Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[MigL]

32 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9TwrXRUa_I

What you should be taking from that video is his last words ...

"I'll take responsability for what I say; I'm not saying your words."
J Peterson

 

[Peterkin]

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

What you should be taking from that video is his last words ...

Okay. Thanks.

[MigL]

You're welcome.
( see, I am courteous )

[naitche]

 

On 10/21/2021 at 3:40 AM, Peterkin said:

Why is it okay to indulge the whim of a superior, but not a peer or subordinate? It's quite commonly accepted to humour a child. What is so unthinkable about humouring an adult with a harmless delusion? 

Because it is patronizing, and not done in recognition of an equal. Its a pretense to disguise inequality.

Acceptance of delusion. whether or not its harmless is subjective.

On 10/21/2021 at 3:40 AM, Peterkin said:

Dr. Peterson's 'argument' [sounds like, from what I've heard of it] : I won't speak respectfully to people I despise [for reasons he delineates, but does not demonstrate as valid]  and the law that tries me to force me to [It doesn't.] is wrong [It isn't.] His 'debate' with minority and only recently enfranchised people is: I refuse to engage with your issues, because I don't recognize your collective identity. IOW: I get to assign identity to others and reject their right to identify themselves.

 

You make  assumptions not borne out by other perspectives, and it sounds like with out a genuine attempt at seeing for yourself, though I may be wrong.

I don't think his debate is with minorities or that he unwilling to address their issues, but that he recognizes the dangers of assuming an objective collective  identity that justifies the marginalization of humanity. Because it does.

His argument is with the those people who believe you can assign us all to our relative boxes, and address the box instead of the content. While ignoring their spill and  entanglement. 

On 10/21/2021 at 4:02 AM, iNow said:

Of course, and I don't believe anyone is suggesting we ought to go without counterargument. Sadly thus far, most "counterarguments" are limited to "stop whining" and "you're just being too sensitive." Those aren't counterarguments. They're disrespectful dismissals of valid reasonable requests.

'Racist' and 'Far Right'  are also used in place of counter argument here as disrespectful dismissal.

On 10/21/2021 at 4:02 AM, iNow said:

 

Right... and we should watch out for all 7 of those people ( )who have actual mental health issues while ALSO respecting the other 99.9% who simply asking for acceptance (not even acceptance, just an end to the dismissal, disparagement, and disrespect) for identifying as their authentic selves.

Bell curve applies to all conditions of humanity with overlap across the board. As such, Human conditions are descriptive, not definitive. Application of objective values to Human conditions is objective- of environment. Definitive, and a corruption of Human language. It can only subtract, or exclude from the description. Acceptance of an objective identity requires that it be defined, for recognition. To object to what does not belong.

Environment. Thats your 7(?!!) people who have actual mental health issues, as well as the free loaders, the outliers at either end of the bell curve  and any other not strictly 'definitive' . It shrinks. Like the Demon summoned to materialize in a pentagram drawn on its navel.

These Human conditions are Subject of environment

On 10/21/2021 at 1:51 PM, Arete said:

So, imagine I'm a professor teaching a class. I refer to students by their preferred first names. Plenty of people go by things different from what's on their birth certificates. Some are kind of odd, but generally I do my best to pronounce people's names the way they ask, and not mix up people's names. I make the odd mistake, but generally that's how it goes. Except for the African American kid. I call him "boy" because that's what we call black folks where I'm from. He repeatedly tells me his name is Paul, but I insist on calling him "boy" whilst using everyone else in the classes preferred name. 
Paul complains to the University office for the Prevention of Discrimination and Harrassment, who determine that I have violated both institutional policy and federal employment laws by discriminating based on race. I have to face a disciplinary hearing and might get fired. 

Now replace "name" with "pronoun" and "African American" with "transgender". Explain why it wouldn't be discrimination based on gender identity. 

It is.

The arguments are not mutually exclusive, though you  read them that way.

Most times  your chosen pronouns should be respected as a courtesy in common. No disagreement.

But no virtue I can think of should demand I express a reality other than the one my own reasoning shows me. 

 

On 10/22/2021 at 12:44 AM, Peterkin said:

So does the professor on the podium. Jordan Peterson has been forcefully and very publicly making the point that he shouldn't be required to respect the stated identity of anyone he considers unworthy.

No. J.P. has been standing his ground and refusing to concede. He is not 'forcing' anyone. He is resisting being forced.

 

On 10/22/2021 at 12:44 AM, Peterkin said:

 When someone has noticeably different different pigmentation, their racial identity is not questioned -

Uncle Tom? Far Right activist? My reality says otherwise. Racists wet dream? I've defended IRL, too many times, black public figures from these slurs aimed and un-challenged by people claiming to be on the virtuous side.

Two black opinions expressed.

The 1st arguing for reparations and reckoning of todays humanity for suffering inflicted.

The 2nd arguing for help where its needed today, to address the ongoing effects. Like drug dependence, Poverty, affordable housing, education and health access. Issues that stand in the way of equals to participation.

Both valid perspectives. Nothing in one should exclude the other.

But almost always, someone who recognizes their own white privilege then  uses it to discredit the 2nd with those labels.

Both are black. Both are equally representative of black perspective.. I was told  the 2nd was not.  Its inclusion 'cherry picking' because the author was clearly advocating a Right wing agenda.

Thats your white privilege in action, choosing the representatives of the minorities you choose to recognize.

Pretty extreme and not an isolated incident by any stretch.

 

This is how your 'outliers' increase, not decrease.

 

 

On 10/22/2021 at 12:44 AM, Peterkin said:

 

Who are these extreme activists? What, specifically, have they done and to whom?

Part of your answer above.

On 10/22/2021 at 1:44 AM, Arete said:

I disagree - that's the EXACT point of Peterson's argument. He doesn't believe in transgenderism (despite the extensive scientific basis of it), and is claiming that being asked to use a student's preferred pronouns is a violation of his free speech rights. His subtle, intentional discrimination is that he would be happy to use the preferred pronouns of cis-gender appearing students, but not those whose physical appearance does not conform to his assumptions of gender presentation, because of his personal (and IMO fundamentally wrong) opinion that their identity is not valid. 

We're going in circles, but he's arguing that it is his right to discriminate against people who do not conform to gender norms. I'm pointing out that it's not for other protected classes, and asking why transgender people shouldn't be afforded the same protections as religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. 

No. J.P is arguing Transgenderism doesn't exist Objectively. Its subjective. Backed by science.

The same protections should be afforded equally.

On 10/22/2021 at 7:05 AM, Arete said:

- which means you can't single them out and treat them differently.

 

[iNow]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but anyone still dismissing trans individuals as delusional is themselves… delusional. 

[naitche]

Equal to  those who insist these Human conditions manifest in isolation,  independent of the environment they are subject to, and attempt to subtract their way to an ideal state.

Look to Pedigree dogs to see where that leads. Nothing left to work with.

Edited October 23, 2021 by naitche

[naitche]

And no one left in a position where taking responsibility for that won't be blocked by very heavy resistance. 

Direction is to function, not to form. Form follows, or looses further environmental direction in favor of maintaining state.

 

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by naitche

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but anyone still dismissing trans individuals as delusional is themselves… delusional. 

 

4 hours ago, naitche said:

Equal to  those who insist these Human conditions manifest in isolation,  independent of the environment they are subject to, and attempt to subtract their way to an ideal state.

Look to Pedigree dogs to see where that leads. Nothing left to work with.

2 hours ago, naitche said:

And no one left in a position where taking responsibility for that won't be blocked by very heavy resistance. 

Direction is to function, not to form. Form follows, or looses further environmental direction in favor of maintaining state.

Or stoned.

 

[Peterkin]

I wonder how many subjective meanings the word "objective" has.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I wonder how many subjective meanings the word "objective" has.

How many muggles have been killed...

[Peterkin]

At least we know now what wants to live forever, even if flopping around the floor in little pieces: this thread.

[naitche]

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

At least we know now what wants to live forever, even if flopping around the floor in little pieces: this thread.

And the entitlement to un-equal virtue.

Edited October 24, 2021 by naitche

[naitche]

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I wonder how many subjective meanings the word "objective" has.

Do you mean how many subjects you can find ?

There lies endless potential.

If the ability to respond is there.

Edited October 24, 2021 by naitche

[Intoscience]

On 10/22/2021 at 1:42 AM, CharonY said:

I.e. he is just making a bit thing out of nothing  

No big deal then, it seems people who insist on the ridiculous are doing the same, no?

On 10/21/2021 at 2:26 PM, dimreepr said:

You may not intend to be hurtful and cite outliers as an excuse, but it's not a reason.

Should we seriously consider this?

If it's a reason to be offended, then yes; are you in a position to determine that?

You are kidding right? So I should now be expected to refrain from calling a black berry what it is and has always been referred to, just in case it may offend someone? 

This is the sort of ridiculous clap trap that fuels people to come up with more and more excuses to point the finger at those that dare speak out, rather than those shying away in fear of being offensive, which has nothing to do with courtesy by the way, but rather, cowardice.

Curtesy works both ways, along with respect, equality and acceptance. 

 

On 10/23/2021 at 4:17 PM, Peterkin said:

At least we know now what wants to live forever, even if flopping around the floor in little pieces: this thread.

At least in this thread, we agree on something +1

Edited October 25, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You are kidding right? So I should now be expected to refrain from calling a black berry what it is and has always been referred to, just in case it may offend someone? 

Nice strawman.

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This is the sort of ridiculous clap trap that fuels people to come up with more and more excuses to point the finger at those that dare speak out, rather than those shying away in fear of being offensive, which has nothing to do with courtesy by the way, but rather, cowardice.

Like I've said before, there's a big difference between the righteously indignant (the excuse) and the rightfully hurt (the reason).

 

[Intoscience]

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nice strawman.

Like I've said before, there's a big difference between the righteously indignant (the excuse) and the rightfully hurt (the reason).

 

Strawman? I made a genuine remark indicative to my original argument. 

I often wonder whether people who are keen to cite and make a big deal out of such things, to stir the hornets nest, are just bored. Maybe some folk should stop wasting their precious time and make actual use of it towards something productive, instead of just poking their sticks. 

You know, my grandfather served and fought in the second world war. He saw many horrors and suffered much pain and anguish. What always struck me though was that he mentioned to me many times, for all the terrible loss, devastation, pain and suffering that war brings, it also brings comradeship, focus, care and commitment to the weak, elderly young and vulnerable...

Some of his stories and what he and his generation endured often shamed me into realising how lucky we are and how well off and fortunate we are in modern Western society. So yeah when I hear people whine over calling a black berry a black berry it sort of gets my back up a little.    

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Strawman? I made a genuine remark indicative to my original argument. 

I often wonder whether people who are keen to cite and make a big deal out of such things, to stir the hornets nest, are just bored. Maybe some folk should stop wasting their precious time and make actual use of it towards something productive, instead of just poking their sticks. 

You know, my grandfather served and fought in the second world war. He saw many horrors and suffered much pain and anguish. What always struck me though was that he mentioned to me many times, for all the terrible loss, devastation, pain and suffering that war brings, it also brings comradeship, focus, care and commitment to the weak, elderly young and vulnerable...

Some of his stories and what he and his generation endured often shamed me into realising how lucky we are and how well off and fortunate we are in modern Western society. So yeah when I hear people whine over calling a black berry a black berry it sort of gets my back up a little.    

Like I said strawman, no-one cares what you call your breakfast.

Your grandfather had a reason to think that way, your just using his reason as your excuse.

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

So yeah when I hear people whine over calling a black berry a black berry it sort of gets my back up a little.    

Call them "ni" for all I care, just don't shout about it... 😉 

Edited October 25, 2021 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Quote

Like I said strawman, no-one cares what you call your breakfast.

Quote

Your grandfather had a reason to think that way, your just using his reason as your excuse.

Call them "ni" for all I care, just don't shout about it... 😉 

If no one cares why whine about it then? 

Excuse for what? For my own feelings? 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Intoscience

[naitche]

Objectively, Incomprehension is not refutation.

Its a singular, stand alone value.

One.

If its value is dependent or entangled with another, separate One, its not gonna stand on its own. It has no value as a stand alone focal object.

Objectively, You have the value of one, just like every body else. Your being One neither bestows or subtracts from any other One. In an objective statehood.

Thats objective equality. 

You can just call me One. 

[dimreepr]

Just now, Intoscience said:

Excuse for what? For my own feelings? 

How has anything I've said, damaged your feeling's?

Not an excuse, a reason please... 

2 minutes ago, naitche said:

You can just call me One.

I have...

[naitche]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

I have...

More than once!

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, naitche said:

More than once!

I can say it again...

[Intoscience]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How has anything I've said, damaged your feeling's?

Not an excuse, a reason please... 

I have...

You have damaged my feelings, or have you? Maybe I am offended maybe not, just being polite and courteous so as not to return the favour?

There can be many reasons, depends on your interpretation of what one says that would determine to you whether it be an excuse or not.    

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

You have damaged my feelings, or have you? Maybe I am offended maybe not, just being polite and courteous so as not to return the favour?

There can be many reasons, depends on your interpretation of what one says that would determine to you whether it be an excuse or not.    

Indeed, all I ask is you question the difference and be honest with your answers... 😊 

[Intoscience]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, all I ask is you question the difference and be honest with your answers... 😊 

I try to remain honest, in fact I even try to be bluntly honest which often gets me in a spot of bother, especially with my partner when out shopping! Such that she often states that I'm unkind and have no regard for her feelings, maybe she is correct?  

I think honesty, should prevail where possible, even if that means offending someone in the process. I think this is one aspect that people dislike about JP.