Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

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.  

Indeed, being honest only offends you... 😉 

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

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.  

I agree with the last two sentences, mostly because of the first two. Maybe she IS correct. Being proud of letting your offensive feelings be known needs a rethink, guys.

[Intoscience]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I agree with the last two sentences, mostly because of the first two. Maybe she IS correct. Being proud of letting your offensive feelings be known needs a rethink, guys.

I agree that one should remain sensitive where possible and there is no need to express your feelings unless asked to. But what then, if someone asks me a question do I answer honestly, even knowing that it may offend, or do I try to be sensitive and considerate if that means lying? The trick, obviously is to answer honestly in a subtle, sensitive and inoffensive manner, however this is not always possible. 

I wouldn't say I was proud of having or expressing offensive feelings, on the contrary, I would however prefer to stay true to myself.

I guess for me personally I often get conflicted, since being honest is important to me be it given and/or received. Being sensitive is also important especially with those I care most for. However, I prefer to be honest and prefer honesty returned at the cost of my own feelings, so be it. Maybe this is my flaw and one I should endeavour to improve on, I'm open to that.  

Edited October 25, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I guess for me personally I often get conflicted, since being honest is important to me be it given and/or received. Being sensitive is also important especially with those I care most for. However, I prefer to be honest and prefer honesty returned at the cost of my own feelings, so be it. Maybe this is my flaw and one I should endeavour to improve on, I'm open to that. 

Your only flaw is, that you're human; your only lie is, that your not...

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Your only flaw is, that you're human; your only lie is, that your not...

The idiot should prevail...

Edited October 25, 2021 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I wouldn't say I was proud of having or expressing offensive feelings, on the contrary, I would however prefer to stay true to myself.

And I'm saying that the concept of "stay true to myself" is perhaps being misapplied when it comes to interacting with others, especially with those who stray far from our expectations. For me, staying true to myself means treating someone with preferences for certain pronouns the same way I treat someone with a preference for a lack of foul language, or a preference for a less deafening voice, or a preference to avoid certain topics in conversation. I can talk without cursing, I know my voice carries, and there are so many things to talk about that it doesn't have to be politics or COVID or high prices. So I have to wonder why my "true self" wouldn't care if I disrespected someone?

A close family member of mine uses the phrase, "I like to give them a hard time", and he uses it the way you use "stay true to myself", as if nobody else is really involved. He makes jokes at people's expense that aren't very funny, and can even be hurtful or just mean, and of course when it's pointed out, he falls back on that phrase, "I like to give them a hard time, I don't mean anything by it, just joking around, don't be so sensitive!" For some reason, he thinks that's what normal people do all the time, but the weird part is that this guy would go out of his way to help if you were in trouble, and would do anything in his power to make sure you DIDN'T have "a hard time". He's a very nice guy who is misapplying a common sentiment, but he just doesn't see what's wrong with his behavior.

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

The trick, obviously is to answer honestly in a subtle, sensitive and inoffensive manner, however this is not always possible. 

No, the trick is to give them the answer they want to hear. 

My wife has on occasion made a choice that was questionable, but when she asked about it, what she wanted to hear was that I supported her.

Choosing clothes for instance is not a life and death decision. If she likes something then tell her you like it too.

That is a no brainer.

[TheVat]

People vary.  My wife likes honest appraisal when she asks about some aesthetic choices.  She has the good eye for color, I supply the good eye for proportions and contours, so asking me is recognizing that we are a good team where each fills some gaps for the other.  

On other matters, I agree that if you don't have any useful insight, and someone is looking for assurance,  it is best to just be supportive.  

I like George Carlin's observation:  If honesty is the best policy, then by process of elimination dishonesty is the second best policy.  

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, TheVat said:

People vary.  My wife likes honest appraisal when she asks about some aesthetic choices.  She has the good eye for color, I supply the good eye for proportions and contours, so asking me is recognizing that we are a good team where each fills some gaps for the other.  

Right. As I said, give them the answer they want. That can either be honest appraisal, support, or many different things at different times.

I don't just refuse an honest answer when I have no useful insight. It is important to go beyond the words (if that is possible) when someone asks you a question. A stranger typically gets an honest answer because I have nothing to go on other than the words they used. With my wife it is a completely different story. She communicates differently from me, and does so for different reasons. My job as a Martian who cares for the person I am talking to, is to understand the subtleties of what my cute little Venusian is asking.

[CharonY]

An issue with just being brutally honest is that many actually do not like to be on the receiving end. This is especially true if a power imbalance is in play (and I suspect that some of the issues arising from anti-discrimination laws and similar measures is that it gives power to folks who, according to conventional wisdom, should be powerless which might be upsetting or at least confusing to some).

That being said, there is also a cultural aspect. I found it that in North America folks tend to be a bit more polite of sorts and have on average more trouble to criticize things directly (I am talking in person, not the internet). Compared to that, Germans often appear brutally blunt. However, it is not uncommon in Germany that superiors bully their employees while not being particular receptive to criticism themselves. There is a bit of a change in society insofar that folks now talk more openly about discrimination and bullying.

[MigL]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

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.  

I'm sorry, I don't mean to pile up on you like the rest of these guys, because I've generally presented the same arguments as you ( and had the same incomprehensible discussions with Dim 😀 ), at least, concerning JP.

But when your partner asks you
"Do these jeans make me look fat ?"
DO NOT give an honest answer.
As a matter of fact, don't answer at all, just leave the roon; there is no right answer.

[zapatos]

[Intoscience]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm sorry, I don't mean to pile up on you like the rest of these guys, because I've generally presented the same arguments as you ( and had the same incomprehensible discussions with Dim 😀 ), at least, concerning JP.

But when your partner asks you
"Do these jeans make me look fat ?"
DO NOT give an honest answer.
As a matter of fact, don't answer at all, just leave the roon; there is no right answer.

No Worries, I don't mind being criticised, that's how I learn, get to understand other points of view and shown my errors when they occur.

Understanding my partner's mind is/can be a difficult one. She has often said that she misses her mother because her mother was always brutally honest with her regardless. Yet when I do the same she often lashes out, I guess looking for sensitivity and support. But then when I do show her sensitivity she calls me out and claims I'm just telling her what she wants to hear so not to hurt her feelings. 

But the point to all this, and I think it's relevant to this thread, is that sometimes you can't win with some people. You make a statement that is brutally honest based on factual evidence and you get called out for being insensitive, non courteous or worse. But when you deny the bare truth to save someone's feelings you then get branded a liar, or manipulator or worse. 

Yeah, you can just be the person who sits there and says nothing but where does that get us? stalemate? The art of politics is a difficult game to play.  

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

A close family member of mine uses the phrase, "I like to give them a hard time", and he uses it the way you use "stay true to myself", as if nobody else is really involved. He makes jokes at people's expense that aren't very funny, and can even be hurtful or just mean, and of course when it's pointed out, he falls back on that phrase, "I like to give them a hard time, I don't mean anything by it, just joking around, don't be so sensitive!" For some reason, he thinks that's what normal people do all the time, but the weird part is that this guy would go out of his way to help if you were in trouble, and would do anything in his power to make sure you DIDN'T have "a hard time". He's a very nice guy who is misapplying a common sentiment, but he just doesn't see what's wrong with his behavior.

 

My father is exactly like this ^^^ he gives people a hard time and won't suffer fools,  but would put his own life on the line to help or save anyone. Maybe because I have been brought up by a person like this makes me similar in some respects. Though I am more sensitive than my father, because my mother is the polar opposite to him, where a person's feelings is paramount, though she is kind towards people, she is not as generous towards others as my father is.  

17 hours ago, zapatos said:

No, the trick is to give them the answer they want to hear. 

My wife has on occasion made a choice that was questionable, but when she asked about it, what she wanted to hear was that I supported her.

Choosing clothes for instance is not a life and death decision. If she likes something then tell her you like it too.

That is a no brainer.

My partner doesn't always work that way, she often sees through the bullshit and gets annoyed at me being so cooperative. I have to be very tactical with my approach.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[naitche]

I think we just have to learn to read  the reality in front of us, through familiarization and all its relatives, and not assume the next One is just going to be just more of the same.

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, naitche said:

I think we just have to learn to read  the reality in front of us, through familiarization and all its relatives, and not assume the next One is just going to be just more of the same.

I prefer not to refer to it as "reality", simply because it implies there's only one. When we're talking about people, there are billions of them, so I prefer to "observe the natural world around me" and adapt to all the differences. "Reality" isn't a perspective, it's a subjective conclusion. I think we have to take a long, hard look at why we defend certain actions that invariably offend and alienate others in ways we didn't intend.

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My father is exactly like this ^^^ he gives people a hard time and won't suffer fools,  but would put his own life on the line to help or save anyone.

"Suffer fools" is another phrase that's misused, imo. It implies there's some sort of super common sense that makes the person who has it immune to foolishness, or able to spot a fool a mile away. What it really means is that those people have rigid guidelines for what they'll put up with, and another definition of that is "intolerant". They aren't great arbiters of common sense necessarily, since the definition of foolishness can change with each of them. Saying that you "won't suffer fools" is a stainless way to pass judgement on others while lifting yourself above them.

It's like claiming to be a skeptic when you're really just sitting on the fence, unable to make a decision. But it makes us sound smart to question EVERYTHING, or so we think.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But when you deny the bare truth to save someone's feelings you then get branded a liar, or manipulator or worse

Building upon Phi's point above regarding "no such thing as one reality," I see the same problems here with the suggestion there is such a thing as "truth," bare or otherwise.

We can go around in circles here and treat this like an endless philosophy thread where no actual progress gets made, but the implicit assertion you seem to be making is that your truth is the valid one, but the truth of the trans person is invalid.

The idea, whether you mean it or not, is that they're wrong for expressing their personal identity and being authentic with themselves in the way that they do, and that accepting that expression as valid on your end is wrong since it doesn't map neatly into your own personal preconceived notions and expectations for what informs gender identification in society.

That, IMO, is what we're trying to move passed. No need for labels like liar, manipulator, or worse. Those should be reserved for when folks continue refusing to improve or try harder even after having thoughtful discussions like these.

We all have blindspots, but should only be judged if we refuse to address them even after they've been kindly illuminated. 

Edited October 26, 2021 by iNow

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm sorry, I don't mean to pile up on you like the rest of these guys, because I've generally presented the same arguments as you ( and had the same incomprehensible discussions with Dim 😀 ), at least, concerning JP.

The thing about balance is, we all stay on...

[TheVat]

Has Jordan left the building?

[MigL]

16 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Has Jordan left the building?

Long time ago.

There are not billions of objective realities, but there are billions of subjective realities, and the only one that matters to anyone is their own.
Similarly, having an opinion is a way of sharing your own subjective reality with others, and because that subjective reality oftentimes clashes with the subjective reality of those others, we have offense, and conflict.
Any opinion is bound to offend someone ( as J Peterson has said,  to bring us back to the OP ).

The answer to this problem should NOT be denying someone the right to their own opinion, rather, understanding that most ( not all ) are equally valid, and, should I choose to recognize/validate your opinion, I do so as a courtesy, not a requirement ( whether by law, financial repercussions, or social pressure ).

[Phi for All]

30 minutes ago, MigL said:

There are not billions of objective realities, but there are billions of subjective realities, and the only one that matters to anyone is their own.

I disagree vehemently. There are plenty of people around me whose experience matters to me. I do things I know they enjoy and I treat them the way they like to be treated. Not. Rocket. Science.

 

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

The answer to this problem should NOT be denying someone the right to their own opinion, rather, understanding that most ( not all ) are equally valid, and, should I choose to recognize/validate your opinion, I do so as a courtesy, not a requirement ( whether by law, financial repercussions, or social pressure ).

And I think the "should I choose to recognize" part is what causes most of the conflicts. To you it's you being extra courteous to people because you want to, and to me it's me respecting that I'm not the only one on the planet, and maybe I should be looking at the whole idea of identity as a basic right, especially if I'm going to hypocritically require people to use he/him when referring to me.

[iNow]

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

should I choose to recognize/validate your opinion, I do so as a courtesy, not a requirement ( whether by law, financial repercussions, or social pressure)

Pretty sure it's been repeatedly established in this thread that there is no such law. Social pressure is the only process against which you seem to be battling. 

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Pretty sure it's been repeatedly established in this thread that there is no such law. Social pressure is the only process against which you seem to be battling. 

Railing against an unjust law for aspects it doesn't cover is a zombie strawman. You need to burn it, then chop it into little bitty pieces over and over to make sure it dies. Even then it's going to eventually twitch and jump-scare everyone.

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

To you it's you being extra courteous to people because you want to, and to me it's me respecting that I'm not the only one on the planet, and maybe I should be looking at the whole idea of identity as a basic right, especially if I'm going to hypocritically require people to use he/him when referring to me.

Your worldview ( Subjective ) shapes your opinion.
Why is mine, if I so choose ( also subjective ) any less valid ?

( once you make self-identity a 'basic right', it will be essentially law according to our ( Canadian ) constitution because only Quebec is allowed use of the 'Not withstanding' Clause )

[Arete]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

The answer to this problem should NOT be denying someone the right to their own opinion, rather, understanding that most ( not all ) are equally valid, and, should I choose to recognize/validate your opinion, I do so as a courtesy, not a requirement ( whether by law, financial repercussions, or social pressure ).

Say a hypothetical person is a white supremacist, and their opinion is that non-white people are subhuman. Now say that person works in a multicultural workplace, where they are a manager. Should we just rely on their sense of common courtesy to treat their non-white staff decently? 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Your worldview ( Subjective ) shapes your opinion.
Why is mine, if I so choose ( also subjective ) any less valid ?

Are we talking about your opinion on the pronouns I prefer? Are you saying the way you'd prefer to address me trumps how I feel about it? 

This is the other half of the coin that keeps getting ignored so it's repeated over and over. Now it's time to mention how you're going to be jailed over this soon. I think you're purposely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the arguments you don't like.

[CharonY]

I see we have been going through yet another turn of the same false claims. The big issue I see is that folks need to make up the threat of legal pressure in order to place themselves in the position of a victim rather than a perpetrator.

Otherwise the argument is simply I want to express myself any way I want but I do not want to be on the receiving end of social pressure. But rather obviously you cannot forbid anyone thinking you might be an arse if you break social rules. (How about queuing up in the UK compared to, say, Italy?). In the end the demand is about repercussion-free behaviour, but in order to make it reasonable it needs to be expressed in a way that appears that one is the one being oppressed.

This is funny as most  minorities can tell you that many keep their heads down and do not express themselves too much as it would result in said pressure from the majority for the longest time. Now that they now claim the same right it feels like a threat on the majority (there is even a term for that).

Thus for the argument of free expression to actually make sense, folks need to wobble between the argument of legal and social pressures (which they seemingly feel the first time). I.e. non-existent legal threats must be presented as a kind of governmental policing of behaviour and then at the same time the claim must be made that social pressures directed at them are uniquely new threat and entirely reasonable.

All it takes is to ignore the actual consequences of laws as well as ignoring all the normal social dynamics. The one thing that I will claim is different is the rise of social media, but strangely that is not the point being brought up at all.

Honestly, I understand that. Any threat that even theoretically could be raised against oneself is always seen as a much bigger issue than issues that mostly affect other folks. That is why certain drug laws are so draconian and had huge support (until a much broader swath of the population was affected). Or why men are much more worried about false rape allegations or women are far more worried about abortion laws. That all being said, we still should try to look at real data to contextualize these fears. E.g. are there actually folks being arrested for pronoun usage? What is the impact of anti-discrimination laws? Does it make our society better or are there indeed far-reaching unfair loss of jobs? These are things that folks are studying and it would be a good practice to look into those and other data rather than extrapolating from gut feeling (as folks like Peterson keep doing in order to keep the outrage-to-fact-ratio high).