Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[Peterkin]

On 10/9/2021 at 4:55 PM, beecee said:

Experts on Canadian law said that Peterson was misreading the bill

He wasn't misreading or misinterpreting: he was deliberately misrepresenting. In plain words: lying through his beautifully crafted teeth. For a very particular effect. It's all calculated and choreographed for effect and profit.  Who says somebody with a PhD can't peddle snake-venom?

[beecee]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

I tend to dislike the term political correctness as it typically is used in an antagonizing manner. But the issue is that some folks use PC to disparage almost any restrictions required for civil discourse.

I don't doubt that for one minute, but you can bet your short n curlies, those that use reasonably, justifiably progressive PC, in a disparaging way, are in reality simply covering up their own short comings and actions in many areas.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

He wasn't misreading or misinterpreting: he was deliberately misrepresenting. In plain words: lying through his beautifully crafted teeth. For a very particular effect. It's all calculated and choreographed for effect and profit.  Who says somebody with a PhD can't peddle snake-venom?

Not me. I've been trying to point out that misrepresentation and lies happen on both sides of the political divide.

[Intoscience]

On 10/8/2021 at 9:38 PM, CharonY said:

Women don’t even like harmless men; they hate them. They like to claw them apart. What women want are dangerous men who are civilized; and they want to help civilize them. That’s Beauty and the Beast.

I don't agree with the first sentence, though this maybe true for some women. However, in my experience the 2nd sentence is quite true. This is the reason books and films predominantly aimed at women, portray the "bad boy, but nice" type of guy as the hero. Women are attracted to powerful men who they can tame, and its not just about physical power, Beauty and the Beast is just a simple metaphor. 

JP is just pointing out a fact that is popular among a vast majority of women across many cultures. I don't agree with everything he says, and I'm not particularly a follower of his talks, I do think though he often speaks out about things others dare not, and this provokes the negative reactions. Some people are just afraid to discuss things in fear of not being PC.  

[Ken Fabian]

I think he merely baits his opponents - usually well below his rhetorical weight - with a keen sense of what buttons to press and coming off as sane and reasonable in comparison to what his trolling stirs up. 

When I listened to him discussing climate issues - issues I do follow keenly - the accurate content and evidence of actual understanding just wasn't there. From very misleading "facts" to outright wrong. And as Politically Correct in his own way with those talking points as any Left Warrior's conformity of Left rhetoric; you'd have thought getting worked up about climate change at all was Left idiocy - backed by using the wrong talking points of Right idiots.

Any sense this was someone who really knows what he's talking about or should be listened to as a great intellect - or at all - was gone.

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't agree with the first sentence, though this maybe true for some women. However, in my experience the 2nd sentence is quite true. This is the reason books and films predominantly aimed at women, portray the "bad boy, but nice" type of guy as the hero. Women are attracted to powerful men who they can tame, and its not just about physical power, Beauty and the Beast is just a simple metaphor. 

A fantasy is just that, a fantastic story that stir's the loins...

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I do think though he often speaks out about things others dare not, , and this provokes the negative reactions.

Tell me about it, every time I suggest the past/religion has valuable lessons to teach.

The difference is intent; JP doesn't intend to teach a better way to other's, he just wants a better way for him...

Intelligence doesn't come with a moral compass, that has to be acquired. 😉

Edited October 11, 2021 by dimreepr

[MigL]

You can label it Political Correctness, or whatever you wish.
The fact is that our Western societies are now almost at a point where the individual right nt to be offended, trumps society's right to free speech.
And where your own personal, subjective reality can be forced, under threat of law, on the rest of society.

If it was someone in authority doing this to society, you would all label him a despot, or dictator, or fascist.
When it is anyone with a gripe against the rest of society, or a pretentious, virtue signalling university student, who has no clue what being underpriviliged really is, you guys all stand and cheer, while disparaging those who stand up against the nonsense, claiming they are out of their area of expertise, or just in it for popularity and money.

You guys need to give your collective heads a shake !

Edited October 11, 2021 by MigL

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

You can label it Political Correctness, or whatever you wish.
The fact is that our Western societies are now almost at a point where the individual right nt to be offended, trumps society's right to free speech.
And where your own personal reality can be forced, under threat of law, on the rest of society.

That sound's dogmatic.

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

If it was someone in authority doing this to society, you would all label him a despot, or dictator, or fascist.
When it is anyone with a gripe against the rest of society, or a pretentious, virtue signalling university student, who has no clue what being underpriviliged really is, you guys all stand and cheer, while disparaging those who stand up against the nonsense, claiming they are out of their area of expertise, or just in it for popularity and money.

Why do you need money so much? 

[MigL]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why do you need money so much? 

As usual, I fail to understand your non sequitors.
Your mind works in mysterious ways Dim, so you'll have to elaborate.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

As usual, I fail to understand your non sequitors.
Your mind works in mysterious ways Dim, so you'll have to elaborate.

I'll do so tomorrow, but I'll leave you with this; if you have to acquire a taste, it means you didn't like the taste to start with, but you learned to accept it...

[TheVat]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

You can label it Political Correctness, or whatever you wish.
The fact is that our Western societies are now almost at a point where the individual right not to be offended, trumps society's right to free speech...

This seems like a separate issue from the merits or lack of JP.   I agree there is too much combing over what anyone says in search of something you can take offense at.   When people do this in mass shamings on social media,  it can feel Maoist and wrong.   Neither the right to say stupid things,  nor the right to dispute them,  should be abridged.   I have even gone online to defend the free speech of RW nut jobs,  and support their right to public podia, on the principles of intellectual freedom and of everyone being free to counter their free speech with their own free critique.  And no one has a special right to be protected from offense,  unless it is from speech that specifically violates laws on fomenting sedition,  hate crime, or slander (usually defined in terms of damage to livelihood and reputation).   

That said,  I think there are reasons to critique JP,  so long as critique doesn't extend to censoring or deplatforming.   If he is saying things other people are thinking,  then I want to hear him simply because I deem it worthwhile to know what other people are thinking.   I don't think anyone here would be opposed to that,  though some might say,  with reason,  that he's not worth paying much attention.   

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

And where your own personal, subjective reality can be forced, under threat of law, on the rest of society.

In what ways are this force expressed? How are these laws actually worded? What penalties are levied against which particular offenses against whose personal reality?

See, I hear these general complaints, and not only from Peterson and FOX, but they never specify what law it is they're protesting. The laws I know about say you are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of --- all those innate and assumed characteristics that have traditionally been the basis for discrimination against groups of people. It doesn't say you have to talk to them. If your job description includes talking to people, then you must, whether you approve of them or not, and you're not allowed to verbally abuse or harass them --- on pain of dismissal, not prison.

What is the legal substance of the compliant?

I noticed one exchange where Peterson yelled at a student in the audience for failing to make the super-fine distinction between his own very carefully calibrated wording of a message and the clear message as heard by the audience. (The video is helpfully titled 'Peterson SNAPS at Idiot Student'. The student sounds quite intelligent, even if he does speak too fast, and he's trying politely to formulate a question about Peterson's message, not the nuances of wording.) Yet he himself draws no distinction between what the law says and how it makes him feel.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

If it was someone in authority doing this to society, you would all label him a despot, or dictator, or fascist.

Peterson claims that it is.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

When it is anyone with a gripe against the rest of society, or a pretentious, virtue signalling university student, who has no clue what being underpriviliged really is,

 I didn't see or hear anyone with a gripe against society or any university student. But I should expect all such gripers and students to have the same right to be pretentious and virtue-signalling (?) as the professor with the giant podium. And I would expect their target audience to have the same right to cheer as Peterson's.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I think there are reasons to critique JP,  so long as critique doesn't extend to censoring or deplatforming. 

Very little danger of that!

Edited October 11, 2021 by Peterkin
rectify mistakes in previous edit

[iNow]

I'm reminded of this

[Peterkin]

Peterson rides a bicycle? Huh.

Put an immaculate white suit on the complainant, and that's very apt!

[MigL]

18 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I hear these general complaints, ... It doesn't say you have to talk to them. If your job description includes talking to people, then you must, whether you approve of them or not, and you're not allowed to be verbally abuse or harass them --- on pain of dismissal

Thanks for clarifying, but how is that not force of law ?
And since abuse and harassment are crimes of perception, by the 'victim', how do you defend against them ?

In other words, keep your opinions to yourself, unless your opinions agree with the self-identifying oppressed, and the virtue signalers. I suppose, next you'll say the law doesn't affect deaf-mutes at all, so all's good.

No one should have to be afraid of voicing their opinion.
And you have every right to self-identify as anything you want; you DON"T have the right to force it on me.
( in a just society, not the one you seem to want )

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Put an immaculate white suit on the complainant, and that's very apt!

Lack of a proper argument leads you to critique his fashion sense ?

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

The fact is that our Western societies are now almost at a point where the individual right nt to be offended, trumps society's right to free speech.

Fundamentally that has not really changed. Just go back a few decades and see how many folks are offended when, say you hold hands or publicly kiss a partner from a different race (or *gasp* same gender). In the 80s in Germany talking to my parents in our native language was offensive for many natives causing with frequent backlash.

Realistically, two things have change. One is what is considered offensive. Especially as you get older it seems to get more and more, but really it is more of a change of what.

The second part, which I suspect really creates the sense of impacting society is where the domain where the causing offense is facing social pressure. In the past, social pressure was either only locally (i.e. folks around you that feel offended and let you know, which can easily be minimized by surrounding you with folks you know) as well as in areas of public domain such as press and media. We all know that there are groups limiting (or censoring, if you will) what is considered acceptable on TV (e.g. violence nudity and so on) and other media. The big change nowadays I think is the rise of social media. Now everything that would normally only be regulated in mass media has been filtered into our daily lives (if it includes a social media presence). Folks still do their being offended bit just as decades ago, but now they can reach far and wide. 

I.e. I think society has not changed that much, but our tools. And I think we are utterly unprepared to what it really means.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Thanks for clarifying, but how is that not force of law ?
And since abuse and harassment are crimes of perception, by the 'victim', how do you defend against them ?

You are getting it backwards. Discrimination laws require that the victim demonstrates systematic discrimination against their person, which is often very difficult to prove. The employer can simply claim underperformance. You do not defend against it, if you do not deliver materials (such as a well-documented set of discriminatory behaviour).

1 hour ago, MigL said:

No one should have to be afraid of voicing their opinion.
And you have every right to self-identify as anything you want; you DON"T have the right to force it on me.
( in a just society, not the one you seem to want )

So basically you are saying that  you want to be an employer but be able to say things like e.g. black people are lazy without any repercussion. Under that law, that may actually not be enough, provided you still pay them the same and give them the same job opportunities. However if you repeatedly state the former and pay them worse, there might be a case stating that you are in fact discriminating against black workers. Do you think that such a law is just or not?

Second scenario: a person with the legal name of Anna who was born male but presents female works under your direction. What do you call her? Do you try to figure out her original (male) name so that she would not force her identity on you? How would calling her her legal name forcing anything on you, for example.

[MigL]

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Fundamentally that has not really changed. Just go back a few decades and see how many folks are offended when, say you hold hands or publicly kiss a partner from a different race (or *gasp* same gender).

And, if a few decades ago, they had proposed a law that banned such public displays, because some people were offended, would that not have been wrong ???

Are you trying to make my case for me ?

[CharonY]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

And, if a few decades ago, they had proposed a law that banned such public displays, because some people were offended, would that not have been wrong ???

Are you trying to make my case for me ?

Except of course there are no bans, even if you imagine there are. You are still able to yell at folks for talking in their own language, folks are able to talk back (though less so in the past) and some folks yell at the yellers. None of which would result in legal challenges in whatever shape or form.

You keep forgetting that these are social, not legal pressures (and note I was referring to your bit about how everything got more PC, which again, squarely falls outside the legal domain).

Anti-discrimination laws are only applied in a very narrow field (I think almost exclusively labour laws). The whole thing Peterson espouses (and which you seem to insinuate) is pure fantasy , as legal scholars and actual lawyers have repeatedly explained.

I almost feel it is part of the victimhood complex that the dominant part of the population (i.e. the groups that traditionally determined social norms) feels now that certain social constraints are also applied to them and not exclusively to marginalized and/or otherwise powerless folks.

[MigL]

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Second scenario: a person with the legal name of Anna who was born male but presents female works under your direction. What do you call her?

I call them as I see them.
if she looks like a woman, I have no reason to call her he, they, them or any other pronoun. If she asked to be called otherwise, I might comply out of courtesy, But I would balk at being forced by law.
J Peterson thinks the same.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Thanks for clarifying, but how is that not force of law ?

Which? This?

Quote

If your job description includes talking to people, then you must, whether you approve of them or not, and you're not allowed to be verbally abuse or harass them --- on pain of dismissal

How it's not force of law is that you don't get arrested for refusing to do the job you were hired for, only fired. I should think a libertarian would understand employers' rights.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And since abuse and harassment are crimes of perception, by the 'victim', how do you defend against them ?

I have no idea. Depends on the specifics I keep waiting to hear.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

In other words, keep your opinions to yourself, unless your opinions agree with the self-identifying oppressed, and the virtue signalers.

I don't know who those are, and I still haven't seen the wording of that law.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I suppose, next you'll say the law doesn't affect deaf-mutes at all, so all's good.

I won't say that because I don't know to which law you are referring.  

1 hour ago, MigL said:

No one should have to be afraid of voicing their opinion.

And Dr. Peterson on all his televised platforms looks anything but afraid. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And you have every right to self-identify as anything you want; you DON"T have the right to force it on me.

In what specific way am I forcing which of my identity on you? 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Lack of a proper argument leads you to critique his fashion sense ?

Description, not critique. (And public performance is legitimately subject to critique.)  I thought the cyclist in the picture seemed underdressed for the part.

[MigL]

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Except of course there are no bans, even if you imagine they are.

Then what exactly is the purpose of making it a law ???

[Peterkin]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Fundamentally that has not really changed. Just go back a few decades and see how many folks are offended when, say you hold hands or publicly kiss a partner from a different race (or *gasp* same gender).

And, if a few decades ago, they had proposed a law that banned such public displays, because some people were offended, would that not have been wrong ???

There were such laws only a few decades ago.

[MigL]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I won't say that because I don't know to which law you are referring.  

You are anything but dumb, so stop pretending.
Biill C-16 has been mentioned several times. 
It is what brought J Peterson his 'fame'.

If you look it up, it will answer several of your above questions.

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There were such laws only a few decades ago.

And are you now suggesting they were appropriate ???

[CharonY]

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There were such laws only a few decades ago.

Actually you are right. The social morality outrage in the past has actually resulted in discriminatory (morality) laws, which includes sodomy laws (targeting homosexual men). So I was wrong, the past was far more restrictive than things are today.

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Then what exactly is the purpose of making it a law ???

So the question here is do you purposefully misunderstand the law (as Peterson does it) or do you really just lack good info on it?

There are good articles that one could read but fundamentally the one aspect that limits free speech in Canada in the Criminal Code is hate speech defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred. Misgendering does not advocate genocide of e.g. transgender persons nor does it incite hatred as such.

Quote

“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”

Now if we go away from the criminal code and look at discrimination, which has a very narrow domain, it would depend on the situation. If you refused to call the hypothetical "Anna" by her or address her by her gender it could be considered workplace harassment. 

The question is then is are you against legislation against workplace discrimination or harassment? Or do you think that  transgender person should be subject of harassments? Or do you think there should be no anti-discrimination and harassment laws to begin with as they would interfere with free speech?

[MigL]

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Quote

“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”

 

 

So, no jail time.
But it can get you fired.
Even from a job ( such as a law/sociology/psychology professor ) where it is your job to present an opinion.

Edited October 11, 2021 by MigL

[CharonY]

Just now, MigL said:

 

Draw me a scenario where you think it can result in someone getting fired.