Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

In all honesty I think Chappelle really only caused a controversy because, a) he is considered one of the greats in comedy and b) his bits have been very vocal about issues of black experiences (where some folks accuse him of race-baiting, which is missing the point entirely). 

I would agree with that.
And I would also agree with INow, that he may have crossed a line and offended people, and if you were to say "I am offended by his jokes, and will no longer listen to D Chapelle" I would understand that.
What I don't understand is someone saying "I am offended by his jokes, will no longer listen to him, and will make sure no one else can either".

Seems to be the total opposite of "I don't agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", the very definition of free speech.

And I see many parallels between the above example, and what we have been discussing. Every one has the right to have an opinion; no one has the right to dictate to others wwhat their opinion should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

no one has the right to dictate to others what their opinion should be.

Again though, who exactly do you believe is doing this? Can you name names?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

And I see many parallels between the above example, and what we have been discussing. Every one has the right to have an opinion; no one has the right to dictate to others wwhat their opinion should be.

You don't seem to be making a distinction between people's rights to an opinion and people's right to point out why an opinion is shitty and wrong. To analogize, nobody is knocking the dinner plate from anyone's hands, they're just pointing out the unhealthy dietary choices piled high there.

This seems to be similar to some posters who come here and claim censorship when all that happened was their idea met criticism. Nobody is removing what's been said; instead, what's been said is being held to the fire and found lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Again though, who exactly do you believe is doing this? Can you name names?

Well, if someone who looks like a he tells you he/she is a she and to refer to him/her as 'she', you can choose to be courteous and do so, but you also have the right to say "No, I don't think you are a she, in my opinion you are a he."
And no one has the right to take that choice away from you.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MigL said:

no one has the right to take that choice away from you.

To repeat my previous query which wasn't directly answered: Who precisely do you believe is trying to remove that choice from you? Can you name names? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Can you name names? 

If someone sues you for repeatedly calling them by the 'wrong' pronoun, it goes to court, and the judge rules that you are in violation of their personal rights, does it not become case law then ?
And it can be cited in any future cases; it effectively becomes law of 'common practice'.
Our Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has many such cases, and a similar reason for 'stacking' your Supreme Court; an 'activist' judge can decide law.

Do you want the name of the judge 😄 .
( and yes, I realize this is a 'slippery slope' argument )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.thebulwark.com/political-speech-for-human-dingleberries-has-never-been-more-robust/

This fellow makes the point (with some humor) that has been made many times,  that in these times very little is ever really "cancelled."

Censorship and cancellation has,  in reality,  become more of a mythic bogeyman used by the "influencers" and assorted loudmouths to up their market share in the media cesspool.   

The real cancellation is the drowning out of sober observers with intellectual integrity and nuanced analysis that require building some knowledge and attention span.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Came in to check if the supreme tribunal of ethics and morality is still active and wasn't dissapointed. I am a bit dissapointed though that @iNow actually laughed watching Chapelle's new special, was expecting better from you iNow - shame on you.

 

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

If someone sues you for repeatedly calling them by the 'wrong' pronoun

But now you're moving the goalposts. You spoke of others dictating your opinion. You spoke of others removing your choices.

Neither of those things are happening, and now in response you've switched over instead to talking about a response based on actual actions... not a response to your opinion... not a response to your choices or preferences... a response to your actions... You "repeatedly called them by the wrong pronoun," which is different from choosing to think they're wrong or having an opinion that they're ridiculous. 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

and yes, I realize this is a 'slippery slope' argument

It's also a red herring unrelated to the actual topic we were covering together. 

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

The real cancellation is the drowning out of sober observers with intellectual integrity and nuanced analysis that require building some knowledge and attention span. 

In addition to this, it's all of the opportunities we fail to pursue because we keep spinning our wheels on dumb stuff like this... Like instead of addressing climate change, we have to devote attention to false claims that the election was stolen... instead of addressing universal health care, we devote attention to death panels, etc. The opportunity cost imposed by these social wedge issues is yuge!

23 minutes ago, koti said:

I am a bit dissapointed though that @iNow actually laughed watching Chapelle's new special,

I'm sure you'll get over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

I'm sure you'll get over it.

I hope I will but in case I won't, I'd suggest you stop laughing at standup shows because it might cause me suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MigL said:

If someone sues you for repeatedly calling them by the 'wrong' pronoun, it goes to court, and the judge rules that you are in violation of their personal rights, does it not become case law then ?
And it can be cited in any future cases; it effectively becomes law of 'common practice'.

Except there is no legal basis for that. The test is evidence of discrimination, of which pronoun use could be supporting evidence but in isolation has no standing.

Of course if you can provide a shred of evidence that this is the case, please let me know. All the articles from legal scholars clearly indicate that it is not the case.

Here is the other thing, though. If Netflix thinks that Chappelle has become too controversial and therefore do not order a new special do you think Netflix is violating his right to become rich(er)? Conversely if Chappelle is a office manager and starts his days with rants regarding transgender folks, and there are complaints at the HR, what would be the correct action in your case? I.e. what would be the balance between the need to create non-toxic work environment vs the right to express yourself whenever you want?

Or do you think you should have the right to insult customers or the CEO without repercussions?

If not, It appears that we are back to the non-existent legal challenge which gets a bit boring by now (well a couple of pages back).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add perhaps a final thought as the same objections keep getting rehashed without any actual evidence for the key assumptions (such as legal repercussions).

It seems to me that folks do not actually have an issue with being courteous to each other but for some reasons have to build up the non-existent legal threat to bolster their argument. This is often indicative of an attempt of justifying their respective worldview, even if it requires reconstructing facts.

I suspect one underlying factor is the assumption that the issues of especially transgender folks are not real or merely delusions. Thus, by engaging in inclusive social norms, one is somehow validating something that one is deeply convinced to be fake.

The issue here is that this is basically an ideological stance and as Arete and others have shown, it runs counter our current knowledge in biology and psychology. As the objection is ideological in nature, and therefore not amenable to facts or scientific understanding, the key argument against using simple preferred pronouns or names (and let’s focus on he/she; I find that novel pronouns are too frequently used as a distraction and may be part of a different discussion) basically boil down to “I don’t want to”, but also “I do not want to suffer any consequences to my behaviour, because I am actually doing the right thing”. This is quite a tricky stance, as society has always penalized non-conforming behaviour.

In the past, for example taking a hard stance against mixed marriage was seen as good thing (virtue signaling?) whereas engaging in that behaviour was ostracized (and in the US, there were actual, not imaginary laws against that).

Moving away from this thought model took a long time, and many are still not over it. I suspect something similar is going on with regard to our understanding of gender and sex. With more information it will become more normalized, but at the same time there will be a hard push to prevent that from happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I suspect one underlying factor is the assumption that the issues of especially transgender folks are not real or merely delusions. Thus, by engaging in inclusive social norms, one is somehow validating something that one is deeply convinced to be fake.

Yes, I believe some folk do feel that way. Others, however are clinging onto that assertion, not because they believe it, but because they don't. Buying into the "they're just delusional" and "it's just their affectation" stance allows the people who are uneasy with the subject of non-binary gender to avoid thinking about,  learning about, questioning, reflecting on and finally understanding "it". 

This happens with every subject that can't be answered with two unambiguous tick-boxes - Y/N; F/M; B/W; G/E; C/A - some people will always be uncomfortable with complexity and uncertainty, and some people always express discomfort as anger. Making the one who introduced uncertainty into their life, their culture, their world-view or self-perception out to be the oppressor and themselves to be the freedom-fighter means they don't have to deal with the actual issue. 

(Also, of course, nobody likes to be disapproved of.  So, when they disparage other people's convictions and opinions and modes of speech, they're just exercising their right. When other people disparage their public remarks, they are being oppressed, censored and shut-down.) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iNow said:

In what way and by what mechanism?

That is irrelevant and most definitely none of your business.
Why would I need to explain or justify my personal feelings to you.
(Analogy mode is on for the ones who missed it)

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, koti said:

That is irrelevant and most definitely none of your business.
(Analogy mode is on for the ones who missed it)

How is that an analogy for the topic? AFAICT, people asking you to use their preferred pronouns aren't responding like this at all. They're clearly telling you that it makes them uncomfortable because they don't identify with those gender labels. They're not saying "Stop saying that, you're making me suffer for reasons I won't elaborate on and are none of your business!" Haven't they been elaborating about their reasoning all along, and asking you to make it your business as well?

Honestly, I can imagine all this happening to the first guy who tried to tell people his name is spelled differently.

Geoffrey: "Actually, I prefer a different spelling. It's not Jeffrey. I spell it Geoffrey."

MigL's Great-Great-Grandpa: "Hey, around here we spell it 'Jeffrey', so that's how I'm going to spell your name. You look more like a Jeffrey than a Geoffrey! Are you gonna call the cops if I get it wrong?"

Geoffrey: "Of course not, but that's not how I want it spelled. I'm having it written this way in all my legal documents, and asking people to spell it correctly. If you spell it with a J it will be wrong. Why do you want to spell MY name YOUR way?"

Koti's G-G-G: "Jeffrey is the way it's always been spelled, and so what if that offends you? I'm basically blameless if I stick to tradition, Jeffrey. Jeffrey! Jeffrey! Jeffrey! Wait, you have to call me Oodiladido from now on!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

How is that an analogy for the topic? AFAICT, people asking you to use their preferred pronouns aren't responding like this at all.

Since 20 pages in this thread couldn't get us on the same page despite (inspite?) of MigL giving multiple examples of people loosing their jobs or even being prosecuted in Canada for not using 'proper pronouns' lets try with what this thread leaned into in the last page which is Dave Chappelle and his new standup show 'The Closer'. Chappelle stated yesterday that promotion of his new film 'Untitled' is experiencing backlash from 9 promoters who previous to his standup going live were interested and now they're not and he will be promoting his movie in alternative ways. I have to admit that it is clear to me that Dave Chappelle is pretty much a genius at doing his own PR here, he is riding this wave he created straight into 9 figures in his bank account when its all said and done but that doesn't change the fact that a group of Netflix employees were staging a walkout from the company trying to pressure Netflix into canceling Chappelles show, it didn't work (so far) 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Dave Chapelle goes, if you don't like what he has to say, you have the option of not watching/listening.
Why try to muzzle him by having him cancelled ?

Ricky Gervais says it better than I can ...

since we're now discussing comedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, koti said:

(inspite?) of MigL giving multiple examples of people loosing their jobs or even being prosecuted in Canada for not using 'proper pronouns'

Can you cite those examples, please? I must have missed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, koti said:

Since 20 pages in this thread couldn't get us on the same page despite (inspite?) of MigL giving multiple examples of people loosing their jobs or even being prosecuted in Canada for not using 'proper pronouns'

Come on, why make things up now. IIRC there were two examples. One from the USA, but it did not involve job loss, just a reprimand, and the person was sueing (and seemingly winning) to have the reprimand stricken.

The second example was because the person violated a court order to not openly discuss a case involving a minor and medical records. Again, not prosecution because of pronouns. This, btw was exactly the point of many folks here that people cannot find actual examples of what they fear is happening. Just repeating it does not make it reality. And I fear that is why the discussion will go nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Come on, why make things up now. IIRC there were two examples. One from the USA, but it did not involve job loss, just a reprimand, and the person was sueing (and seemingly winning) to have the reprimand stricken.

The second example was because the person violated a court order to not openly discuss a case involving a minor and medical records. Again, not prosecution because of pronouns. This, btw was exactly the point of many folks here that people cannot find actual examples of what they fear is happening. Just repeating it does not make it reality. And I fear that is why the discussion will go nowhere.

What about the transgender friend of Dave Chappelle who kept Chappelle’s back on twitter and killed herself due to pressure from her own community. Its a story from his new show, the one which the LGBT community at Netflix wants to cancel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, koti said:

What about the transgender friend of Dave Chappelle who kept Chappelle’s back on twitter and killed herself due to pressure from her own community.

Is that an example of legal or job-related repercussions of pronoun usage?

39 minutes ago, koti said:

Its a story from his new show,

And you've fact-checked it? And you found that it fits the criteria of establishment persecution of non-conformity?

 

40 minutes ago, koti said:

the one which the LGBT community at Netflix wants to cancel. 

What percent of the  LGBTQ community - assuming such a community can be counted accurately - has done what, precisely, to force Netflix to cancel a show? Have they called the police? Launched a lawsuit? Have they succeeded? If so, how many people were fired by Netflix for using the wrong pronoun?

 

"Somebody somewhere is unhappy about something" is not proof of government persecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

If so, how many people were fired by Netflix for using the wrong pronoun?

So far, only the a hole who tried to orchestrate the smear campain against Chappelle was fired for exposing his shows viewing data to the press. We’re lucky aren’t we, phew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, koti said:

What about the transgender friend of Dave Chappelle who kept Chappelle’s back on twitter and killed herself due to pressure from her own community. Its a story from his new show, the one which the LGBT community at Netflix wants to cancel. 

How is that related to 

Quote

MigL giving multiple examples of people loosing their jobs or even being prosecuted in Canada for not using 'proper pronouns'

Assuming that it actually happened as described, are you saying that because members of a given community behaved badly one should be free to discriminate against them? Or what is the argument here? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, koti said:

So far, only the a hole who tried to orchestrate the smear campain against Chappelle was fired for exposing his shows viewing data to the press. We’re lucky aren’t we, phew.

So, we're still at 0 prosecutions and 0 firings for refusing to use the preferred pronoun.

OK. Well, at least you've had a little tempest over a rude comedian.

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.