Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, MigL said:

Kind of hard to do, when they start calling you 'Transphobe'.
Just ask J Peterson.

Is that what you think happened here?

One person requested JP call them Ze and he went out on a speaking tour to express how his rights were being taken away… and all this happened when what he REALLY desperately wanted to do (full of sincerity and goodness) was to have a respectful discussion about the meaning of Ze and to better understand why this person identified that way.

But, NO!! Those horrible people looking for acceptance and inclusion chose instead to call him a transphobe and that was it!! It was over at that moment. All of his warmth and goodness and desire to proceed forward in the spirit of mutual understanding (and NOT earn buckets of speaking fees and sell tens of millions of books with divisive tribal politics) was rebuffed and spat upon!!

That’s the point you’re making to me right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He might be making lots of money 'milking' this cash cow, but he has always come across as respectful in his debates.
He considers the other's viewpoint, and calmly rebuts.
I cannot say the same for a lot of the people he has debated.

Maybe "Have a respectful discussion. Problem solved." is advice you should be giving them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2021 at 12:20 AM, iNow said:

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. 

You still have not answered my question. Are you applying subjective or objective values.

Because you seem to be stopped by the 1st identifier of Trans gender as objectively inclusive of any further identifiers, subjectively. 

On 10/31/2021 at 12:31 AM, Peterkin said:

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

Absolutely nothing, if you don't  recognize mental health  as a minority issue.

On 10/31/2021 at 4:23 AM, iNow said:

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

So disagreement with your stance or said law could imply nothing else? 

On 10/31/2021 at 8:32 AM, 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. 

None have suggested we do. Only that we don't support delusion at the expense of the person where that choice is applicable.

On 10/31/2021 at 8:32 AM, 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.”

 

Anyone assigned at birth is not the same as some or even many,. Some or many is subjective, of those who are, delusional. You do no favors on behalf of the trans community to ignore its subjectivity and entanglement with environment. Thats not recognition, thats increased definition and exclusion.

On 10/31/2021 at 1:49 PM, iNow said:

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.

Again,  thats not what has been done here. 'Any one who' is not the same as 'some or many who'

 

On 10/31/2021 at 1:49 PM, iNow said:

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

 

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Can you bring about understanding through rejection?  

I doubt it. Rejecting argument on the basis that it must imply racism or bigotry does little to foster understanding.

Subjective and objective values are oppositional . Application of both corrupts the language to opposition. 

Social justice is a worthy cause, but C.T has altered its language to an oppositional state, not an accepting one in a belief both subjective and objective values  apply simultaneously.

Edited by naitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, naitche said:

You still have not answered my question

Correct. Convince me of it’s relevance to the actual discussion and first clearly define your terms then perhaps I’ll reconsider. 

37 minutes ago, naitche said:

None have suggested we do. Only that we don't support delusion at the expense of the person where that choice is applicable.

Please clarify. In this discussion about trans individuals asking others to respect their gender identity, who are you saying is delusional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, naitche said:

Absolutely nothing, if you don't  recognize mental health  as a minority issue.

I do not. The majority - indeed, the entirety - of the population is concerned in and with mental health, the availability, accessibility and quality of health care, the societal and legal response to mental illness and the people who suffer mental illness. Every citizen of every country might, at some time in their life, become ill, might need help, might have family members who are ill and need help. It's not merely a majority issue - it's a universal one. 

1 hour ago, naitche said:

Rejecting argument on the basis that it must imply racism or bigotry does little to foster understanding

That's true, though not applicable to the present topic, which was gender-denoting pronouns. (I know; it's a very tiny ball and hard to keep in focus.)

 

1 hour ago, naitche said:

Subjective and objective values are oppositional .

Which values - other than pi, the speed of light and the boiling point of water - are objective? Where is the perch on which a deity must sit in order to get an objective view of human politics? Monarchist and republican values are in opposition. So are Christian and Ojibwa values. So are commercial and family values. When drafting the constitution, law-makers have to balance all the sets of values that make up the convictions of their people in such a way that no group is dispossessed. That's no easy task! From time to time, some aspect of the people's character comes to light that had previously been neglected and an amendment is drafted, proposed, debated and voted-on. So then, the laws of the land change a little bit, to make things better for some people - while everyone else keeps on truckin' like nothing happened. Predictably, a few object to the change and become oppositional. 

 

1 hour ago, naitche said:

Application of both corrupts the language to opposition.

 I tried, but can't guess what that means.

Edited by Peterkin
redundancy; correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 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. 

 

 

 

I can't speak for @koti , but I have never suggested at any point on this thread that someone is delusional for wanting to be Identified as a specific gender pronoun. In fact I have never used the word delusional, however have used the word ridiculous when a person wants to change the identity of an object, because the current name has a word used that maybe offensive, even though the name has and has never had any offensive intent or otherwise. Thus my point throughout the thread is, how far does this go? 

You are the one who made assumptions and lumped the trans gender identity in with my argument, when they are at different ends of the spectrum. I respect and would remain courteous of a person's preferred choice of identity, regardless of my opinion on it. 

As MigL says it will be interesting to see how persons react to some "crank".  Maybe comes on a science forum claiming the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old. Would it be fair to call them delusional? or should we accept their opinion and kindly agree with them, so as not to offend them?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

...when a person wants to change the identity of an object, because the current name has a word used that maybe offensive, even though the name has and has never had any offensive intent or otherwise...

This is exactly the crux of Jordan Petersons argument.

Quote

...Thus my point throughout the thread is, how far does this go? 

 As with all ideology and PC driven stances, it goes as far as it lasts untill a new 'fashion' comes around but from the broader picture is never ends.

 

Quote

As MigL says it will be interesting to see how persons react to some "crank".  Maybe comes on a science forum claiming the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old. Would it be fair to call them delusional? or should we accept their opinion and kindly agree with them, so as not to offend them?     

Well to be fair, there is indisputable evidence that the Earth is not flat so these crackpots are delusional in the sense that they lack the mental aparatus to ingest and digest scientific evidence. Pollitical, ideological discussions never obey the scientific method so its not as clear who is delusional or not. Political correctness is becoming the new faith of the enlightened and that is really a shame. I'm sure social media and the model it brought which we are all living in right now has a lot to do with this, people are becooming more secluded and locked inside their bubbles, weakness is becoming a new virtue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, koti said:

As with all ideology and PC driven stances, it goes as far as it lasts untill a new ('fashion' snip) reason comes around but from the broader picture is never ends.

Indeed, I'll give a +1 if you can explain the excuse for my edit...  

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

As MigL says it will be interesting to see how persons react to some "crank".  Maybe comes on a science forum claiming the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old. Would it be fair to call them delusional? or should we accept their opinion and kindly agree with them, so as not to offend them? 

Or, we could just disagree with them regardless of their offence; that's a joke, of course they're delusional/offended...

 

Edited by dimreepr
reason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, I'll give a +1 if you can explain the excuse for my edit...  

I presume the reason is that you’re high again and you can’t distinguish between the meaning of „fashion” and „reason” 

Did I get it right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, koti said:

I presume the reason is that you’re high again and you can’t distinguish between the meaning of „fashion” and „reason” 

Did I get it right? 

Sadly and predictably, no; I'm genuinely sad about that, I thought I'd taught you better, about the bias you bring... 😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Sadly and predictably, no; I'm genuinely sad about that, I thought I'd taught you better, about the bias you bring... 😉 

I missed the grotesque word salad you bring to the conversation, good to see you again Dim 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, koti said:
4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

..when a person wants to change the identity of an object, because the current name has a word used that maybe offensive, even though the name has and has never had any offensive intent or otherwise...

This is exactly the crux of Jordan Petersons argument.

No, that isn't Peterson's argument. He may have a problem with renaming manhole covers - can't imagine why; I mean, he's not likely to be anywhere near one in that suit! Nor do I see any need for self-help gurus to step into that controversy: it's more the purview of stand-up comedians. Each one of those debates can wind down to some mutually acceptable end without causing any deep social rifts.

The arguments of his that I've heard are directed at a law that [he falsely claims] forces him to call people by words of their choice, rather than his own. He seems unaware, or unwilling to admit, that self-identification is the right of all persons;  that they are not objects to be defined by by someone [himself] who knows better what they are and what they need than they know themselves. 

That, to me, is an old and very bad political idea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, koti said:

Well to be fair, there is indisputable evidence that the Earth is not flat so these crackpots are delusional in the sense that they lack the mental aparatus to ingest and digest scientific evidence. Pollitical, ideological discussions never obey the scientific method so its not as clear who is delusional or not. Political correctness is becoming the new faith of the enlightened and that is really a shame. I'm sure social media and the model it brought which we are all living in right now has a lot to do with this, people are becooming more secluded and locked inside their bubbles, weakness is becoming a new virtue.

Indeed, and you are correct my example was one of science. I'm guilty on this occasion of lumping all things together. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MigL said:

He considers the other's viewpoint, and calmly rebuts.
I cannot say the same for a lot of the people he has debated.

And simply refutes rebuttals. He had the law explained to him but several law experts and yes, he did not throw a tantrum but it does not make him right (and he continued to continue to spread the falsehood). But here I think we have to come to yet another issue, which basically means that apparently now you are more hung up on style than on substance.

Your original argument followed Peterson's argument, i.e. that laws could lead to arrests for using wrong pronouns. It has at times eroded to an assumed but never substantiated massive loss of livelihoods. Now were not talking about the use of wrong pronouns or even the objection to transgender folks wanting being addressed using any of the traditional pronouns (i.e. he/she) but now it is actually about resistance against the introduction of new pronouns. The latter obviously is tricky as language often changes in the weirdest ways and is not easily controlled either way, but again, it looks weird to me to make such a big fuss about it as it does not appear to have made a big splash (it looks a bit like that satanic panic in the 80s). I mean some folks are discussing it, but in practice it is very much an oddity and the panic around it far surpasses its actual presence. On Peterson's side we have drifted from discussing his actual expertise in the topic to oh well but the others are so mean to him and he is so respectful. Which is fine, but it still signifies a rather lousy expertise to noise ratio.

But certainly none of the substantiates the initial claim of and outrage regarding limiting ones freedom by law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I have never suggested at any point on this thread that someone is delusional for wanting to be Identified as a specific gender pronoun. In fact I have never used the word delusional, however have used the word ridiculous when a person wants to change the identity of an object

And to clarify, I wasn’t suggesting that you had. I was suggesting that others had, and you replied without ever even questioning the assertion.

You accepted the premise that delusion explains why some transgendered individuals identify with the gender they do and responded accordingly by calling everyone else too sensitive or too PC. 

Questioning the premise is the correct first step in these discussions. Is delusion a valid description for why the majority of trans individuals identify how they do? Absolutely not, and it seems you agree, but that wasn’t clear when your response implicitly accepted the false premise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

But here I think we have to come to yet another issue, which basically means that apparently now you are more hung up on style than on substance.

Not an issue.
My response was to INow who made the claim ...

17 hours ago, iNow said:

One person requested JP call them Ze and he went out on a speaking tour to express how his rights were being taken away… and all this happened when what he REALLY desperately wanted to do (full of sincerity and goodness) was to have a respectful discussion about the meaning of Ze and to better understand why this person identified that way.

And I suggested that JP is calm and sincere in all the videos I've seen, while his opponents/detractors are usually disrespectful, and sometimes raving lunatics.
I can post the videos to back that up, or, if so inclined, you can watch some of them. I don't know which ones Peterkin has watched ( as he seems to believe differently ), but they are just a google away.

And again, I have no problem calling a Trans person by the pronoun of their transitioned gender, and several pages back I posted a video showing that JP has no problem with it either.

What JP ( and I ) have a problem with is the decision to use a different 'made-up' pronoun, for each day of the week, depending on how you might feel that day, and expecting, actually demanding, others use those made-up pronouns, and buy into your subjective version of reality.

I understand language is fluid/evolving, but it has to evolve in a natural way, not be forced.
Are you arguing for forcing its evolution to a specific ( and subjective ) endpoint ?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

What JP ( and I ) have a problem with is the decision to use a different 'made-up' pronoun, for each day of the week, depending on how you might feel that day, and expecting, actually demanding, others use those made-up pronouns, and buy into your subjective version of reality.

First of all that is a red herring. There is no big movement to further novel pronouns, rather there is a discussion whether that should be a thing. And if there were enough folks in favour of it would be unlikely to be implemented randomly, as it would undermine the whole purpose. Whether it would actually hold would be seen over time, but I am skeptical for a number of reasons. Not the least because many languages are more gendered than English and given a large immigrant population in the US/Canada especially there it would be difficult to find broad appeal. 

Also you are re-casting much of the discussion. While Peterson did object to alternative pronouns, that is not all he does. He still objects to Bill C-16 (a) as he sees a more or less direct line between the use of preferred traditional pronouns (b) to these novel ones (c). I.e. it is a tactic to make it seem that there is a direct line from a to c. As c is the by far most controversial whereas a) and b) are more socially acceptable, he attacks the former by playing up c).

By framing that as an attack on free speech (which, again, does not exist), he basically renders the issues of transgender people, embedded in a and b as illegitimate. And again, if you talk about "your subjective version", I would like to see what exactly you mean. It seems that self-determination of transgendered folks is fine in your view, at which point I wonder what the whole issue here is. Peterson's assessment of C-16 was wrong and it could have been ended there. Do you object that there are some folks who seemingly do not understand the issue and then make silly demands? If so, why should that be a reason to limit the rights and freedom of the vast majority of transgender folks who have reasonable demands?

You are aware that very similar arguments were used regarding same-sex marriage? "Where does it end?", was the argument, "folks might want to marry their pets!" 

I will also note that the original argument was specifically about the enforcement by law (another side aspect was his misuse of animal models to explain human behaviour but let's leave that aside).

Quote

He has no problem complying with requests to use preferred pronouns, and has often done so in interviews and debates; he has a problem with being forced by law to do so.

You also made the assertion that:

Quote

And where your own personal, subjective reality can be forced, under threat of law, on the rest of society.

But then there were no real examples made how this actually happened in reality. As I mentioned repeatedly, the only dynamic in play here is a social one. And historically all the claims of forcing a norm or reality on other folks was brought by the majority (or at least those elements with the largest influence). A part of this reality was the assumption that being gay is abnormal, likewise being transgendered. Or that non-white (and male) folks have a number of irredeemable flaws which explains their place in society. Many of these assertions are now under scrutiny. Realistically speaking (keeping the actual power dynamics in mind) it is not that there is a broad authoritarian wave clashing over folks. It is the fact that now other parts of society want to be part of creating the new reality and folks that are used to be catered for are afraid that it will negatively impact them. 

I always found it funny that often folks just do not want to have race issues shoved into their faces, yet many visible minorities have not choice but to maneuver it on a constant basis. I am pretty sure that this "trigger" some folks but that is what some refer to as privilege. The ability not to think about certain issue because it simply does not apply to them or is force upon them. This is probably why there is always a huge resistance in shifts of social norms.

Edit:

I should add, that I get it. It is exhausting having to deal with it. But think about it from the other side. You might be annoyed at the issue, but unless you encounter a transgender person in your work you do not actually need to deal with it. But if you are the transgender person (or other minority) you have to deal with it whether you like it or not. These protections are intended to give those folks some protection and potentially ease of on said exhaustion (whether it works is another issue). 

I still remember back when my parents immigrated to Germany and lived in an immigrant-heavy area. There were basically a bunch of overworked foreigners and the only outlet there was was bitching about Germans. Funny bit is that folks had many different native languages (Polish, Russian, Turkish, Chinese, Vietnames etc.) and the only language they could all talk with each other was of course in broken German. But out of that community, it was mask on, play nice, never complain and be happy if someone tells you that you are "one of the good ones".

 

This does not meant that folks like college students will get the balance right. Of course they barely get anything right, they are freaking students. But the idea is that they learn and think about it. Most are lazy like everybody and go right for slogans. But occasionally there are those few who think really deep about it and perhaps they will do something lasting.

 

Since apparently all discussions about that needs youtube videos I am going to leave this one here

Also this article about gender-neutral pronouns, which shows that this discussion is actually kind of old.

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/06/gender-neutral-pronouns-arent-new/619092/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm glad you've agreed that some personal pronouns can, indeed, be silly.

Now let's move on to Bill C-16.
What is a Bill, if not a precursor to a law?
And if it's not a law, why have it ? Is it merely a 'suggestion' ?
Once this Bill becomes law, are you not mandated to follow the guidelines of this ( now ) law ?
How is that different from 'force of law' or 'threat of law' ?

And once a law is passed, punishments for non-compliance can be changed any time. The fact that no-one has been persecuted, or gone to jailyet is meaningless.
I've never been hit by a bus either; that doesn't mean I don't take precautions and look both ways before crossing the sreet.
( I use that analogy often, with my nephews/neice, when they say "That won't happen to me" )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, MigL said:

And once a law is passed, punishments for non-compliance can be changed any time. The fact that no-one has been persecuted, or gone to jailyet is meaningless.
I've never been hit by a bus either; that doesn't mean I don't take precautions and look both ways before crossing the sreet.
( I use that analogy often, with my nephews/neice, when they say "That won't happen to me" )

So, where is the evidence then? Identical laws have been in effect in provinces for several years already and as far as I can tell there is not a single case where anyone was forced by law to use random pronouns. You should watch the provided video there it is explained how courts assess whether something is reasonable. And just that you fear it might somehow magically happen (without evidence) does not make it so. And I will repeat again that you have made claims regarding jobs and livelihoods lost related to it and again failed to substantiate it. If we use your slippery slope argument we should not have any laws as in some magic way they could be abused. 

Also I will re-iterate: the law basically covers hate speech and discrimination. Do you want to repeal all anti-discrimination laws while we are at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching, until you rudely interrupted by replying 🙂 .

I will now go back to finish watching.
But I should point out that there are bad laws on the books, and there have been even worse laws in the past, that way overstepped their initial intent.
It is not a slippery slope argument as much as historical precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MigL said:

What JP ( and I ) have a problem with is the decision to use a different 'made-up' pronoun, for each day of the week, depending on how you might feel that day, and expecting, actually demanding, others use those made-up pronouns, and buy into your subjective version of reality.

Even if one of them does happen to be right, by definition - most religions are made up, delusional, subjective versions of reality. Yet, in most Western democracies you are legally protected from discrimination based on religious affiliation. 

Your argument could be applied to that as well - an individual could abuse that law - change religion every second day, making up ridiculous and continuously variable exemptions and accommodations, demanding you apply them. Yet religious affiliation remains protected from discrimination by law.

As a counter: 
1) The minimal risk of the rules being abused is acceptable if they effectively prevent the genuine discrimination and harassment of a marginalized group. 
2) One of the reasons a discrimination case needs to be prosecuted in a court is to determine if the behaviors alleged meet the criteria of discrimination. If the requested accommodations do not meet the criteria of being reasonable, the case would generally be dismissed. The law does not protect unreasonable requests for accommodation.  
3) The extreme hypothetical examples tend not to play out in reality. I've never met a person who routinely changed their gender identity, religious affiliation, racial identity or sexual orientation. 

Edited by Arete
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.