher is trying to be a good teacher, including listening to his/her flock; toughen up isn't a good lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Then you have misinterpreted me, the more people who speak up about unfairness the bigger the base/middle; it's about being kinder to all people, even us whiney snowflakes.

Indeed, a good preacher is trying to be a good teacher, including listening to his/her flock; toughen up isn't a good lesson.

Lessons are learnt from experience, this includes hardship and adversity.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Which one of the four is "more than others"?

I was referring to your statement rather than the video - "we've all had our share", "some more than others". In other words life is not fair, but that's just the way it is I'm afraid. 

He used this phrase on me when he found me whining about something, a little reminder that as unfair as it may seem to me at the time, there is a good chance that's its even less fair for someone else somewhere in the world. Sometimes humility can be a useful lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I was referring to your statement rather than the video - "we've all had our share", "some more than others". In other words life is not fair, but that's just the way it is I'm afraid.

Indeed; but wouldn't you want a pain free lesson?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, a good preacher is trying to be a good teacher, including listening to his/her flock; toughen up isn't a good lesson.

A preacher on a discussion forum is nothing but a megaphone. I prefer conversing around a table, but the preacher wants to jump on top and tell us only their side. In all my time here, there has NEVER been a preacher who is a good teacher, imo. Good teachers listen AND talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

A preacher on a discussion forum is nothing but a megaphone. I prefer conversing around a table, but the preacher wants to jump on top and tell us only their side. In all my time here, there has NEVER been a preacher who is a good teacher. Good teachers listen AND talk.

I don't know, I think you'd qualify...

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.