Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

On 10/21/2021 at 3:40 AM, Peterkin said:

Why is it okay to indulge the whim of a superior, but not a peer or subordinate? It's quite commonly accepted to humour a child. What is so unthinkable about humouring an adult with a harmless delusion? 

Because it is patronizing, and not done in recognition of an equal. Its a pretense to disguise inequality.

Acceptance of delusion. whether or not its harmless is subjective.

On 10/21/2021 at 3:40 AM, Peterkin said:

Dr. Peterson's 'argument' [sounds like, from what I've heard of it] : I won't speak respectfully to people I despise [for reasons he delineates, but does not demonstrate as valid]  and the law that tries me to force me to [It doesn't.] is wrong [It isn't.] His 'debate' with minority and only recently enfranchised people is: I refuse to engage with your issues, because I don't recognize your collective identity. IOW: I get to assign identity to others and reject their right to identify themselves.

 

You make  assumptions not borne out by other perspectives, and it sounds like with out a genuine attempt at seeing for yourself, though I may be wrong.

I don't think his debate is with minorities or that he unwilling to address their issues, but that he recognizes the dangers of assuming an objective collective  identity that justifies the marginalization of humanity. Because it does.

His argument is with the those people who believe you can assign us all to our relative boxes, and address the box instead of the content. While ignoring their spill and  entanglement. 

On 10/21/2021 at 4:02 AM, iNow said:

Of course, and I don't believe anyone is suggesting we ought to go without counterargument. Sadly thus far, most "counterarguments" are limited to "stop whining" and "you're just being too sensitive." Those aren't counterarguments. They're disrespectful dismissals of valid reasonable requests.

'Racist' and 'Far Right'  are also used in place of counter argument here as disrespectful dismissal.

On 10/21/2021 at 4:02 AM, iNow said:

 

Right... and we should watch out for all 7 of those people ( ;) )who have actual mental health issues while ALSO respecting the other 99.9% who simply asking for acceptance (not even acceptance, just an end to the dismissal, disparagement, and disrespect) for identifying as their authentic selves.

Bell curve applies to all conditions of humanity with overlap across the board. As such, Human conditions are descriptive, not definitive. Application of objective values to Human conditions is objective- of environment. Definitive, and a corruption of Human language. It can only subtract, or exclude from the description. Acceptance of an objective identity requires that it be defined, for recognition. To object to what does not belong.

Environment. Thats your 7(?!!) people who have actual mental health issues, as well as the free loaders, the outliers at either end of the bell curve  and any other not strictly 'definitive' . It shrinks. Like the Demon summoned to materialize in a pentagram drawn on its navel.

These Human conditions are Subject of environment

On 10/21/2021 at 1:51 PM, Arete said:

So, imagine I'm a professor teaching a class. I refer to students by their preferred first names. Plenty of people go by things different from what's on their birth certificates. Some are kind of odd, but generally I do my best to pronounce people's names the way they ask, and not mix up people's names. I make the odd mistake, but generally that's how it goes. Except for the African American kid. I call him "boy" because that's what we call black folks where I'm from. He repeatedly tells me his name is Paul, but I insist on calling him "boy" whilst using everyone else in the classes preferred name. 
Paul complains to the University office for the Prevention of Discrimination and Harrassment, who determine that I have violated both institutional policy and federal employment laws by discriminating based on race. I have to face a disciplinary hearing and might get fired. 

Now replace "name" with "pronoun" and "African American" with "transgender". Explain why it wouldn't be discrimination based on gender identity. 

It is.

The arguments are not mutually exclusive, though you  read them that way.

Most times  your chosen pronouns should be respected as a courtesy in common. No disagreement.

But no virtue I can think of should demand I express a reality other than the one my own reasoning shows me. 

 

On 10/22/2021 at 12:44 AM, Peterkin said:

So does the professor on the podium. Jordan Peterson has been forcefully and very publicly making the point that he shouldn't be required to respect the stated identity of anyone he considers unworthy.

No. J.P. has been standing his ground and refusing to concede. He is not 'forcing' anyone. He is resisting being forced.

 

On 10/22/2021 at 12:44 AM, Peterkin said:

 When someone has noticeably different different pigmentation, their racial identity is not questioned -

Uncle Tom? Far Right activist? My reality says otherwise. Racists wet dream? I've defended IRL, too many times, black public figures from these slurs aimed and un-challenged by people claiming to be on the virtuous side.

Two black opinions expressed.

The 1st arguing for reparations and reckoning of todays humanity for suffering inflicted.

The 2nd arguing for help where its needed today, to address the ongoing effects. Like drug dependence, Poverty, affordable housing, education and health access. Issues that stand in the way of equals to participation.

Both valid perspectives. Nothing in one should exclude the other.

But almost always, someone who recognizes their own white privilege then  uses it to discredit the 2nd with those labels.

Both are black. Both are equally representative of black perspective.. I was told  the 2nd was not.  Its inclusion 'cherry picking' because the author was clearly advocating a Right wing agenda.

Thats your white privilege in action, choosing the representatives of the minorities you choose to recognize.

Pretty extreme and not an isolated incident by any stretch.

 

This is how your 'outliers' increase, not decrease.

 

 

On 10/22/2021 at 12:44 AM, Peterkin said:

 

Who are these extreme activists? What, specifically, have they done and to whom?

Part of your answer above.

On 10/22/2021 at 1:44 AM, Arete said:

I disagree - that's the EXACT point of Peterson's argument. He doesn't believe in transgenderism (despite the extensive scientific basis of it), and is claiming that being asked to use a student's preferred pronouns is a violation of his free speech rights. His subtle, intentional discrimination is that he would be happy to use the preferred pronouns of cis-gender appearing students, but not those whose physical appearance does not conform to his assumptions of gender presentation, because of his personal (and IMO fundamentally wrong) opinion that their identity is not valid. 

We're going in circles, but he's arguing that it is his right to discriminate against people who do not conform to gender norms. I'm pointing out that it's not for other protected classes, and asking why transgender people shouldn't be afforded the same protections as religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. 

No. J.P is arguing Transgenderism doesn't exist Objectively. Its subjective. Backed by science.

The same protections should be afforded equally.

On 10/22/2021 at 7:05 AM, Arete said:

- which means you can't single them out and treat them differently.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equal to  those who insist these Human conditions manifest in isolation,  independent of the environment they are subject to, and attempt to subtract their way to an ideal state.

Look to Pedigree dogs to see where that leads. Nothing left to work with.

Edited by naitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no one left in a position where taking responsibility for that won't be blocked by very heavy resistance. 

Direction is to function, not to form. Form follows, or looses further environmental direction in favor of maintaining state.

 

 

Edited by naitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but anyone still dismissing trans individuals as delusional is themselves… delusional. 

 

4 hours ago, naitche said:

Equal to  those who insist these Human conditions manifest in isolation,  independent of the environment they are subject to, and attempt to subtract their way to an ideal state.

Look to Pedigree dogs to see where that leads. Nothing left to work with.

2 hours ago, naitche said:

And no one left in a position where taking responsibility for that won't be blocked by very heavy resistance. 

Direction is to function, not to form. Form follows, or looses further environmental direction in favor of maintaining state.

Or stoned.

 

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.