Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Arete said:

And yet, to quote: 

 

It's a CIVIL LAW. The only way you could go to jail is if you refused to comply with a court decision, in which case you'd go to jail for contempt of court, not discrimination. 

So could a Judge make me use one of the 50 pronouns  and if I refuse I go to jail for contempt of court?
 

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Don't you know how offensive it is that you're not agreeing to their world-view, Koti ?
And they are not offended at all that you can't voice your opinion without being accused of discrimination and ignorance 

IOW, if your opinion is that you are a 'Ze', you are a good person; and the echo chamber agrees and upvotes you.
If you are of the opinion that someone who identifies as 'Ze', is a self-centered university student, with too much privilege, an agenda, and demands a 'safe' space to spew his/her nonsense, then you must be an ignorant prejudicial discriminator.

I wonder if its possible that the next raid at the US Capitol will be done by those self-centered university students with too much privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arete said:

No. 

"So, if you have been deemed to not call someone by one of the new 71 different pronouns, or mispronounce it like one of the other 70 ones, you can be charged with discrimination. A judge could now force you to use a pronoun you do not recognize and failure to comply, or mispronounce could get you jailed for contempt of court.

It can also be taken too far in that it begins to violate the right of Free Speech in that you are telling me what I am to say and can be held liable for not using something completely new and something no reasonable person is familiar with, let alone understands"

Here 3 Comedians were fined respectively 42K, 15K and 35K for telling jokes which insult the LGBTQ community:

https://www.quora.com/Was-Jordan-Peterson-right-about-Canadas-bill-C-16/answer/Scott-Longwell

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, koti said:

"So, if you have been deemed to not call someone by one of the new 71 different pronouns, or mispronounce it like one of the other 70 ones, you can be charged with discrimination. A judge could now force you to use a pronoun you do not recognize and failure to comply, or mispronounce could get you jailed for contempt of court.

It can also be taken too far in that it begins to violate the right of Free Speech in that you are telling me what I am to say and can be held liable for not using something completely new and something no reasonable person is familiar with, let alone understands"

Here 3 Comedians were fined respectively 42K, 15K and 35K for telling jokes which insult the LGBTQ community:

https://www.quora.com/Was-Jordan-Peterson-right-about-Canadas-bill-C-16/answer/Scott-Longwell

It is a bit annoying that you just put up a link without seemingly having read it (or scrutinized it). Let me do your work for you. First of all these are not three comedians, the first and third link both refer to the same case in which a comedian (Mike Ward) was fined for making fun in his piece of a disfigured singer (Jeremy Gabriel). I am not sure why you think this is about insulting the LGBTQ community and ultimately the comedian did not have to pay on the grounds of freedom of speech. 

Quote

The first part of the test is to determine whether Ward's remarks were intended to incite others to vilify Gabriel based on his disability. The second test is to determine whether the remarks were likely to lead to discriminatory treatment of Gabriel. 

"In our opinion, the comments made by Mr. Ward meet neither of these two requirements," the court ruled. 

So that leaves one example in which a comic used slurs against a lesbian couple. I will add that this happened in 2007, so quite a bit before C-16. Now, while this may be a good starting point to discuss limits and issues of freedom of expression as well as the issues of anti-discrimination laws- none of these two cases has anything to do with pronouns or misgendering. 

As such it seems like a poor attempt to find something resulting in lazily posting a quora answer of all things that does not even address the main part of your claim. 

Darn, that was annoyingly similar to grading assignments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MigL said:

If you are of the opinion that someone who identifies as 'Ze', is a self-centered university student, with too much privilege, an agenda, and demands a 'safe' space to spew his/her nonsense, then you must be an ignorant prejudicial discriminator.

Well, err, if you assume all of that solely from someone's gender identity... then yeah. 

 

To quote my own evolutionary medicine lecture "Nature doesn't give a fuck about your pigeonholes." Virtually any attempt to neatly categorize biological entities - into species, ecological niches, metabolic groups, functional units, gene ontology, etc etc. is fraught with exceptions, contradictions and vagaries. Gender/sex is simply no different. 

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arete said:

"Nature doesn't give a fuck about your pigeonholes."

No, nature does.
You don't.
Yet you expect others to give a fuck about yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, nature does.
You don't.
Yet you expect others to give a fuck about yours.

The final arbiter of all things natural has pronounced.

I guess we all feelin' preddy small right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, nature does.
You don't.
Yet you expect others to give a fuck about yours.

This doesn't even make sense. We' re in not even wrong territory now. 
 

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, nature does.
You don't.
Yet you expect others to give a fuck about yours.

That is ridiculous. Even on this board we have many threads discussing how especially biology defies human desires to neatly categorize things. It is like claiming that nature made the decimal system and all others are fake.

Edit: crossposted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea why I let myself go into a discussion in this thread. There is a great deal of heat in this thread and I’m no longer sure this is something even worth the heat. In my work I’ve been to 35+ countries over a period of ~20 years (never North America) I’ve met tens of thousands of people and never has anyone asked me to use a certain pronoun towards them. In the last 3 years I interviewed hundreds of students and young people to hire, not once have I seen a trace of anyone asking to use a certain pronoun. @CharonYI admit that what I posted about the 3 comedians was sloppy on my part, I havent taken the time to cross check what I posted. Me and my partner were having a discussion the other day about the education system here in PL regarding the future of our 5,5 year old son. We are terrified of the right wing having power over what is being taught at schools here, pushing faith, religion and intolerance towards minorities down the throats of 6 year olds and through out the education system later on. My (our) dream was to make enough money to eventually be able to send our son to any American college, I am having second thoughts about this, I might be wrong but this thing seems to be a North American issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, koti said:

I have no idea why I let myself go into a discussion in this thread. There is a great deal of heat in this thread and I’m no longer sure this is something even worth the heat. In my work I’ve been to 35+ countries over a period of ~20 years (never North America) I’ve met tens of thousands of people and never has anyone asked me to use a certain pronoun towards them. In the last 3 years I interviewed hundreds of students and young people to hire, not once have I seen a trace of anyone asking to use a certain pronoun.

Then what's the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Then what's the problem?

Misinterpretations of a law, thinking it says and does one thing when it very clearly doesn't (as has been shown now roughly 17x, but for whatever reasons hasn't updated the thinking of those with said misinterpretations)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Misinterpretations of a law, thinking it says and does one thing when it very clearly doesn't (as has been shown now roughly 17x, but for whatever reasons hasn't updated the thinking of those with said misinterpretations)

If you don't call the judge a liar you can't be in contempt...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Misinterpretations of a law, thinking it says and does one thing when it very clearly doesn't (as has been shown now roughly 17x, but for whatever reasons hasn't updated the thinking of those with said misinterpretations)

I’ve tried to calm down the thread to a point where Phi could come and close it but no, you had to come in with a swing. I’d ask how your search for Dave Chappelle’s caucasian ancestors is going but I won’t because we want to calm this thread down, don’t we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m quite calm. I’m also wondering why you continue struggling to properly comprehend (or at least represent) what the law does and does not actually do 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, koti said:

I’ve tried to calm down the thread to a point where Phi could come and close it but no, you had to come in with a swing.

Actually, I'm hoping you can identify a specific part of this overall discussion that you'd like to focus on, and then I can split your post (and any replies) off to its own thread where we can have a better signal to noise ratio. Some of the issues have overlap, but talking about them all at once hasn't been very productive for anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, koti said:

My (our) dream was to make enough money to eventually be able to send our son to any American college, I am having second thoughts about this, I might be wrong but this thing seems to be a North American issue?

For some context, I have been working in North American universities for quite a bit more than a decade (and in Europe before that). In that time only one student made a request of using a different name, because they transitioned but the enrolment was still under their old name. There was also a faculty in a different department who transitioned and wanted to make their colleagues aware of the situation in a rather thoughtful email. Meeting either of them post-transitioning I would not even have thought or knew about it (paperwork notwithstanding).

Out of curiosity I occasionally asked colleagues from different universities across North America (and Europe) and so far not a single person across perhaps a dozen or so universities have even heard of a single case of these alternative pronouns being used. The only gender neutral pronoun that is being used is "they" but that one has been on and off in the English language for hundred of years so that is rather easy.

But if even stereotypical "woke" university students are not using it at all (much less excessively) why is the internet filled with outrage about these pronouns?

One important thing to understand is that it is actually part of the moral outrage machinery of our right wing. It is somewhat connected to the religious right, whose influence seems to be waning (or at least perceived to do so). In order to bolster their influence they often create these moral outrages (other examples include homosexuality, then gay marriages, another current one is critical race theory).

The tactic is usually the same, misrepresent the situation (if you use the wrong pronoun you will be put in jail, folks will be allowed to marry their pets, CRT is about feeling ashamed being white etc.) and create enough buzz that makes people fight over these strawmen, rather than addressing the actual reality of things.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, koti said:

Me and my partner were having a discussion the other day about the education system here in PL regarding the future of our 5,5 year old son. We are terrified of the right wing having power over what is being taught at schools here, pushing faith, religion and intolerance towards minorities down the throats of 6 year olds and through out the education system later on.

I feel this way too! And to me, some of Jordan Peterson's arguments seem just as intolerant.

And the fact that he claims to be a liberal pointing out the absurdity of the liberal position on these specific minorities doesn't pass the stink test for me. I think JP is more like me, and is choosing when to apply his conservative/liberal stances rather than paint himself with a wider brush. And I think he's tricking "conservatives" who think the gender terms issue is silly into thinking a "liberal" is siding with them. 

I think JP is helping right wing thinkers marginalize a group they don't approve of, for whatever reason, and you can bet it will be taught that way in schools if they have anything to say about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I browsed through the LGBT resource center and can we agree that its imposible for any human being who has not been thurally trained to communicate with this new language?

HE/SHE HIM/HER HIS/HER HIS/HERS HIMSELF/HERSELF
zie zim zir zis zieself
sie sie hir hirs hirself
ey em eir eirs eirself
ve ver vis vers verself
tey ter tem ters terself
e em eir eirs emself

 

87D0CEB4-2D1A-4B26-A6ED-08871FFAFB5D.png

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The final arbiter of all things natural has pronounced.

 

1 hour ago, Arete said:

This doesn't even make sense. We' re in not even wrong territory now. 

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

That is ridiculous. Even on this board we have many threads discussing how especially biology defies human desires to neatly categorize things.

Yeah right.
Yet every biologist on the planet will classify species as male and female, unless you're an asexual worm. Those must be imagined differences, or maybe the species tell biologist how they want to be referred as.
Never mind the fact that evolutionary forcings and environmental pressures have diverged the male and female aspects and markers of almost all species. Yet you guys claim there is no difference; maybe you guys are creationists and don't believe in evolution.
What is it that INow has said in the thread about religious scientists ?
If you let your personal beliefs get in the way of science, you're not doing good science.

But that isn't even the issue here as I really don't care what you choose to identify as; as long as it doesn't affect me, i couldn't care less if you think you are a brick. I am a considerate person and will refer to you in whatever form you ask me to.

When you boil it down to the basics, the issue here is whether anyone has the right to dictate to others what they may think or say. 
And I will never be convinced of that, yet that is what you guys are defending here.
Sure, you can make it 'pretty' any way you want, and say that you're protecting the oppressed, but I don't kid yourselves, G Orwell already explored that kind of thinking in Animal Farm and 1984.

The only question remaining, is which one of you three wants to be referred to as 'Napoleon".


 

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yet every biologist on the planet will classify species as male and female, unless you're an asexual worm.

This is also wrong. It would ignore hermaphrodite species as well as species that are able to change their sex. Also how do classify a species according to their sex? That only works on individuals?  If we move away from animals it gets even trickier. Also may I note that it is weird that you contradict yourself in the same sentence and then just ignore that?

So by far not an universal concept that can be applied the same way to all species. Also, you are aware that the species concept is also a human construct (ring species, microbial concept of species etc.)? As Arete and I have said many times here, the use of such concepts is often useful , but nature does not really care about our neat categories. So even if such a seemingly strict category such as species is not really universal, why would you expect to find many universal concepts in biology to begin with?

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

Never mind the fact that evolutionary forcings and environmental pressures have diverged the male and female aspects and markers of almost all species.

And this is also wrong of course as there are many, many (animal) species were there are barely any outward sex markers and then there are animals who use camouflage to appear like the different gender. 

 

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yet you guys claim there is no difference;

And here is another strawman. No one said that there are no gender dimorphisms. Just that in nature these differences are not as rigid and universal as you think they are.

Assuming that biology follows rigid made-up structures and force your assumptions on your observations would be bad science, not following the evidence.

And obviously we are again on the presumed issue of enforced speech and I would really like to see some evidence here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MigL said:

 

 

Yeah right.
Yet every biologist on the planet will classify species as male and female, unless you're an asexual worm. Those must be imagined differences, or maybe the species tell biologist how they want to be referred as.
Never mind the fact that evolutionary forcings and environmental pressures have diverged the male and female aspects and markers of almost all species. Yet you guys claim there is no difference; maybe you guys are creationists and don't believe in evolution.
What is it that INow has said in the thread about religious scientists ?
If you let your personal beliefs get in the way of science, you're not doing good science.

But that isn't even the issue here as I really don't care what you choose to identify as; as long as it doesn't affect me, i couldn't care less if you think you are a brick. I am a considerate person and will refer to you in whatever form you ask me to.

When you boil it down to the basics, the issue here is whether anyone has the right to dictate to others what they may think or say. 
And I will never be convinced of that, yet that is what you guys are defending here.
Sure, you can make it 'pretty' any way you want, and say that you're protecting the oppressed, but I don't kid yourselves, G Orwell already explored that kind of thinking in Animal Farm and 1984.

The only question remaining, is which one of you three wants to be referred to as 'Napoleon".


 

MigL. I'm a bit disappointed that you are arguing with working biologists on definitions and facts that are clearly in their domain. I'm amenable to your approach on a fair few subjects but this is not one them. Definitions are not negotiable.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

the issue here is whether anyone has the right to dictate to others what they may think or say. 
And I will never be convinced of that, yet that is what you guys are defending here.

Again though, this isn’t even happening. When asked for examples, no valid / coherent / on-topic ones were shared. 

I’m reminded of arguments with creationists where they’d come in making mispronouncements about evolution saying my mom is a chimp or that humans should go around making babies with bonobos… or that evolution doesn’t explain abiogenesis so therefore is false and other ridiculous strawmen. The same issue is happening on US around schools right now with critical race theory. Interviews with people regularly lead to, “well… I don’t know what it is, but I know I don’t like it!”

It’s sad seeing you guys do it here with this law. 

You: I don’t like the law bc it says X!

Others: Well, no. It says Y, and that’s not even close to X and here’s why. 

You: I can’t believe all of you keep defending X! Such an echo chamber!

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

MigL. I'm a bit disappointed that you are arguing with working biologists on definitions and facts that are clearly in their domain.

Yet every Biology textbook will refer to the male and female of a species, according to their physical, hormonal, and even brain structure differences ...

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Again though, this isn’t even happening. When asked for examples, no valid / coherent / on-topic ones were shared. 

So, it's just a 'suggestion' then ?
Albeit one with consequences and repercussions.
Not the least of which is that Arete can call out your ignorant and discriminatory behaviour ?

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.