Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

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.

We're still at you cherry picking and doing backflips to avoid the crux of the matter while sticking to your predefined non-alterable standpoint. It's a shame that we're only getting to know each other and I've already lost interest in having any dialog with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, koti said:

It's a shame that we're only getting to know each other and I've already lost interest in having any dialog with you.

No need for shame! I'm not discommoded in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, iNow said:

 

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

 

How is it even remotely off topic? It's exactly the type of arguments Petersen has made, with his detractors claiming they are fallacious slippery slope arguments.

Petersen from a debate on political correctness:

"Well, I guess I would like to set out a challenge in somewhat the same format as Mr. Fry did, to people on the moderate left. I’ve studies totalitarianism for a very long time, both on the left and on the right in various forms. And I think we’ve done a pretty decent job of determining when right-wing beliefs become dangerous. I think that they become dangerous when they, and the people who stand on the right, evoke notions of racial superiority, or ethnic superiority, something like that. It’s fairly easy — and necessary, I think — to draw a box around them and place them to one side. We’ve done a pretty good job of that. - 15 - What I fail to see happening on the left — and this is with regard to the sensible left, because such a thing exists — is for the same thing to happen with regard to the radical leftists."

https://munkdebates.com/getmedia/80828104-84DF-4F0D-AF22-5BA9D8BB2D6A/Munk-Debate-Political-Correctness-May-2018-Transcript.pdf.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2021 at 4:43 PM, iNow said:

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

Is that what you think any one one here, or J.P has done?

Because many of us can't come to the same conclusion from the language used. 

I don't understand how that could be an objective assessment. You accept your bias when you accept that Trans gender people are objectively oppressed. The language is corrupted to that perspective.

Critical theory may be well intended, its effects are anything but if its O.K to blur the line between objectivity and subjectivity 'in reality.' 

Edited by naitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How is it even remotely off topic?

I didn't say it was off-topic. I said it was unrelated to the subtopic of the actual exchange taking place between me and MigL. Here's the play-by-play / paint by numbers version for you:

 

MIGL: No one has the right to dictate to others what their opinion should be.

INOW: Who exactly do you believe is doing this? Can you name names?

MIGL: No one has the right to take that choice [of whether or not to be courteous] away from you.

INOW: Who precisely do you believe is trying to remove that choice from you? Can you name names? 

MIGL: 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.

INOW: Right, but getting sued in court has literally nothing to do with others "dictating your opinion" or others "removing choices from you." You've evaded my question and answered with a red herring. That red herring is not what we were actually talking about in our last several posts and replies to one another.

 

Hence, your question to me:

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's exactly the type of arguments Petersen has made

... suggests only that you were not reading closely enough OR are attempting to attack me for something I did not actually say. Which is it?

6 hours ago, naitche said:

Is that what you think any one one here

In this thread, in writing, other members suggested that trans individuals may simply be delusional. So, yes. I think that's going on here and that's precisely what I was referencing. No amount of handwaving or disingenuous posting will change that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, iNow said:

 

In this thread, in writing, other members suggested that trans individuals may simply be delusional. So, yes. I think that's going on here and that's precisely what I was referencing. No amount of handwaving or disingenuous posting will change that. 

Ah, Yes. I see.  Trans individuals!   Yes, that has been suggested.  And there is no reason they may not be...  delusional, individually. Though none have suggested its  implicit to the condition.

You seem convinced there is only one answer to the question; Are Trans gender people delusional, so what value are you applying? 

Are you convinced from the Subjective perspective of a trans individual, 

Or the Objective perspective of the Condition?

Edited by naitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, naitche said:

there is no reason they may not be...  delusional, individually

Nor did I suggest otherwise, but this applies to the population as a whole and regardless of one’s expressed gender identity. 
 

6 hours ago, naitche said:

none have suggested its  implicit to the condition.

Well… I’d agree with you, but then we’d BOTH be wrong.

While nobody has claimed ALL trans individuals are simply delusional, the claim that MANY individuals expressing themselves as a gender contrary to the one they were assigned at birth may simply be delusional has been repeated many times and over and over again. 

So, either you’re not paying very close attention to the conversation, or you’re intentionally attacking a strawman of what I’m saying. Neither of those possibilities inclines me to take your specious criticisms very seriously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What has anyone's mental health got to do with a law protecting minority rights?

People who wish to break said law grasping at straws / seeking justifications and rationalizations for continuance of their discriminatory behavior 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only speak for myself, and I've never suggested Trans people are delusional.
If you can live a happier, more fulfilling life as a member of the gender you were not born as, why should I stand in the way.

I have suggested 'some' people are delusional, and since some people includes some Trans people, then some Trans people must also be delusional ( see set theory ).

To clarify, I see 4 possible choices, on a sliding scale ...
1 - you identify as male to various degrees
2 - you identify as female  to various degrees
3 - you identify as both to varying degrees
4 - you identify as neither with a varying degree of conviction

and, as mentioned, the sliding scale between the 4 variations.
( like an x-y co-ordinate graph, you can be anywhere on that graph, not just the extremes )

Where on these axis, of gender/non-gender and male/female do you find 'ze', or any of the other 50-odd pronouns which are in use  ( look it up ) ?
Is that an indication of delusion ?
Or can you scientifically defend that all those pronouns are valid ?
Are we merely giving in to people some of whom may be delusional in fear of hurting their feelings ?
What if I'm of the opinion that giving in to delusional people only makes the situation worse for everyone involved ?

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Havn't participated here for a while, and I may give it a miss after this post. Yesterday I attended a funeral of an old school mate. Anyway a couple of instances occured later at the pub five of us adjourned to...The barmaid that was looking after us five old bastards was a young [early 20's] very pretty blonde who kept our table filled with chips and chicken wing snacks as well as schooners of our preferred beer. She was jovial, friendly, and was addressing us as "sweeties" and we were all harmlessly and playfully flirting with her as she was with us...obviously we all in our mid/late 70's and her early 20's, it was nothing more then that and simply banter to lighten the moment and for amusement.

After a few schooners under our belt, I decided to tell a joke, so I asked her, "why don't blind people bungee jump?" She smiled and said I dunno, why? I replied, "because it scares the fuck out of the dog!" She doubled over with laughter and after regaining her composure, told us her brother would love that joke, as he was blind and had a guide dog!

Again the point I make is "intent". None of us objected to being called sweety, she didn't object being called "love" by us, and obviously she thought her brother would also love that joke, despite he himself being blind.

Let me say catagorically, if she had objected to being addressed as "love" we all would have ceased immediatley and apologised. She took everything in her stride as we did, because we all understood that there was absolutely no intent in any of our banter towards each other. We all understood that and it went without saying.

I would never have told that joke to a blind person...NEVER, because I understand that it maybe taken as discriminatory, offensive and/or insulting and I wouldn't want to ever chance of insulting anyone with that serious predicament. 

There is a comedian that once done the rounds of the clubs and pubs in Sydney....He calls himself "Steady Eddie" 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_Eddy

While I still would not go as far with regards to Steady Eddie's take on PC, I would love to meet the man! A great example of the ability to being able to laugh at one's self, even with the sad predicament he is in. 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

je. tois. il. nous. elles. mimi. wewe. yeye. wao. ты. вы. онá. они. ego. ea. nos. ei.        הוּא. תָּה. אָנֹכִי

Can you scientifically defend that any of these pronouns are valid ?

They're words, not chemical formulas!  All words are made up. Words have meaning by convention and usage. If people use them, words become meaningful. Some people refuse to use them. What motivates their attempt to blackball a few words is the central focus of this investigation. Just what's so scary about those syllables?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Are we merely giving in to people some of whom may be delusional in fear of hurting their feelings ?

 We're giving the benefit of a doubt to those who may be delusional, and validating the right to self-designation of those who are not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Are we merely giving in to people some of whom may be delusional in fear of hurting their feelings ?

No, though if they truly ARE delusional, I remain unsure why calling them that to their face is supposed to be a good thing to do. It’s not courteous, not helpful, and majority of the time not relevant. 

I think about the gay marriage fights. Two people with similar genitalia and pee pee plumbing love each other and want to share their lives together. They want the same recognition, acceptance, and benefits as those with different genital plumbing. Then, someone says they’re “delusional” for loving and wanting to marry someone of the same sex. It makes zero sense. It’s borderline bigoted if not entirely so. 

Now apply that same thinking to folks who assert anyone assigned at birth as Gender A now identifying as Gender B is “delusional.”

This isn’t about fear of hurt feelings. It’s about stopping the disrespect and dismissal of others simply because they don’t fit into our preconceived, rigid, and outdated notions of gender. It’s about inclusion and acceptance, (or at least halting being close minded asshats with no accountability).

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

 

After a few schooners under our belt, I decided to tell a joke, so I asked her, "why don't blind people bungee jump?" She smiled and said I dunno, why? I replied, "because it scares the fuck out of the dog!" She doubled over with laughter and after regaining her composure, told us her brother would love that joke, as he was blind and had a guide dog!

 

Consider me doubled over - good one!   And makes the point about intent.   I would say a lot of humor (at least the kind that makes people laugh) is somewhat transgressive,  and that's a good thing.   It means we are laughing about something that otherwise we might anxious or fearful or sad about.  Humor is a vital social coping mechanism which alleviates negative feelings and distrust.   When it is transgressive, it says we are mutually trusting in the intent to soften life's blows by taking them less seriously.  As you indicated, you have to "read the room. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Consider me doubled over - good one!   And makes the point about intent.   I would say a lot of humor (at least the kind that makes people laugh) is somewhat transgressive,  and that's a good thing.   It means we are laughing about something that otherwise we might anxious or fearful or sad about.  Humor is a vital social coping mechanism which alleviates negative feelings and distrust.   When it is transgressive, it says we are mutually trusting in the intent to soften life's blows by taking them less seriously.  As you indicated, you have to "read the room. "

I wish I could have said it in as beautiful a manner as you have...well put!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iNow said:

No, though if they truly ARE delusional, I remain unsure why calling them that to their face is supposed to be a good thing to do. It’s not courteous, not helpful, and majority of the time not relevant. 

I'll remind you of that , the next time you put down a 'crank' as delusional, when he/she has some misguided idea about science.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Now apply that same thinking to folks who assert anyone assigned at birth as Gender A now identifying as Gender B is “delusional.”

I don't know who that argument is directed at; if you re-read my post, you might realize that doesn't apply to what I posted.
What I posted was the following ...

4 hours ago, MigL said:

I can only speak for myself, and I've never suggested Trans people are delusional.
If you can live a happier, more fulfilling life as a member of the gender you were not born as, why should I stand in the way.

Let's try to keep the discussion honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't know who that argument is directed at

Uhm. It was directed at people who assert anyone assigned at birth as Gender A now identifying as Gender B is “delusional.” … exactly like I said the first time… in the bit you quoted.

Speaking of honesty, how about you stop questioning mine, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MigL said:

As was asked of me ...
Who would those people be ?
Can you name names ?

Who suggested it was crossing a line to request they refer to transgendered individuals by their stated gender instead of their assigned one when they “don’t even know if they’re just delusional?” Is that a serious question?

You were the first to introduce the possibility here:

On 10/13/2021 at 4:59 PM, MigL said:

What about when the person wants to be referred to as They/them, but there is only one of Him/her ???
What about when the person wants to be referred to as Ze/hir, or Xe/xem, or Hy/hym, or even Co/cos ?

When does it become a delusion, and not an oppression ?

Then when @Arete asked you what harm it does to accept someone else’s stated gender identity even if you think it’s a delusion, you didn’t reject the premise and instead answered it as a valid description saying:

On 10/13/2021 at 5:46 PM, MigL said:

I should not be forced to legitimize anyone else's subjective beliefs.

Later when @TheVat suggested it was a matter of etiquette and morality to respect the request for using the chosen gender pronoun, and to do so even if one thinks it’s a delusion, both @Intoscience and @kotiagain accepted the premise and replied with suggestions that this was all about being PC and that those making the request are being ridiculous. 

Then once again you suggested explicitly that a number of trans individuals are likely just delusional and suffering mental health issues… saying some are just nutbars are how it’s simply fashionable these days to “appease” them here:

On 10/20/2021 at 9:02 AM, MigL said:

Trying to make life better for the oppressed and disadvantaged is a valid and noble cause; appeasing nutbars who want to be 'fashionable' and refer to themselves as 'thou' ( the point Koti was trying to make ), or simply delusional people with mental health issues ( we seem to have growing numbers ) is NOT.

We then had another poster come in with this same basic framing:

On 10/23/2021 at 12:05 AM, naitche said:

Its a pretense to disguise inequality.

Acceptance of delusion.

…and continued with that framing in their next posts. Maybe my point has been made. Maybe you were just sloppy with your language, but let’s be clear… it’s not just an issue in this thread here at SFN.

In the general public outside of SFN it’s very regularly suggested that being transgendered is a delusion. 23 seconds of googling gives about 50+ examples. Here are a handful:

Quentin Van Meter, Germaine Greer, James Caspian, Rosi Sexton, and yes… many have summarized our very own Jordan Petersons view on trans individuals as suggesting they’re delusional for their gender identity expression.

Representatives across US state legislatures… in churches around the globe… elsewhere and on and on… they’re doing it, too… during debates about making it illegal to use certain bathrooms or play certain sports… issues with which I know you’re familiar given our exchanges in the transgendered sports threads… judges like Matthew Kacsmaryk in the Northern District of Texas, or Representative John Ragan in Tennessee, or North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Rep. Mark Robinson, for example. And I won’t even mention Fox News media personalities…

You asked me to name one. I’ve done that and more. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Who suggested it was crossing a line to request they refer to transgendered individuals by their stated gender instead of their assigned one when they “don’t even know if they’re just delusional?” Is that a serious question?

You were the first to introduce the possibility here:

Then when @Arete asked you what harm it does to accept someone else’s stated gender identity even if you think it’s a delusion, you didn’t reject the premise and instead answered it as a valid description saying:

Later when @TheVat suggested it was a matter of etiquette and morality to respect the request for using the chosen gender pronoun, and to do so even if one thinks it’s a delusion, both @Intoscience and @kotiagain accepted the premise and replied with suggestions that this was all about being PC and that those making the request are being ridiculous. 

Then once again you suggested explicitly that a number of trans individuals are likely just delusional and suffering mental health issues… saying some are just nutbars are how it’s simply fashionable these days to “appease” them here:

We then had another poster come in with this same basic framing:

…and continued with that framing in their next posts. Maybe my point has been made. Maybe you were just sloppy with your language, but let’s be clear… it’s not just an issue in this thread here at SFN.

In the general public outside of SFN it’s very regularly suggested that being transgendered is a delusion. 23 seconds of googling gives about 50+ examples. Here are a handful:

Quentin Van Meter, Germaine Greer, James Caspian, Rosi Sexton, and yes… many have summarized our very own Jordan Petersons view on trans individuals as suggesting they’re delusional for their gender identity expression.

Representatives across US state legislatures… in churches around the globe… elsewhere and on and on… they’re doing it, too… during debates about making it illegal to use certain bathrooms or play certain sports… issues with which I know you’re familiar given our exchanges in the transgendered sports threads… judges like Matthew Kacsmaryk in the Northern District of Texas, or Representative John Ragan in Tennessee, or North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Rep. Mark Robinson, for example. And I won’t even mention Fox News media personalities…

You asked me to name one. I’ve done that and more. 

Germaine Greer, J K Rowling also, don't like the concept of transgender because I think they think it  threatens, dilutes or confuses the feminist position. In a nutshell, they seem to want gender to be binary. To be clear, male to female transgenderism, feminism and lesbianism are uncomfortable bedmates when discussed in the same breathe.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you've wasted a lot of time searching for my quotes, but maybe you should have taken that time to ubderstand them.

The question is whether I think Trans people are delusional if they think they are a different gender than assigned at birth.

You seem to think that your quote prove that ( as do some others apparently )

6 hours ago, iNow said:

You were the first to introduce the possibility here:

On 10/13/2021 at 5:59 PM, MigL said:

What about when the person wants to be referred to as They/them, but there is only one of Him/her ???
What about when the person wants to be referred to as Ze/hir, or Xe/xem, or Hy/hym, or even Co/cos ?

When does it become a delusion, and not an oppression ?

Then please explain what gender They/them, Ze/hir, Xe/xem, Hy/him or Co/cos refers to. These were all pronouns that I found online, and in use.
What does it mean when someone says I'm a Hy trapped in a man's body, or a Xe trapped in a female body ?
Can you go to the doctor and say "I want a sex change to Them ? Or a Co ? Or a Ze ?
What do you think the doctor will say ?

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Speaking of honesty, how about you stop questioning mine, eh?

When you start rebutting the topic.
We are discussing pronouns, valid ones and 'made-up' ones.
( I have a problem with the made-up ones )
You are disingenuously bringing up Trans people, which no-one has called delusional. 
They are referred to as whatever gender they transition to.
When you can transition to a 'Ze', then you can call me a transphobe.

And all those people you found online are not part of this discussion, and have no bearing on my argument.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Then please explain what gender They/them, Ze/hir, Xe/xem, Hy/him or Co/cos refers to. These were all pronouns that I found online, and in use.

Can you bring about understanding through rejection? If you want to know what a word means, ask the person who requests that you use that word, or find out from other sources. If it's not important to do that, you can accept the word and use it, without fully understanding its intricacies. You don't need to know what it means, unless you are seeking an intimate relationship with that person.  You don't refuse to call a person by the name Changying, until you have verified that it's Chinese for 'flourishing and lustrous'. The validity of anyone's claim to their own identity - whatever identity -  is not for you to assess. It's that simple.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MigL said:

you've wasted a lot of time searching for my quotes, but maybe you should have taken that time to ubderstand them.

You’re not the only participant here nor are you alone representative of what’s happening across society. It’s not all about you, brother. Thou dost protest too much IMO

3 hours ago, MigL said:

What does it mean when someone says I'm a Hy trapped in a man's body, or a Xe trapped in a female body ?
Can you go to the doctor and say "I want a sex change to Them ? Or a Co ? Or a Ze ?
What do you think the doctor will say ?

Probably, “why are you asking me? I’m your proctologist, now bend over.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thou dost protest too much IMO

I'm not protesting at all; It is not my right to change your opinion, or how you see the world.
But you previously said ...

21 hours ago, iNow said:

Uhm. It was directed at people who assert anyone assigned at birth as Gender A now identifying as Gender B is “delusional.”

And I asked what genders They/them, Ze/hir, Xe/xem, Hy/him or Co/cos refer to.
To which you replied "Ask a Proctologist".


I won't make any comments about pulling an answer out of your a*s 😄 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MigL said:

I asked what genders They/them, Ze/hir, Xe/xem, Hy/him or Co/cos refer to.

I agreed with the answer Peterkin already gave. Ask the person requesting you call them that. Have a respectful discussion. Problem solved. 

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.