Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

I appreciate the sentiment, but ...

5 hours ago, iNow said:
9 hours ago, MigL said:

The difference is that only one side tries to shut the other side's opinions down with claims of ignorance, bigotism, shutting down lectures/talks, and getting the opposing opinion fired.
So which one is extreme ???

Thank you for finally focusing on the REAL problem… reminding us all to ignore the pursuit of respect and acceptance for transgender pronouns and to instead direct our energies toward the REAL victims in all of this… those poor souls who refuse that acceptance and respect of pronouns and force transgenders individuals into inaccurate binary buckets. You’re a hero sir for standing up so passionately for them. 

You argue as a person who never considers the possibility that his opinion might be wrong.
As a result, you never feel the need to examine, and understand other opinions.
You immediately feel the need to label those holding such opinions as bad people, deserving of what they get.
Meanwhile, you have simply misunderstood what their opinion actually is.

I am not putting anyone in buckets, nor victimizing anyone.
My position is that what I think, and what I say, is up to me, and not anyone else.
If that right is taken away from people, how can they voice their identity ?

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, iNow said:

I find myself wondering if you have ever been formally diagnosed with reading comprehension problems

It is notable that after all that has been said in this thread youre still trying to use the same primitive, dirty strategy of trying to find a single point of failure (where Im right btw) in anything I post and based on that single trivial point, trying to build an image of me being wrong on everything. I have nothing to add in this thread, I feel I said everything I wanted to say.

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MigL said:

ou argue as a person who never considers the possibility that his opinion might be wrong.

I've considered this rather deeply actually, and repeatedly come to the decision that in this case it's rather clearly not. 

14 hours ago, MigL said:

you never feel the need to examine, and understand other opinions.

The fact that I strongly disagree with them and find them lacking / deserving of robust counter argument does NOT mean I haven't examined, considered, or don't understand them. 

14 hours ago, MigL said:

You immediately feel the need to label those holding such opinions as bad people, deserving of what they get.

Where did I do this exactly? I mean, I probably have, but don't recall and wonder if you may be conflating me with others. 

14 hours ago, MigL said:

My position is that what I think, and what I say, is up to me, and not anyone else.
If that right is taken away from people, how can they voice their identity ?

We've been through this repeatedly. Nobody is removing that right from you. You're arguing against men of straw. 

11 hours ago, koti said:

youre still trying to use the same primitive, dirty strategy of trying to find a single point of failure ... in anything I post

It's not hard to do, either. There are many such points. 

12 hours ago, koti said:

I have nothing to add in this thread

It seems we agree, and the evidence very much supports this conclusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

It seems we agree, and the evidence very much supports this conclusion. 

There is no way of getting through your confirmation bias, I'm done. I suggest you pick this up with professor Kathleen Stock hereselef or the 200 academic philosophers who signed an open letter in support of her academic freedom. 

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that anybody is counting, but I believe this is now the 4th time you’ve done this dying swan routine just in this one thread. One more and you get a free sandwich!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not that anybody is counting, but I believe this is now the 4th time you’ve done this dying swan routine just in this one thread. One more and you get a free sandwich!

Having one right now. You however, should have a Snickers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2021 at 3:17 PM, iNow said:

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

Language  plays an vital role in biology and many other fields of science. I think its worth while ensuring we are speaking the same one. J.P has said that part of the problem polarizing society atm are that we are literally speaking different languages and this seems to be aptly demonstrated here. So yes, I think its very relevant, given the O.P.

Objective- Value is to 'state'. It places the value in the object itself, discarding any influence beyond the  measure of its being.  The value is confined. It is objective, of environment. Its the single, stand alone value of a  state- of being. The value is in its being,  or objective manifestation. Exclusive of environment or other value.

Subjective- Value is to direction, The value measured is environment, its influence on the subject. Inclusive of environment. Subject to....

On 11/1/2021 at 3:17 PM, iNow said:

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

Delusional people were the subject. Only delusional people.   Many of whom have have issues with understanding who they are, or validation of self .

On 11/1/2021 at 3:35 PM, Peterkin said:

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. 

I find it interesting you do not see Trans Gender issues as universal or majority issues. You don't see that Trans gender issues might affect any citizen of any country who could have family members wishing to transition, and could use with support. Not a majority or universal issue, but some thing 'other'.

Both are environmental, to the human condition. 

Of mental health and transgender issues, I agree the 1st is more readily recognized and accepted as part of the Human condition. Transgenderism has a way to go yet. Its not familiar to most but getting there with more people willing and able to present as such.

On 11/1/2021 at 3:35 PM, Peterkin said:

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.)

If you want to focus on that  tiny ball of fluff,  no, its not my focus nor that of the O.P.

On 11/1/2021 at 3:35 PM, Peterkin said:

 

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. 

See above.

On 11/1/2021 at 3:35 PM, Peterkin said:

 

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

So maybe we should look at the language.

Edited by naitche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, iNow said:

I've considered this rather deeply actually, and repeatedly come to the decision that in this case it's rather clearly not. 

The fact that I strongly disagree with them and find them lacking / deserving of robust counter argument does NOT mean I haven't examined, considered, or don't understand them. 

Where did I do this exactly? I mean, I probably have, but don't recall and wonder if you may be conflating me with others. 

 

No disrespect iNow, you are clearly a very intelligent and knowledgeable person, which I have the upper most respect for. However, although I have only known you through this forum for a short period of time. You do tend to post (at least from my own perspective) in a style which portrays a hint of self opinionated belief, with an inflexibility towards other opinions. 

You did during the course of this long and circular thread, infer that I was transphobic, when I had never once prior to this referenced sexual identity or gender. My argument has always been one of the extreme right, where I feel (or rather my opinion is) that people who have an agenda that aims to be disruptive rather than productive, by jumping on the PC bandwagon, are undermining the real issues, so are either; delusional, attention seekers, being ridiculous or over sensitive.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You did during the course of this long and circular thread, infer that I was transphobic, when I had never once prior to this referenced sexual identity or gender.

We've been through this. Several times, in fact. I was not inferring transphobia. I was inferring you might have blind spots... spots to which you maybe were... blind. 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

undermining the real issues, so are either; delusional, attention seekers, being ridiculous or over sensitive

Have you considered their perspective and how exhausting it is to live every single day of your entire life not being accepted for who you are, being targeted for violence, and needing to constantly defend yourself against the perceptual whims of others?

Y'all keep telling me I can't see your perspective, and that's bullshit. I'm amplifying the perspective of those who are impacted most by this issue. I promise it's not the cis-gendered white males who are being asked to stop calling someone Janet when they refer to themselves as James. 

You've also acknowledged your own willingness to respect this, so it's unclear to me why you keep suggesting this deep disagreement between us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You did during the course of this long and circular thread, infer that I was transphobic, when I had never once prior to this referenced sexual identity or gender.   

In koti's words, I think this is a primitive, dirty strategy where you keep bringing up refuted points. Here's what you and iNow said when he corrected you on this the first time:

Quote

To be perfectly clear, I'm not assuming you're transphobic. I'm suggesting you potentially have blindspots on this topic about which you may not be consciously aware. 

Quote

Ok, fair enough. I don't claim to be anymore or less aware than others, so am open to the fact that you and others may  see my blind spots. 

 But now you're going back and claiming inference... AGAIN! Please stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you, these would be definitions of a Physicist ...

Objective - properties inherent in the object being observed
Subjective - properties perceived by the observer of an object

Now I don't deny that everyone has the right to proclaim their subjective view of themselves, and the world around them; If you feel like a 'Ze', you should be able to say so.
But the operative word is 'everyone', trans people, gay people, straight people, even MAGA people. Yet society strongly pressures, to the point of ostracization and job loss ( if not law ), people who don't think you are a 'Ze' from voicing their subjective view of the world around them.
Do we ALL have that right or not ?
Are we only giving that right to people who yell loudest ?
Is that the kind of society we want/need ?

We are, in effect, taking the right to their subjective opinion from those people who disagree with 'political correctness' ,as applied by the rest of society.
All to make up for past wrongs, oppression, and coddling of people with agendas or mental issues.

Incidentally, suicide in the general population is regarded as a mental issue.
Yet in Trans individuals, suicide is seen as a result of ongoing oppression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Have you considered their perspective and how exhausting it is to live every single day of your entire life not being accepted for who you are, being targeted for violence, and needing to constantly defend yourself against the perceptual whims of others?

Have you considered my perspective and how exhausting it is to live every single day of my life of This Thread and not being accepted for who I am, being targeted for every conceivable atrocity and needing to constantly defend a female feminist philosopher who teaches feminism against the whims of you and others?  You should be ashamed of yourself, go to your room.

39 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But now you're going back and claiming inference... AGAIN! Please stop.

So can I again claim to be adressed as Ze or can’t I? It’s not the thread which is circular, it’s the subject.

Wouldn’t it be beneficial for everyone if this thread got closed? It’s a political, ideological ping pong which can never be solved through science and the scientific method so why keep this up?

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

Incidentally, suicide in the general population is regarded as a mental issue.
Yet in Trans individuals, suicide is seen as a result of ongoing oppression.

I think you are misrepresenting the state of research on suicide. While suicide can be associated with mental issues, it is not considered to be one. For the most part suicide is more associated with a lack of mental well-being.

I.e. stress and other issues can be related to suicide. It is not about oppression, but rather the observation that in transgender person suicide rates are higher and studies have shown that at least some of it is related to gender-based discrimination. Conversely, higher acceptance of transgender identity in a given group is associated with higher well-being and reduced suicide risk.

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do we ALL have that right or not ?

I do not think that this in doubt. However, it also means that depending on the social norms and in which group you are, you might get positive or negative feedback. 

If your social circle generally has a negative view on novel pronouns and/or transgender identity you can likely expect positive feedback. In other groups you may find negative ones. Marketplace of ideas and whatnot. What you cannot expect is that every group will accept all ideas. It was never the case in human history and I doubt it will ever happen.

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

We are, in effect, taking the right to their subjective opinion from those people who disagree with 'political correctness' ,as applied by the rest of society.

We are repeating the same argument yet again. But my overall point is this: if your opinion was accepted in the past, it is not because society was more free. It was because either your opinion was more in line to existing norms (which may or may not have shifted) or your social environment was closer to your norms.

In addition, with the internet allowing broader discussions and also resulting in people (over)sharing their views, the potentially more restricted exchange (i.e. among folks you actually have contact with) has broadened up which makes it feel that you need to respond to more issues which you are actually not interested in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, koti said:

So can I again claim to be adressed as Ze or can’t I? It’s not the thread which is circular, it’s the subject. 

The whole thread I've felt like those supporting JP's claims are just trying to make up the most outlandish examples they can to support their view that the folks who're serious about this are delusional, with the caveat that they aren't suggesting people who actually deserve respect are delusional. Your posts in particular, koti, seem to reek of rolleyes and a lack of empathy for those interested in a serious dialogue. 

I was hoping to spin some of these more interesting topics off into their own threads since this one has become so toxic and boring. Right now, for some, the respect these people are asking for seems extravagant and ridiculous, beyond the basic courtesy we usually give to others. For some reason, this really pisses some folks off, but I think, like other efforts to be inclusive of more people, it will just take some time to show that what they're asking isn't that big a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

...Right now, for some, the respect these people are asking for seems extravagant and ridiculous, beyond the basic courtesy we usually give to others...

Again like I mentioned to iNow above, I would strongly urge you to bring this up in person with professor Kathleen Stock and the 200 Academics who support her freedom in academia. I am more than disappointed in you Phi, you were always the high ground for me on this site. Now you've either unkowingly become a slave to a PC agenda or you really do believe that giving birth to a child is a made up thing. Which is it? 

 

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, koti said:

Again like I mentioned to iNow above, I would strongly urge you to bring this up in person with professor Kathleen Stock and the 200 Academics who support her freedom in academia. I am more than disappointed in you Phi, you were always the high ground for me on this site. Now you've either unkowingly become a slave to a PC agenda or you really do believe that giving birth to a child is a made up thing. Which is it? 

 

I think you are conflating a lot of issues here and it makes it difficult if not impossible to discuss them if they are not properly separated. Fundamentally I am not in favour of the type of public pressure against an individual. That being said, she is a public figure, and as part of freedom of expression folks are allowed to protest against her within limits. 

I have not read exactly what was done, but from what I understand she ultimately resigned and was not fired or prosecuted, which would be indeed a restriction of academic freedom. Now, of course protest can be considered a soft power influence on academic freedom, which one might want to discuss, but at the same time it has to be balanced with the general freedom of expression.

Some scientific work extend to contentious areas (including e.g. GMOs, stem cells, psychoactive drugs, animal tests) and have been subject to protests (and at times, vandalism). But we mostly just have to navigate these issues and are certainly not interested to muzzle protesters. Again, this is nothing new.

Likewise, in US public schools stances with regard to creationism and intelligent design have led to resignations and  termination. Michael Reiss stepped down as director of education at the Royal Society after Fellows objected to his stance on teaching creationism in class. Conversely, in some US states, public school teachers and board members were forced to resign because they refused to teach creationism in school (and the history for that goes way back to at least the beginning of the 20th century). Obviously it is not simply a PC vs non-PC situation or a sudden new radical change in the landscape. 

We could make a new discussion regarding academic freedom, but I think it should be separated a bit from this thread as there are other issues that are relevant, which would muddle the ongoing discussion even further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think you are conflating a lot of issues here and it makes it difficult if not impossible to discuss them if they are not properly separated.

...creationism and intelligent design have led to resignations and  termination...

No I am not conflating issues Charony Your "creationism and intelligent design" remark is deplorable.
Youre trying to paint my and professor Kathleen Stocks argument as creationist and intelligent design leaning. Youre not bringing any actual merit to this thread instead trying through a really crude and slimy way to deflect and paint her argument as religious extremism, shame on you.

 

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, koti said:

No I am not conflating issues Charony Your "creationism and intelligent design" remark is deplorable.
Youre trying to paint my and professor Kathleen Stocks argument as creationist and intelligent design leaning. Youre not bringing any actual merit to this thread instead trying through a really crude and slimy way to deflect and paint her argument as religious extremism, shame on you.

 

 

Then please explain to me how this is fundamentally different to all the ideological clashes that have been happening? Why do you think that this case is so fundamentally different? Why do you think that a broader perspective on the issue is slimy and deplorable? And note that at no point I equated her position with a religious stance. Instead, in an effort to create a more neutral platform I have discussed it in terms of limitations of academic freedom.

If this is indeed a unique situation you need to explain why it is, rather than posting the same video and making snide remarks again and again.

Just because one agrees or disagrees with something does not mean that it changes the situation. That is why in my example I have represented that on both sides of an ideological rift (in that case creationism) folks lost their job rather than stating that one case was clearly correct over the other. If anyone in this thread has been continuous deflecting, it is you. I also find it also rich that you call me deplorable and call my attempts in abstracting the issue slimy and crude. Whereas obviously calling me delusional was classy and well thought out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, iNow said:

Have you considered their perspective and how exhausting it is to live every single day of your entire life not being accepted for who you are, being targeted for violence, and needing to constantly defend yourself against the perceptual whims of others?

yes, and the people I'm talking about are the far right extremists who just want to make an issue out of nothing and thus undermining the genuine issues, like those that you keep mentioning.

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

In koti's words, I think this is a primitive, dirty strategy where you keep bringing up refuted points. Here's what you and iNow said when he corrected you on this the first time:

 But now you're going back and claiming inference... AGAIN! Please stop.

Ok, I'll leave this line of argument since I did accept iNow's refute. Though personally I felt like it was more of a back pedal than a refute, but there you go... 

I still standby my opinion that iNow often comes cross as self opinionated and doesn't like it when someone argues iNow's opinion. But maybe my opinion is wrong, not that it matters much anyhow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, I'll leave this line of argument since I did accept iNow's refute. Though personally I felt like it was more of a back pedal than a refute, but there you go... 

I still standby my opinion that iNow often comes cross as self opinionated and doesn't like it when someone argues iNow's opinion. But maybe my opinion is wrong, not that it matters much anyhow.

Well thanks for this. I let you know that a particular tactic was objectionable, you saw the merit in that objection, and you've agreed to make changes that will make our interactions more meaningful and help us both learn. I appreciate that, and it's the same spirit I try to have when I hear about what others find objectionable.

Over the years, what I've found is that my perspective often overlaps with iNow, and where it doesn't he's usually got good points to make. They're usually so good that he defends them meticulously, and more than once we've scraped a topic down to the bone to get definitions and stances we can both accept. Trying to also deal with fallacious reasoning and misinterpretations from others, triple-refuting many arguments, and having to reiterate your main points ad infinitum often makes one look opinionated and intractable.

I try to focus on the argument itself, and forget who is making it. None of this is personal, it should all be about the ideas, the science, the observations. Nothing should focus on attacking the person who's talking, only on the things they say and the way they're presented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Well thanks for this. I let you know that a particular tactic was objectionable, you saw the merit in that objection, and you've agreed to make changes that will make our interactions more meaningful and help us both learn. I appreciate that, and it's the same spirit I try to have when I hear about what others find objectionable.

Over the years, what I've found is that my perspective often overlaps with iNow, and where it doesn't he's usually got good points to make. They're usually so good that he defends them meticulously, and more than once we've scraped a topic down to the bone to get definitions and stances we can both accept. Trying to also deal with fallacious reasoning and misinterpretations from others, triple-refuting many arguments, and having to reiterate your main points ad infinitum often makes one look opinionated and intractable.

I try to focus on the argument itself, and forget who is making it. None of this is personal, it should all be about the ideas, the science, the observations. Nothing should focus on attacking the person who's talking, only on the things they say and the way they're presented. 

I agree, and understand,

I started out by stating that iNow is a very intelligent and knowledgeable person (which I believe to be true). I respect this, and also his opinions, whether in agreement or otherwise. I have no intention to attack anyone personally, but will point out an error (if I believe it to be one) in a person's approach, interpretation or judgement. Obviously I'm as guilty as anyone else and should be held to account should I present in the same manner, which maybe I have or appeared to do so on occasion within this thread. 

I'm part of this forum to enjoy the discussions, hopefully learn lots and in doing so gain a  greater understanding in all aspects of philosophy and science. Debate and often some confrontation can be useful and or constructive (provided it stays civilised not personal). 

   

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.