Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Arete said:

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.

And do you think we need a law that says I should partake in the rituals of that religion, so as to validate it for that individual ?
We are not talking about discrimination, but validating someone else's subjective reality.

 

Interesting video CharonY, but I note neither of the two opposing panelists wanted to be there, because doing so would validate J Peterson's ideas.
IOW they think discussing the issues is perfectly fine, until your viewpoint disagrees with theirs.
Not a good position to have on constructive dialogue, unless you've already made up your mind, rendering the dialogue useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And do you think we need a law that says I should partake in the rituals of that religion, so as to validate it for that individual ?

Nope. And that's why there isn't one.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

We are not talking about discrimination, but validating someone else's subjective reality.

We, on the other hand, are talking about discrimination against a minority by selectively invalidating their reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, iNow said:

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. 

Thank you for the clarification.

I'm sure there are some delusional transgender people, like there are delusional people of all gender identities. I can't recall responding in agreement directly to the notion that transgender people are delusional or over sensitive. Though I may have inadvertently done so, by responding in such a way that it could be interpreted that way. I'll take more care going forward, however I'm human and prone to mistakes. I can live with that. 

The problem is though, it appears (at least to me) that when someone questions another point of view unless the question, or rather an alternative answer is in agreement with yours, you get very defensive and call people out, with occasional misinterpreting, manipulating or taking out of context the reply or rebuttal.

An example of this, as per your reply ^^^ where you state that I should be questioning the assertion of others before making comment, in an attempt to present evidence on why you assume/assert (or try to make out) that I'm transphobic.         

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

We, on the other hand, are talking about discrimination against a minority by selectively invalidating their reality.

I think there is a difference between a chosen Identity and reality though. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with a person's right to their chosen personal identity. 

It seems we have 2 tangents and they are being confused with each other.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MigL said:

And do you think we need a law that says I should partake in the rituals of that religion, so as to validate it for that individual ?
We are not talking about discrimination, but validating someone else's subjective reality.

 

Interesting video CharonY, but I note neither of the two opposing panelists wanted to be there, because doing so would validate J Peterson's ideas.
IOW they think discussing the issues is perfectly fine, until your viewpoint disagrees with theirs.
Not a good position to have on constructive dialogue, unless you've already made up your mind, rendering the dialogue useless.

It is more like discussing  someone who makes ridiculous claims but you have to take time off your schedule explaining folks something obvious because some demagogue has stirre up honsense. Folks demanded a bigger platform and the actuall experts had to join in.

It is a bit like having to share stage with a YouTube personality to explain why vaccines don't make you magnetic and then have to engage in insane arguments why it might be. You do it but do not have to be happy about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is a bit like having to share stage with a YouTube personality to explain why vaccines don't make you magnetic and then have to engage in insane arguments why it might be. You do it but do not have to be happy about it.

I remember the debates staff had here regarding whether to allow creationist discussions, since the tactics used were more or less the same: misrepresent, misinform, keep repeating previously refuted statements, and make claims supported by nothing but personal incredulity or fallacious reasoning. This subject seems to elicit the same types of arguments designed to wear away at critical thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think there is a difference between a chosen Identity and reality though.

And what is that difference? What are the signs to look for and metrics whereby to judge whether to respect someone's self-declared identity?

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

It seems we have 2 tangents and they are being confused with each other.  

I think it more like having two quite different perceptions of the same situation.

What Peterson's position seems to be that he considers himself persecuted by a law under which he might, in certain hypothetical circumstances, be prosecuted for refusing to comply with a request that might sometime be made to use a syllable that could validate the possibly disingenuous non-standard gender identity of someone he might encounter in a minority-protected environment.

My position is that Peterson's whole right-wing roadshow is disingenuous. 

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm sure there are some delusional transgender people, like there are delusional people of all gender identities.

Agree completely, but in this case one wonders why others felt it relevant to even mention in a thread like this... as if they were searching for rationalizations for their views, perhaps?

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The problem is though, it appears (at least to me) that when someone questions another point of view unless the question, or rather an alternative answer is in agreement with yours, you get very defensive and call people out, with occasional misinterpreting, manipulating or taking out of context the reply or rebuttal.

And here I thought this thread was in the Politics forum.  ;) 

Kidding aside, if you feel you've been taken out of context, then correct me and point that out. I'm here arguing in good faith. I have a LONG history of doing so too, even if you don't happen to appreciate the rhetorical weapons I wield nor how I use them to make my case / erode the case of those who happen to disagree. 

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

in an attempt to present evidence on why you assume/assert (or try to make out) that I'm transphobic.         

Once more, you're reading into my words comments and meanings I don't intend. I am not asserting nor assuming any such thing about you (see also: my comments about potential blindspots). Stop being so sensitive. Lol

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're gonna have to explain this one to me, INow.

Why is it OK to tell Intoscience

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Stop being so sensitive.

When he feels offended by your wording.

But it is not OK for me to tell some university student, in his/her 'safe' space, that they are delusional if they insist on being referred to as 'Ze' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MigL said:

You're gonna have to explain this one to me, INow.

Why is it OK to tell Intoscience

When he feels offended by your wording.

But it is not OK for me to tell some university student, in his/her 'safe' space, that they are delusional if they insist on being referred to as 'Ze' ?

It's called humor, and the funniest jokes as we all know are those we must later explain. 

Must. Resist. Urge... to tell you... to also stop being so... Sensitive :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

It is more like discussing  someone who makes ridiculous claims but you have to take time off your schedule explaining folks something obvious because some demagogue has stirre up honsense. Folks demanded a bigger platform and the actuall experts had to join in.

It is a bit like having to share stage with a YouTube personality to explain why vaccines don't make you magnetic and then have to engage in insane arguments why it might be. You do it but do not have to be happy about it.

@iNow @Peterkin @TheVat @Phi for All @MigL @Intoscience @naitche
Look, Lawrence M. Krauss is "stirring up honsense" too. Boy am I glad he came out to publish this  absolutely deplorable list of abuse in Academia which stems from the very thing which Jordan Peterson is trying to stand up against.

https://quillette.com/2021/11/02/tales-from-the-gulag/?fbclid=IwAR0YL5GK0mtjf4nd7fnvdaXWJzR_KPCjlqsFBy1CuBdbP8jJKf5oD8qck2I

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will admit the removal of pictures of early graduating classes at the Nova Scotia college struck me as ridiculous.  Yes,  most students were white then,  as I assume was true of Nova Scotia generally,  and so what?   So,  yes,  when academic institutions start erasing history or suppressing open dialog,  that is kind of Maoist and antithetical to the intellectual freedom that such institutions are supposed to foster.  

George Santayana leaps to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Will admit the removal of pictures of early graduating classes at the Nova Scotia college struck me as ridiculous.  Yes,  most students were white then,  as I assume was true of Nova Scotia generally,  and so what?   So,  yes,  when academic institutions start erasing history or suppressing open dialog,  that is kind of Maoist and antithetical to the intellectual freedom that such institutions are supposed to foster.  

George Santayana leaps to mind.

Yeah, this look like a performative act just so it appears that they were actually doing anything to promote diversity. You have to remember that at universities faculty and administration do not necessarily have the same goal. Admin likes to get butt on the seats and faculty want to educate folks. As such Admin often likes to score easy points with their "customers".

That being said I have only read Krauss' OP-ed in the WSJ, but I think that is a decent rebuttal

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/awareness-of-our-biases-is-essential-to-good-science/

In are of (bio)-medical research there is plenty of evidence (and increasing awareness) why ignoring diversity has led to really bad science.

That being said, I think that this would be more appropriate for another thread. One thing that I want to re-iterate is that many of the things Krauss seems to be against are based on clumsy implementation by administration with faculty falling at either side of the rifts that sometimes are created. I think few are actually against the need for awareness of diversity issues and its relevance. However, we have not figured a good way to actually tackle it in a an effective way. We have built this structure and assume that all outcomes (even extreme differences in, say gender) are natural. Yet often they are baked in in how we do and evaluate things. Reversing that cannot be done with a few easy mandates (which is what administration is often hoping for) and often becomes empty procedures about which no one is really happy about. It will take time and a lot of trial and error to get it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Will admit the removal of pictures of early graduating classes at the Nova Scotia college struck me as ridiculous. 

It is also, let us put things in perspective, merely a decision in interior decorating: what is displayed, where. If you want to create a welcoming atmosphere, you take the bars off the windows, remove the spikes from the sofa cushions, and replace the black candles with pink-shaded lamps - regardless of the motivations of preceding decorators who installed those things. No alumnus (in the unlikely event that any are still alive to care) was deprived of anything, except the resentful gaze of the great-grand-son or -daughter of someone who had been denied admission. (And whose family, due to that denial as well as all the other denials of access to economic and social betterment, had to struggle for two, three extra generations to catch up with their Anglo counterparts.)

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

es,  most students were white then,  as I assume was true of Nova Scotia generally,  and so what? 

Not so so what. Nova Scotia has history, too. It had a large and [intermittently] thriving Black settlement, First Nations communities, French Canadian second-class citizens,  small but vibrant Jewish settlements - none of whose children were represented in those photographs.

If all of that were in my past, I probably wouldn't brag about it, either.  But that doesn't mean I'd be automatically shutting down discussion about it. I don't know exactly what's going on in the Dalhousie administrative offices and board meetings - but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of several doubts before condemning their actions.     

 

Edited by Peterkin
forgot link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 

Not so so what. Nova Scotia has history, too. It had a large and [intermittently] thriving Black settlement, First Nations communities, French Canadian second-class citizens,  small but vibrant Jewish settlements - none of whose children were represented in those photographs.

If all of that were in my past, I probably wouldn't brag about it, either.  But that doesn't mean I'd be automatically shutting down discussion about it. I don't know exactly what's going on in the Dalhousie administrative offices and board meetings - but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of several doubts before condemning their actions.     

 

I wasn't denying that NS had past diverse population, just saying that the reality was that most North American schools were not inclusive, and that it seems like a policy of honesty to not conceal its early crops of pale people.   If they were only doing it to liberate wall space, or go Minimalist on decor,  sure,  no problem.   But current prospective students are really not going to freak out,  are they,  if they happen to see that the class of 1905 was melanin challenged.   Indeed,  it might be inspiring to see the contrast between then and now.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like how everyone has started chasing the fresh new squirrel Koti has thrown into the mix… in what appears to be a banal attempt to distract us all from his profound failure to adequately defend his previous views and stances on the Peterson and trans pronouns issues… 

Quick!! Look over there!!! They took down white photos! 

Ho hum. Yawn.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

I do like how everyone has started chasing the fresh new squirrel Koti has thrown into the mix… in what appears to be a banal attempt to distract us all from his profound failure to adequately defend his previous views and stances on the Peterson and trans pronouns issues… 

Quick!! Look over there!!! They took down white photos! 

Ho hum. Yawn.

 

Except Krause's concerns are essentially what J Petersen is about . He's not against the acceptance of transgenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I do like how everyone has started chasing the fresh new squirrel Koti has thrown into the mix… in what appears to be a banal attempt to distract us all from his profound failure to adequately defend his previous views and stances on the Peterson and trans pronouns issues… 

I was not expecting that response to Koti's post.
I was expecting
"Must. Resist. Urge... to tell you... that L M Krauss is out... of his area...of expertise" 😄 😄

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

I was not expecting that response to Koti's post.
I was expecting
"Must. Resist. Urge... to tell you... that L M Krauss is out... of his area...of expertise" 😄 😄

I’ll take progress where I can get it. After all… At least this time he’s not sexually assaulting his students and fondling nonconsenting women at conferences.  🙄

55 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Except Krause's concerns are essentially what J Petersen is about .

Fascinating. I hadn’t realized that white males were a protected class suffering from a long history of discrimination and brutal violence due solely to their gender identification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, iNow said:

Agree completely, but in this case one wonders why others felt it relevant to even mention in a thread like this... as if they were searching for rationalizations for their views, perhaps?

And here I thought this thread was in the Politics forum.  ;) 

Kidding aside, if you feel you've been taken out of context, then correct me and point that out. I'm here arguing in good faith. I have a LONG history of doing so too, even if you don't happen to appreciate the rhetorical weapons I wield nor how I use them to make my case / erode the case of those who happen to disagree. 

Once more, you're reading into my words comments and meanings I don't intend. I am not asserting nor assuming any such thing about you (see also: my comments about potential blindspots). Stop being so sensitive. Lol

Fortunately (for me maybe) I'm not "over sensitive" like some. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There we go, the race and white privilege card has been played. The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if iNow starts looking for Dave Chappelle's white ancestors 😂

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, koti said:

There we go, the race and white privilege card has been played. The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if iNow starts looking for Dave Chappelle's white ancestors 😂

Who are you suggesting played the "race card?" It would appear you're suggesting I did, but if that's the case, then it suggests you're struggling either with honesty or reading comprehension issues (or potentially both).

You should ask yourself... Do either of those possibilities bolster the position you're here defending, or are you really just continuing to troll and attempt to derail mature discussion about a highly charged topic with a flurry of disingenuous personal barbs and childish rhetorical feces flinging.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, koti said:

There we go, the race and white privilege card has been played. The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if iNow starts looking for Dave Chappelle's white ancestors 😂

Is it so surprising that privilege has a part to play? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

I wasn't denying that NS had past diverse population, just saying that the reality was that most North American schools were not inclusive, and that it seems like a policy of honesty to not conceal its early crops of pale people.   If they were only doing it to liberate wall space, or go Minimalist on decor,  sure,  no problem.   But current prospective students are really not going to freak out,  are they,  if they happen to see that the class of 1905 was melanin challenged.   Indeed,  it might be inspiring to see the contrast between then and now.   

 

Agreed. It was a superficial gesture in response to a superficial concern: appearances. Doesn't change anything; may be futile, even silly. And I wouldn't care, but for the backlash. I don't think an administrator trying to be seen to do the right thing - whatever the motivation, however ineffectual the gesture - deserves a public flogging. 

That's what Peterson does; that's what all the right-wing commentators do: they inflate trivial missteps by social liberals to stand against the egregious crimes of social conservatives. MacDonald instituted the residential school system, yeah, okay, that was back then. (But Trudeau went to a costume party dressed as the Sheik of Araby - so there!) (Of course millions of poor South Americans are thrown off their ancestral land to make room for our steak; that's hard-wired Nature. Anyway, you're just a virtue-signalling hypocrite: I saw you in Starbucks one time.)

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't agree with Jordan Peterson on everything (and it is a tad alarming how many of his fans seem to think he has all the answers) I think the best case for the notion that he... might be onto something can be found in the fact that some of his critics resort to strawmanning what he has to say:

 

Edited by ScienceNostalgia101
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.