Peterkin

You have no means of measuring that so you either have to comply with my ridiculous request or face consequences of not adhering to your own rules. Consequence = 0 Demanding to be addressed in the singular/familiar/condescending* form of the same pronoun to which we are accustomed is not a point of grammatical correctness in this case - since you don't seem to able to give a reason in terms of English usage. Nor can it be a statement of identity, since you have not - and thou hast not - articulated a reason for the reduction in status. (*The familiar 'thou' - in French, tu - was used for close friends and family, children and social inferiors. The proper form for peers and superiors is second person plural: you - or vous - and for the exalted, such as high-ranking priests and aristocracy, the formal third persons, thus: "Does Your Eminence deign to sit at one's humble table?" ) Even more to the point, there can be no discrimination, substantial or social harm to an internet construct, as it has no human rights. Was there something to discuss that has not yet been amply covered three or four times? If that's preachment, I wish all priests were as succinct. Indeed, I wish Dr. Peterson were as succinct.

How else would you protest what you believe to be unjust treatment of your sdaughter ( son ) ? Daughter. He doesn't acknowledge the child's right to be a boy. The "unjust treatment" is to give him what he asked for and the mother approved. How else [other than blabbing the child's private problem to the tabloids, which helped nobody] you might protest a medical procedure of which you disapprove is to talk to the patient's doctor(s). One clinical child psychologist, afaik, and presumably some medical practitioners. With whom the father did not speak. I thought you knew. He used to be a university professor, a researcher in some whole other field of psychology, a writer of self-help books and is more recently an overpriced inspirational speaker at right-wing rallies. I'm reasonably sure the ex-wife of a mailman couldn't afford to consult him, even if she'd wanted to. Why did you think this was relevant?To what do you think this is relevant? Who gives a ...... ....?

Most people have trouble getting the corresponding verb tenses right, and those who are comfortable with Elizabethan English, methinks are but faint inclined to exchange pleasantries with the likes of thee.

That will be difficult. For one thing, you don't want to know. For another, it's messy, and very badly reported, because the 'concerned father' publicized his child's situation to just the kind of outlets who distort stories to push their own agenda. He's not a single parent; there is a perfectly functional mother in the picture, and the boy is in Grade 9. He doesn't just have "certain ideas"; he has been convinced of his incorrect gender assignment since 5th grade and that is why he sought help. Typically, gender dysphoria presents before age 10, before the the mis-assigned child has heard any 'ideas' on the subject or been exposed to any "ideology". The father seemed entirely unconcerned with the child's emotional distress. So unconcerned as to refuse the mother's repeated pleas to meet with the health team; instead he went to court against his child. The child won. The unconcerned father was so distraught by this defeat that he set his child up as a target for hate-mongers. His precious right to his precious opinion outweighs his child's welfare? The court disagreed.

While missing points is my superpower, I didn't miss this one. The UK population is not separate from the world, with its own "natural" and "artificial" trends. It's part of the world and subject to the same influences as every other country. Immigrants are not artificial: they are a natural outcome of having had a big empire, and once in the UK, they become part of the UK population, contributing to its natural trends. The natural trend is downward in certain conditions and upward in other conditions. Which is why it's not the same in all countries at any given time. Nothing, except death - no, not even taxes - is inevitable. Which people talk this way? Oh, well, if that's all.... Full employment in an era of accelerating automation, given the relative turnover time of a generation of humans vs a generation of robots, is unlikely. And, afaic, unnecessary. If growth capitalism is the wrong way to go, its institutions and infrastructure are also the wrong way to build societies. China is learning that - or starting to. Africa may be learning it in little patches.

Except he wasn't prosecuted for his views; he was prosecuted for flouting a gag order and blabbing very private matters to the media, and for harassing the poor kid whom he wanted to be his little girl but who experienced himself as a boy. No, the issue on which they disagree is what for. There is a fair amount of other bias in that article, as well.

That's from a conservative new York-based magazine. https://www.city-journal.org/magazine?issue=344 this is Global news - Canadian mainstream (conservative) network. Slightly different point of view.

And? How does this affect world population growth? We have already seen that by the second generation, the birth rate of immigrants, from less to more prosperous nations levels off to match the rest of the population. The immigrants themselves are having the very same babies they would have had somewhere else (true, more of those babies survive than they might have in the country of origin, but many, both adults and children, are lost in transition); their children have fewer babies than they would have had in their native land and their grandchildren have fewer still. Overall, it makes no difference to the current world population and reduces future increase. A rise in the standard of living invariably decreases population increase.

So... um... does Professor Peterson actually have any political ideas? That's just another of the myriad matters on which I am unclear. Whining, yes. Ranting, yes. Posturing, yes - oh, plenty of that! Snapping at students, check. Baiting opponents, often. Ideas...? I didn't see any.

Shingles doesn't care.

The operative word is "persistent". Once is a slip; twice is rude; every day for a year is harassment. One joke about one priest is disrespectful; two jokes about the same aspect of the same priest is mean; putting his picture on the internet is harassment. Insisting that a person sit in the gallery with the women, because you think he looks as if he might be able to bear children, even if he experiences himself as male is discrimination. Lobsters don't have this problem. Peterson does.

Not Comrade Instructor? You were lucky! Yes, various political regimes have made some silly forms of address, collective nouns, offices, ranks and titles. Also many private corporations and schools; also social organizations and government agencies, police and merchant marine, road crews and medical institutions. Not even to mention religions and armed forces! And somehow, the people who joined those organizations or were coerced to abide by those protocols managed to navigate their complexity and use the right word at the right time. What you can do under duress, you can probably do voluntarily, when somebody asks nicely. Also untrue. As Peterson knows and pretends not to.

I know that religious beliefs are protected. I also know there is nothing in the bill that prevents me finding a priest's costume amusing. Nowhere have I referred to "them all" or attributed any particular behaviour, either good or bad, to "them all" . I'm reasonably sure my tiny jest, as hypocritical and inapproriate as it may be, doesn't compare in scope, scale or intent with the burning of houses of of worship.

In fact, that sort of top-down action has proven the lest effective in the long term, as people find ways, sometimes not very smart ones, around it. Imposed on ancient cultures, it can be disaster. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/too-many-men/ What government needs to do: level off extreme disparity and thus eliminate extreme poverty, curb the legal power of organized religion, liberate the women from economic and legal bondage, and provide access to perinatal care and birth control. When infant mortality declines, so does the birth rate.

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?

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

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

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. 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.

Why pigeon-hole anybody on the basis of second- or third-hand information. By professional protestors, I assume you mean political agitators. That's a real and serious activity, practiced by well organized and funded groups - but I wouldn't be able to spot one in regular street garb; I would only be able to identify them in the performance of a specific action. If there are unreasonable demands made on standards of public speech, or legislators or communications media, these demands are made by individuals, with names and faces - not by brigades in black hoodies. Well let's start off with the lyrics objected to in the song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_3sFeQGNeo or the demanded use of non gendered terms when speaking like "partner" as per my previous example...or maybe innocently asking a person where he or she is from...something I often do, as I love guessing where a person comes from, based on their accents. By the way, I have never yet experienced any objection when asking that question. That's not any newer, nor any more of an idea than the grievances Peterson is on about. On the whole, while I understand why the climate of the time made that song suspect, I would prefer each radio station made its own programming policy. Oh wait - they did! Listeners' reaction matters to them. Then the backlash and reversal. Listeners' reaction strikes again. If you don't want to address people in the terms they expressly prefer, no law forces you to address them at all. If you don't know their preference, nobody blames you for guessing wrong, unless it's outright insulting. If nobody objects to being asked a question, who did the objecting? You were not forced to obey Emily Post, and you're forced to obey a modern arbiter of good manners. The new ideas in common courtesy never made it Dr. Peterson's podium. .

I think it usually is considered. However, when the offender says "I didn't mean anything by that", the offended person gets to decide whether to believe him. Your friend did, in the case of a quite ordinary assumption, and that's fine. Where a professor or supervisor persistently makes the same "mistake" in the pronoun they use or pronunciation of one's name, or the same 'slip of the tongue' in commenting jovially on one's physical attributes, the target might not be so easily convinced that their intent was innocent.

This has not happened, contrary to many and repeated false claims. Who, precisely is "the PC brigade"? Is there a website? A head office? Membership cards? Ranks and offices?

I don't need to ask them: they express their sentiments from large and well-funded podia, in mass communications, governor's mansions and senate chambers. Nobody muzzled them. They, too, make their objections known, and make their position on the issue count. Nobody muzzled them. That right is exercised by anyone, with any views, who has the clout to to do so without repercussions. It does not extend to the marginalized and vulnerable who have no public voice. As I don't make any of the legal or policy decisions, who agrees or disagrees with me is very far removed from the allocation of rights. Why? Unarmed foot-soldiers would be rather stupid to stand up against sword-wielding cavalry if they have an option. Peterson has an option to use all the power of white male tradition, academic credentials, money, mass media, free publicity through controversy, right-wing supporters and a credulously adoring, crowd-funding book-buying public - and he makes clever use of those resources. Why shouldn't his opponents make use of the resources available to them? I'm not clear on what "new" ideas have been presented.

Amelia Wierman, was asking, from an entirely personal, presumably 1st world middle class position, what she herself could do to mitigate climate change. From this simplistic POV, a number of constructive suggestions were made. Her influence on the mode of electric power generation, automotive design and marketing, resource extraction practice and funding is, and will likely continue to be minimal, and only minutely amplified if she joins the largest organization for climate change mitigation. Her influence on municipal government regarding zoning regulation and public transport might be somewhat more evident, especially if a lobby already exists in her community. Her influence on the industry in which she works could conceivably be noticeable - at least locally. Her influence on social media, political campaigns and popular attitudes of her cohort can be anything from zero to Jane Fonda, depending on the level of celebrity she achieves - odds are closer to the zero end. Her household and lifestyle decisions are guaranteed to make a difference in her personal and family life and have a significant influence on her child. This last area is the only one she can actually control, even if it has the least impact.

He really doesn't have to get up on stage to strut his grievance and take all this criticism. The up-side is, it's made him rich and famous. On balance, I can't see him as victim. I certainly can see him as a little drummer boy for the right-wing back-draft. Interesting Guardian article.

Some people insist on their right to be offensive. Some people insist on their right to be offended. Each group wants the other to stop being and doing what are and do. They can't both win at the same time. The law tries to stop them doing one another too much damage. So they both attack the law for going too far/ not doing enough. Over all, in the last five decades, the offensive people have been steadily losing the right to intimidate people who have less power than they do (students, employees, immigrants, subordinates, minority religions, homeless people, handicapped people) and that's caused a great seething grievance among the formerly privileged. They have used words as weapons and they don't want to be disarmed; don't want to be as vulnerable as their erstwhile prey. That's understandable. If they're numerous and vocal enough; if a few more from their ranks attain position of political power or social influence, they may win the next round. At the moment, it's a stand-off, with legislators and, adjudicators and arbitrators caught in the middle.