Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

If we go back to the topic of C-16, it seems to me - and correct me if I'm wrong, his objection is that by disallowing discrimination of people based on gender identity or expression, that would prevent him from refusing to use a person's preferred pronoun, thus limiting his free speech. 

1) There is a non-trivial proportion of humans who are actually born biologically intersexed, or conditions such as androgen insensitivity that will cause an individual's genitals to change from female to male during puberty. Not to mention the significant body of research demonstrating the neurological basis of transsexuality. He is basically asking that his delusional denial of biological reality be protected, which to me, seems pretty fragile and snowflakey. 

2) Based on 1), how would he know an individual's sex at birth, or current physiological state? If someone says they are he/her/they, how is he to know the phenotypic or neurological reality of that? Even if it changes mid semester? If you tell me you're a Christian, and I deliberately call you a Muslim and presume you follow the tenets of Islam - that would currently be discrimination and he doesn't seem to have a problem with that. It would appear that applying it to gender identity is cherry picking. 

3) No one is forcing him to believe in gender dysphoria, or accept the biological fact that gender is not fixed at birth. They are compelling him not to discriminate against those who do. As such, his right to question the validity of gender fluidity remains protected. The only thing being taken away is his "right" to discriminate against specific individuals based on their identity. Which brings the argument down to "You are denying my "right" to treat people differently based on their gender identity" which, yes - is the intent of the law. Watch me play this tiny violin. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

The point I'm making is that these political agitators and protestors, take the spotlight off the legitimate protest, and gives the far right something to focus on and use in their propaganda.

Or gives the police an excuse to arrest, rough up and generally violate the civil rights of genuine protestors. Yes, i understand that and agree with it - as well as your point. All I'm saying is that "unreasonable aspects of political correctness" are far more nebulous and therefore harder to identify. You can see CCTV footage of a guy torching a [out-of-the-way,  abandoned, with the window open] police car, but I don't know who made which demand that was deemed by whom unreasonable in what setting. So I can't identify the group doing this.

 

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

I see an important difference in commenting on a man's or a woman's attire, eg: "Lovely dress Mary! or Nice Jacket Bob" to commenting that you like Mary's legs or any of her other atrributes, or that Bob has big thighs or his other attributes..

Good! Some people don't see it, or refuse to see it or see it and refuse to make the distinction in practice. While Bob may let a single inadvertent comment pass by unremarked, persistent references to his thighs may very well make him uneasy...  and eventually cross. One comment on a particular dress would probably result in Mary saying, "thank you", but if her outfit were publicly critiqued ever morning, she might take exception. Habitual transgressors against appropriate workplace or classroom protocol usually take refuge in the harmlessness of one specific utterance, when the complaint is against their long-term behaviour.   

And some people, rather more dangerously, insist on their own right to assign identities to other people, rather than acknowledge the right of other people to determine their own identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Who decides what the limit is? Good question. Perhaps its all in the "intent" of the spoken word that need be considered more.

That sounds to me a bit more like an honest mistake than any political correctness issue. In any case I agree there is no issue when something happens once. If the man had said 'please refer to my spouse as "he" and you continued to call the spouse "she", then that would have been the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Or gives the police an excuse to arrest, rough up and generally violate the civil rights of genuine protestors. Yes, i understand that and agree with it - as well as your point. All I'm saying is that "unreasonable aspects of political correctness" are far more nebulous and therefore harder to identify.

The Police have a job to do, a thankless job in many respects and are obviously our first line of defence against criminality, and one we all depend on and call first when in trouble.

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Good! Some people don't see it, or refuse to see it or see it and refuse to make the distinction in practice. 

 *shrug* Pretty obvious I would think.

 

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

That sounds to me a bit more like an honest mistake than any political correctness issue. In any case I agree there is no issue when something happens once. If the man had said 'please refer to my spouse as "he" and you continued to call the spouse "she", then that would have been the problem.

Absolutely!! 

To make my position more clear, I understand that what one says can offend, whether that offence was meant or not. And in all my real life examples, and many others with regards to casual speech and references such as "love", not once has there been any sign of objection in anyway whatsoever. In fact in near all cases, the same casual banter and references is returned. If there was any offence, then I would apologise, cease with the offending banter, and move on. if I totally disagreed with any need for any offence by that person, I would probably again move on after apologising, and avoid as much as possible, contact with that person again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent post. I'd just quibble with this slight bit:

56 minutes ago, Arete said:

No one is forcing him to believe in gender dysphoria, or accept the biological fact that gender is not fixed at birth. They are compelling him not to discriminate against those who do. As such, his right to question the validity of gender fluidity remains protected. The only thing being taken away is his "right" to discriminate against specific individuals based on their identity. Which brings the argument down to "You are denying my "right" to treat people differently based on their gender identity"

Technically, he can still also discriminate against individuals in this way. He can still treat them differently. He cannot, however, avoid consequences when he does (whether those be personal, social, financial, vocational, or otherwise).

He's being neither silenced nor muzzled. He's being held accountable for his words and actions and whining about it like a snowflake.

For whatever reason, that snowflake whining and victim politics are incredibly attractive to the right these days... and in that I join you in your tiny violin playing without hesitation. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've always been very sensible, and since I'm not sure if you're addressing J Peterson, or me, I will reply to this ...

1 hour ago, Arete said:

1) There is a non-trivial proportion of humans who are actually born biologically intersexed, or conditions such as androgen insensitivity that will cause an individual's genitals to change from female to male during puberty. Not to mention the significant body of research demonstrating the neurological basis of transsexuality. He is basically asking that his delusional denial of biological reality be protected, which to me, seems pretty fragile and snowflakey. 

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

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


And someone please inform Peterkin ( because he always pretends he doesn't know what others are talking about ) that it doesn't matter if a law has never been used to such an end; once it's in the books there is a possibility that it will.
I have never been hit by a bus either, that doesn't mean I don't take precautions and look both ways before crossing the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

You've always been very sensible, and since I'm not sure if you're addressing J Peterson, or me, I will reply to this ...

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

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

In my opinion, it would be an infringement of MY rights when someone dictated MY pronouns or identity based on their worldview and beliefs. They aren't being asked to accept my identity and worldview - simply to acknowledge my freedom to decide how I personally identify and convey myself to the world. Hence why I fundamentally disagree with Peterson's position. 

I mean I would find it ridiculous if someone asked me to address them as "space unicorn omega". But are MY rights being violated when I'm asked? Or is Space Unicorn Omega INow being oppressed when I refuse and enforce MY worldview on their identity? I would argue the latter (Sorry to drag you into this SUO INow).

Really at the end of the day, what does it cost to acknowledge someone's personal identity, even if you think it's delusional? 

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Arete said:

Or is Space Unicorn Omega INow being oppressed when I refuse and enforce MY worldview on their identity? I would argue the latter.
Really at the end of the day, what does it cost to acknowledge someone's personal identity, even if you think it's delusional? 

And I would argue that's courtesy, and optional; It should not be law.
I should not be forced to legitimize anyone else's subjective beliefs.
( last time that was tried was the Spanish Inquisition )

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

And I would argue that's courtesy, and optional; It should not be law.
I should not be forced to legitimize anyone else's subjective beliefs.
( last time that was tried was the Spanish Inquisition )

And yet, there's a guy in my town who think he speaks for an invisible sky fairy and asks me to call him Father, even though he's not my dad, and his right to not be discriminated against for it has been law since 1791.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

And I would argue that's courtesy, and optional; It should not be law.

It isn't.

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

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

You're not. You're only being asked to respect them (optional) and forbidden to discriminate against them (legal). 

32 minutes ago, Arete said:

( last time that was tried was the Spanish Inquisition )

I sincerely doubt that. The holy Inquisition, in Spain and elsewhere, was extremely successful at preventing non-mainstream, proscribed-by-dogma identities from being expressed for +/-600 years. The dogma lived on beyond its official disbanding, in bodies of civil and criminal law, and lives on still in the more benighted ridings/electoral districts. That's why people who vociferously oppose the right to self- or group- identification for non-them-type people are so popular on the far right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Arete said:

 

I mean I would find it ridiculous if someone asked me to address them as "space unicorn omega". But are MY rights being violated when I refuse? Or is Space Unicorn Omega INow being oppressed when I refuse and enforce MY worldview on their identity? I would argue the latter (Sorry to drag you into this SUO INow).

Really at the end of the day, what does it cost to acknowledge someone's personal identity, even if you think it's delusional? 

Great posts today.  Whether or not to call someone a silly name,  especially one based on a delusion,  would be more a matter of etiquette than morality.   Unless there was harm potential -- say there was a situation where SUO,  if challenged, would attempt to demonstrate his bona fides by leaping from a high window.   Being a genuine space unicorn myself,  I know that our amazing flight skills are not shared by the SU wannabes like INow. 

Calling someone the pronoun fitting their gender state involves something with a moral component:  acceptance of their own sense of identity without entailing any acceptance of their worldview.   You may either be accepting that or you may not but you are accepting the etiquette of the situation and perhaps the moral weight.   If you decline to use their preferred pronoun,  you are being rude but the issue at the heart of all this is:  are you also oppressing them?   Is there harm that may come?  

I think several here have made a case that there is harm because the act of rudeness actually becomes an attack on a person's basic identity and an attack which encourages others to also pile on,  and which can leave the mis-pronouned person isolated and alienated.  While I think there are gray areas here, I would think a prudent person can navigate them and understand when they are making a faux pas and when they are engaged in character attack and/or discrimination.  

I like the priest example.   If I speak respectfully to others,  I should include the priest in my domain of respect,  even if I hold his avocation to be founded on delusion.  And there are definitely areas of the world where discrimination against Catholics can be abetted by shows of disrespect.  A lot of morality comes from awareness of the potential consequences of our actions (and I include words,  as actions) to others.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Arete said:

And yet, there's a guy in my town who think he speaks for an invisible sky fairy and asks me to call him Father, even though he's not my dad, and his right to not be discriminated against for it has been law since 1791.  

Plus he dresses funny, in public yet! Heaven knows (oh, It does!) what he gets up to in the closet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

 If you decline to use their preferred pronoun,  you are being rude but the issue at the heart of all this is:  are you also oppressing them?   Is there harm that may come?  

Given transgender individuals are four times more likely to be the victims of violent crime and 2.4 times as likely to be the victims of property crimes than cisgender individuals, transgender youth have a suicide rate six times higher than average, and transgender and nonbinary youth who reported having pronouns respected by all of the people they lived with attempted suicide at half the rate of those who did not have their pronouns respected by anyone with whom they lived. I'd say the evidence of harm was pretty clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arete said:

If we go back to the topic of C-16, it seems to me - and correct me if I'm wrong, his objection is that by disallowing discrimination of people based on gender identity or expression, that would prevent him from refusing to use a person's preferred pronoun, thus limiting his free speech. 

1) There is a non-trivial proportion of humans who are actually born biologically intersexed, or conditions such as androgen insensitivity that will cause an individual's genitals to change from female to male during puberty. Not to mention the significant body of research demonstrating the neurological basis of transsexuality. He is basically asking that his delusional denial of biological reality be protected, which to me, seems pretty fragile and snowflakey. 

2) Based on 1), how would he know an individual's sex at birth, or current physiological state? If someone says they are he/her/they, how is he to know the phenotypic or neurological reality of that? Even if it changes mid semester? If you tell me you're a Christian, and I deliberately call you a Muslim and presume you follow the tenets of Islam - that would currently be discrimination and he doesn't seem to have a problem with that. It would appear that applying it to gender identity is cherry picking. 

3) No one is forcing him to believe in gender dysphoria, or accept the biological fact that gender is not fixed at birth. They are compelling him not to discriminate against those who do. As such, his right to question the validity of gender fluidity remains protected. The only thing being taken away is his "right" to discriminate against specific individuals based on their identity. Which brings the argument down to "You are denying my "right" to treat people differently based on their gender identity" which, yes - is the intent of the law. Watch me play this tiny violin. 

 

These are great points. A couple of things to add are that the bill amends three sections, the one that seems to spark most discussions is the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act which basically just adds gender-diverse folks to protected groups, which already includes things like race, sex, religion and so on. It does not limit your ability to express yourself, unless it becomes harassment or is part of an act of discrimination (which again, needs to be evidenced by the accuser). The argument against in then really is that folks are against laws that restrict someone's ability to harass others. The big issue why there are protected groups to begin with is not because we wanted laws that force us to be nice, but rather because these groups were disporportionately targeted and have suffered real consequence beyond just being offended.

The other areas apparently seem to be less controversial are additions to the criminal code, which basically makes it an offense to advocate genocide or public incitement of hatred and allows for classification of gender-based hate crimes. The reasoning for these additions are in part based of Arete's information on violence against the trans community.

The interesting bit is that many provinces already have made amendments by including gender identity or expression into their books for years and this is basically just codifying it on the federal level. That basically shows to me that this is just seizing it to fuel an artificial outrage machine rather than true worries about the impact of the law.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

What about when the person wants to be referred to as They/them, but there is only one of Him/her ???

"They" as a third-person singular pronoun has been in use since the 14th century. To be fair, it has dropped somewhat in popularity around the 18th century but has seen increases over the years again. This only shows how malleable language really is.

 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

What about when the person wants to be referred to as Ze/hir, or Xe/xem, or Hy/hym, or even Co/cos ?

Funny bit is that even if language is malleable, it really only changes through broad use (after all, it is communication tool). While I know that there folks trying to redesigning the system, I really doubt that it will have any traction (and I wasn't really aware of any of them). It is a bit like Esperanto, which while in theory had benefits, practically di not really take off. So far I have not heard of anyone ever having made the request for their use. Moreover, if it causes so much pain, surprisingly non-binary folks still actually have names.

Real overreach, if you want to call it, are rarely related to laws, most of them is just a group of folks within institutions, corporations and so on and try to brand themselves a certain way or want to make a mark and appear productive. At one point or another there will be a reality check and if it turns out to be nonsense, often it gets dropped. But I am sure that silly policies are not restricted to this topic alone (but generally causes less outrage. Why is that?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder....

If the sensitive and insensitive people of the world were to battle it out for dominance, once and for all, and the insensitive won, would this become a better, freer, more honest world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MigL said:

What about when the person wants to be referred to as They/them, but there is only one of Him/her ???

“My friend MigL went to the store today. While there, THEY bought food and supplies. I told THEM it would’ve been better to wait until next week when the sale began.”

I’m just not seeing why this is a problem for so very many people (well actually, I kinda am… but am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and hope I’m simply mistaken). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, iNow said:

“My friend MigL went to the store today. While there, THEY bought food and supplies. I told THEM it would’ve been better to wait until next week when the sale began.”

I’m just not seeing why this is a problem for so very many people (well actually, I kinda am… but am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and hope I’m simply mistaken). 

It's no problem and neither should it be.

But if you made a mistake and said "while there HE bought food and supplies. I told HIM it would've been better to wait..." Which is a natural unconscious statement with no intent to offend, then why would Migl be offended?, courtesy works both ways. If Migl felt so strongly about how he is to be identified then he should kindly remind you of this and you would I'm sure show him the courtesy of doing so. However you may find yourself slipping accidentally back back mistake and unconsciously refer to Migl as HIM or HE again. 

It's this sort of thing that gets my back up, and what my point is aimed at. The world has gone overly PC in my opinion and people are now been called out for all sorts of ridiculous things.   

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Is it weak to just pick up the dog shit?

No, its weak to sling it around and then blame others 

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

One big problem with this stance is that you become the sole arbiter of what "unnecessarily", "over sensitive", "perfectly clear", "accepted", "alleged", "offending", and "intention" actually mean for all those you interact with. It's far too easy to confirm your own biases in these circumstances, yet want others to take everything YOU do in context. If you're into science, you should be trying to remove subjectivity where you can.

And I'm sorry, but I've seen FAR too many folks flat out insult someone else and then claim I didn't know you were so sensitive/I'm just poking fun/I'm just being honest/don't make such a big deal/I call them like I see them/you're taking this wrong. You can't hold yourself blameless when your words cause offense if you aren't trying to maintain objectivity.

I agree that there are people who intentionally offend then claim it to be "just a  bit of fun / it was just a joke". But I think in general most people spot this.

There is a difference between scientific objectivity and social objectivity. In a court of law scientific objectivity is paramount because personal opinion and interpretation is (should be) irrelevant. In a court the aim is to deal with facts, yet even in such areas, people's interpretations, feelings and context are taken into account. So though not always intentional subjectivity does exist even in courts of law. Where as, there is no place for subjectivity in the scientific method.

The problem with taking the stance of total objectivity in a social aspect, is that people can become overly supressed into not speaking their thoughts or opinions in fear of offending. This doesn't mean people should not be courteous and considerate to others, of course they should, we are a civilised (one hopes) society. But how far do we go? I thought freedom of speech is a constitutional right?

I don't want to be afraid of calling an apple and apple in fear that the apple actually wants to be identified as an orange. I would like to think I would be courteous to the apple and refer to it as an orange if it chose, however, the apple should not then accuse me of being discriminative or offensive if I slip up occasionally when we are taught in my culture and society that an apple is an apple. 

So my point is/was that the world has much bigger problems that need politically addressing. People who are (in my opinion) overly sensitive and then dramatize/blow out of context the use of grammar,  are either attention/sympathy seeking or/have mental health issues that require professional attention.  

 

Edited by Intoscience
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, iNow said:

“My friend MigL went to the store today. While there, THEY bought food and supplies. I told THEM it would’ve been better to wait until next week when the sale began.”

I’m just not seeing why this is a problem for so very many people (well actually, I kinda am… but am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and hope I’m simply mistaken). 

Be careful, your'e not using MigL's chosen pronouns (he/him), you might be facing legal consequences.

Edited by koti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

No, its weak to sling it around and then blame others

No, that's just wrong not a weakness. The point of the analogy is, the poster took a picture of the dogshit and posted their indignation, instead of picking it up and solving the problem.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So my point is/was that the world has much bigger problems that need politically addressing. People who are (in my opinion) overly sensitive and then dramatize/blow out of context the use of grammar,  are either attention/sympathy seeking or/have mental health issues that require professional attention. 

Indeed it does and like a pyramid it starts from the ground up, if everyone is just a little bit more sensitive; the world is just a little bit better. 

Ignoring the base/problem is a recipe for disaster... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, that's just wrong not a weakness. The point of the analogy is, the poster took a picture of the dogshit and posted their indignation, instead of picking it up and solving the problem.

I'd say this is just wrong, and not borne out by experience.

 

Firstly it encourages the perpetrator (dog owner) not to bother sorting his/her problem as someone else will do it.

Secondly  posting an indignation picture definitely works and produces results.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-58887591

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, studiot said:

Firstly it encourages the perpetrator (dog owner) not to bother sorting his/her problem as someone else will do it.

How?

The perp already knows the consequences of being seen to not pick it up; being seen to conform, only to wait until there not seen to hang the bag of shit in a tree; the message would be so much more powerfull and effective, if the post concluded with:

But don't worry, I did it for you; shame is more powerful than righteousness... 

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Secondly  posting an indignation picture definitely works and produces results.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-58887591

Doesn't that just reinforce my point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The world has gone overly PC in my opinion and people are now been called out for all sorts of ridiculous things

I think you need to be a bit more PC by recognizing that you're not the sole arbiter of what is "ridiculous."

Opinions are like buttholes... we've all got one and most of them stink.

4 hours ago, koti said:

Be careful, your'e not using MigL's chosen pronouns (he/him), you might be facing legal consequences.

And when he corrects me, I'll respect that this is THEIR choice to make, not mine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

People who are (in my opinion) overly sensitive and then dramatize/blow out of context the use of grammar,  are either attention/sympathy seeking or/have mental health issues that require professional attention.  

Serious question. Who are these people you are referring to? And what I'm asking for is their names or other identifying information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Arete said:

Thanks!   If you read the rest of my post, which didn't get quoted,  it indicated that I saw compelling cases made here for that sort of respect.  But kudos for bringing some statistical  facts to the issue.   Plus one. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, iNow said:

And when he corrects me, I'll respect that this is THEIR choice to make, not mine. 

Sure, you can dodge all you want but it won't make all this any less ridiculous. Your stance should be the first example explaining what hypocrisy is in an encyclopedia. 

Edited by koti
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.