Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Arete said:

Say a hypothetical person is a white supremacist, and their opinion is that non-white people are subhuman.

 

5 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

See the bolded; something that is demonstrably false cannot be an opinion.

The Canadian Charter of Rights ( our 'constitution' ) enshrines basic human rights as 'laws', so if the ability to dictate to others how you will be addressed is recognized as a basic right, then it effectively becomes law enforceable by the Canadian human rights tribunal/Commission.
The only way around it is by using the Charter's not-withstanding clause, which apparently only Quebec is allowed to use for 'protecting' their language in a bilingual country, and 'protecting' secularism by removing the religious rights to religious symbols ( but that is another thread/discussion; maybe JP will take up that cause next )

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, Arete said:

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? 

I think there's a conflict running through this chat between two forms of holding an opinion.   There is harboring an opinion,  on which laws, of necessity, must remain silent.   Then there is expressing an opinion such that it translates to action (anything from verbal acts to physical changes to a worker's environment and/or paycheck).  

The answer to your clever hypothetical is that we do not rely on anyone's sense of courtesy or anything else internal.   We instead set legal standards of fair treatment,  which proscribe the enactment of hostile and discriminatory opinions.   You could be a secret white supremacist and do a good job anyway in the example situation because you want to keep your job and have professional respect from other managers.  (and how I will enjoy your internal simmering!)   The law never proscribes opinion,  only actions that create a hostile atmosphere and different career advancement for a protected class.   

The power of such laws lies not in their frequent enforcement but simply in everyone with power over others knowing they are on the books.  

[Arete]

Just now, TheVat said:

 You could be a secret white supremacist and do a good job anyway in the example situation because you want to keep your job and have professional respect from other managers.  (and how I will enjoy your internal simmering!)   The law never proscribes opinion,  only actions that create a hostile atmosphere and different career advancement for a protected class.   

This has been my point all along - no one is dictating what Peterson or anyone else is allowed to think or say, but proposing that he not be allowed to discriminate against others because of those beliefs. If your version of "free speech" includes the supposed right to discriminate against others based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity - call me an anti freedom fascist if you like, but I don't believe it is your right. In most cases the laws of western countries agree with my position. 

[Peterkin]

14 minutes ago, Arete said:

no one is dictating what Peterson or anyone else is allowed to think or say,

Proof: everything Peterson very publicly says; how little hampered he is by the rules of common courtesy or respect for the the opinions of others -  and he's still at large.

[Arikel88]

Mr.peterson is A genius as sound he says he has done marvelous work. But just like most geniuses does get cuaght in his high thoughts and thinks he has superior intellectual. No justice is for Peterson he wants to be prime minister of Canade he can but still the world will not be change by Peterson was. If he really would he would of done it A long time ago but he is better observer than one might think. Truly Peterson is genius without doubt but still he has not surpass Einstien, Kasparov, or Nikita for that wish to see with that the same difficulty for them to achieve their feats he is many of many geniuses in this world.

[iNow]

I love lamp

[zapatos]

I need a shower.

[Intoscience]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

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. 

I haven't once on this thread referenced "trans", maybe you are mixing me up with someone else? I have no problem with sexual identity.

My point has been solely focused on what in my opinion is the ridiculous, such as the example I gave earlier where a person complained about calling a black berry a black berry. Thus how far does PC go?

Regarding the "bare truth", again you are mis-interpreting, what I'm talking about is actual facts not opinions. The earth is round not flat, you can chose to call it flat, have the opinion that its flat, but its round - fact = bare truth.   

18 hours ago, Phi for All said:

"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.

You are free to have the opinion that "suffer fools" is a misused phrase. You may form the opinion that its offensive, gather enough support you may even get it generally accepted as offensive. Where I come from the phrase is used quite often and has a few meanings. Generally it means that someone is acting up in an unaccepted idiotic way, with the intent to disrupt.   

Edited October 27, 2021 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My point has been solely focused on what in my opinion is the ridiculous, such as the example I gave earlier where a person complained about calling a black berry a black berry. Thus how far does PC go?

The army of the righteous march on PC, unfortunately the army of the righteously indignant just use it as a banner; if PC is a reason, then I hope it goes as far as it needs to, but if PC is an excuse, I tend to just laugh... 

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You are free to have the opinion that "suffer fools" is a misused phrase. You may form the opinion that its offensive, gather enough support you may even get it generally accepted as offensive. Where I come from the phrase is used quite often and has a few meanings. Generally it means that someone is acting up in an unaccepted idiotic way, with the intent to disrupt. 

Who are you to judge?

He might be a very clever fool... 😉

Which (wormhole) brings us right back to page 1, post 1.

[Intoscience]

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Who are you to judge?

He might be a very clever fool... 😉

Which (wormhole) brings us right back to page 1, post 1.

Who is anyone to judge either way? Generally someone who purposely disrupts at the cost of the majority with no positive intent, gets judged by the majority and dealt with accordingly.

Some people have a higher tolerance than others, it would be very boring if we were all the same. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Who is anyone to judge either way? Generally someone who purposely disrupts at the cost of the majority with no positive intent, gets judged by the majority and dealt with accordingly.

Some people have a higher tolerance than others, it would be very boring if we were all the same. 

We don't have to be the same, for a better world; we just have to 'agree' to be a little more tolerant than yesterday (reminding ourselves that we don't have to like what we tolerate) 

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You are free to have the opinion that "suffer fools" is a misused phrase. You may form the opinion that its offensive, gather enough support you may even get it generally accepted as offensive.

I see it as more of a fallacious argument, where it isn't necessarily wrong, but it often leads to wrong conclusions. It's dangerous because it places the person who uses it in an unassailable position ("You're the fool, I'm not, and I get to define your behavior as I choose"). If the phrase is used instead of critical thinking and reasoned response, I think it's being misused.

Quote

Where I come from the phrase is used quite often and has a few meanings. Generally it means that someone is acting up in an unaccepted idiotic way, with the intent to disrupt. 

 It's a phrase that can mask a weak reply. Like any fallacy, the danger is accepting it blindly. Slippery Slope is like that; burning a book doesn't always lead to burning more books, but it happens so often that it seems like a strong argument. You also have to be careful with those who claim to be "skeptics". Like "suffer no fools", claiming skepticism puts the claimant in a position of judgement over others, and makes them the arbiter of what's right/wrong/foolish, and MAY cause others to look less closely for a valid argument from them. Does that make sense? I'm not saying your phrase is always misused, it just has a very high potential for it.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My point has been solely focused on what in my opinion is the ridiculous, such as the example I gave earlier where a person complained about calling a black berry a black berry. Thus how far does PC go?

We're not talking about some random person who made the silly suggestion that we replace the word "black" in the name of the fruit "black berries" because it might be racist. It's a single anecdotal example of a foolish claim, not something being advocated culturally or requested by tens of millions, and it is self-evidently silly... and it's silly on purpose. 

The problem with your point is that you continue equating these silly on purpose examples with the very real and valid need to align ourselves on how society accepts the gender identification of millions and millions of fellow humans... of folks who are non-binary or who identify differently now than they were assigned at birth. 

You continue (whether consciously or not, it's there) suggesting that when someone assigned as female at birth later identifies as male and asks that their gender identification be respected by others... you suggest this is similar to someone saying we should stop using the word "black" to describe black berries because it's racist. It shows rather plainly just how non-serious you consider these totally fair and legitimate requests to respect someone's gender identification... and my assertion regarding how little seriousness you treat this with is amplified when you follow-up immediately by lumping these requests to respect the gender identify of others into a simple category we can all easily and without thought cast aside and dismiss as "too PC."

Well, no actually... It's not just about being politically correct. It's not just about some people being ridiculous, nor is it about people living in some sort of a delusion, nor a mental issue, nor a desire for attention, nor any of the other countless things so many people here have ignorantly suggested across the last 20 pages of thread discussion.

Nobody is being asked to be called new labels like "Ze" or "thou" or "dog" or "pilgrim." This is about gender and the request is for others to use He/Him, She/Her/, They/Them, etc. These are established categories in accepted parlance, and the need is not to invent new categories and labels, but to instead gently adjust the thresholds we use when applying them.

However, when you say this request is about being "PC" or mention that it is "ridiculous," or implicitly assert that these requests are functionally equivalent to suggesting we no longer call black berries "black" because one dude  one time somewhere said it might be racist and we fear the slippery slope... Well, then it's pretty hard to take you at your word when you also say:

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I have no problem with sexual identity.

... because the evidence provided by your repeated posts, the way you frame the argument, and the examples you share in your comments rather strongly suggests otherwise.

Edited October 27, 2021 by iNow

[MigL]

Phi provides his opinion on the usage of "suffer fools", and Intoscience provides his alternate opinion, yet Intoscience is accused of 'judging' by Dimreepr, and of being intolerant of other's opinions by others.
Then INow chimes in with the implication that ...

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

... because the evidence provided by your repeated posts, the way you frame the argument, and the examples you share in your comments rather strongly suggests otherwise.

Intoscience has a problem with Trans people. IOW, transphobic.

I, and anyone else reading this, expect better.

[Peterkin]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My point has been solely focused on what in my opinion is the ridiculous, such as the example I gave earlier where a person complained about calling a black berry a black berry. Thus how far does PC go?

It doesn't go anywhere near there. Some people say things that sound silly to other people, even though it may make sense to the person who says it, and the person who thinks it's silly does nothing about it. Lots of people say lots of things that other people disapprove of, get angry about, are hurt by, and they sometimes respond, using words the other people get angry about and feel hurt by, etc. And --- nothing happens. Just like nothing happens to society when someone writes an op-ed piece against the latest fad, or somebody complains about sex in the movies, or somebody proposes a new national holiday to commemorate Michael Jackson.

What Peterson falsely claims is that the government is policing his speech and forcing him to pronounce a few syllables that he doesn't think should enter the language. He seems to want - demand - what all the anti-PC protests seem to be on about: "Respect my disrespect of others." 

We have the same right to disrespect him as he has to disrespect us - genius or not.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Intoscience has a problem with Trans people. IOW, transphobic.

Please don't move the goal posts nor strawman me.

I've used reason throughout my post and elucidated at length why I shared what I did. I am open to challenge and correction, but I supported my statements implying that maybe he really does have a problem with sexual identity, even if perhaps he's not conscious of it.

You're welcome to disagree with my assessment, but not to suggest I'm asserting he's transphobic. 

I expect better. 🙄

Edited October 27, 2021 by iNow

[MigL]

I have to ask ...
What do you guys think of the Dave Chapelle controversy ?

He makes some pretty offensive comments about Trans people in his routine.
And while I might say he has the right to make those comments, because comedy is an art form ( and sometimes it has to be offensive ), you might say his audience then has the right to view/judge him in a negative light, as on offensive, hurtful individual. And I could agree with that.
But that is not all they are doing.
It is not enough to voice their objections and distaste for his opinions with opinions of their own; they want him cancelled. They want his ability to voice those nasty opinions shut down.

I don't even need to mention that most who want him cancelled probably have not even seen the show, as his satire is trying to get people to realize that every one out there has a story. In fact the last half hour is devoted to a story about a Trans friend of Dave's, who killed herself in part due to other's criticism/bullying.
Is lack of understanding ( of nuances ) now a reason to be offended ?

Your thoughts/opinions are, of course, welcome.

Edited October 28, 2021 by MigL

[iNow]

Just now, MigL said:

What do you guys think of the Dave Chapelle controversy ?

Mixed feelings, and this thread has crossed my mind. I watched it and laughed, as I usually do when watching him perform. He makes insightful points and challenges sacred cows. I read the controversy and felt the criticism toward him was misdirected… and like you said, sometimes being made without actually having seen the special… a bit of a bandwagon effect… but I kept listening and I kept reading. I had blind spots that required illumination.

In the end, I think he pushed it a bit too far, but I support leaving the special up.

Points that later resonated with me and gave texture to my thinking were that he seemed to be applauding only those trans individual who in his words could take a joke… like his trans friend that killed themself (or like infosciences previously mentioned Asian friends in this thread who “Just roll with it” when mocked and made fun of or when left out).

I accept this counter claim that expecting everyone to take the joke means he’s in parallel needlessly piling on to the already overwhelming negative feedback and hurtful comments noncomedians so often level at trans individuals every single. Even in this thread on this site filled with smart critical thinking people we've seen trans individuals described as having mental problems and being delusional and attention seeking… we’ve seen people assigned female at birth and asking to be identified as male today as equivalent to someone saying its racist to call black berries black… so I’m sympathetic to the idea that we should stop kicking people when they’re already down.

I realize that comedians do this as part of,their jobs, though. Nobody is off-limits for kicking and that’s an important part of comedy. It’s not like he’s a university professor or elected official or ideological movement leader after all, so I tend to cut him some slack. 

The counter claim that gave me the most pause is how he identified himself as a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist).  That’s a group known for a long history of spouting bile and nastiness and hatred and vitriol at the trans community. Maybe he wasn’t fully aware of this history when dressing himself with that label, but that’s really no excuse IMO. If you call yourself a nazi, you’ll have to deal with how others authentically respond to that. He called himself a TERF, and that has a violent connotation so it’s unsurprising people have reacted this way.

I laughed at many of his jokes, though. I like Dave Chapelle and have for many years. I especially liked how he handled the murder of George Floyd by Chauvin in his 8 Minutes and 46 Seconds video on YouTube. We all need to laugh sometimes, especially at ourselves, and laughter often helps clarify difficult truths, but we must also remain vigilant with our own thoughts… we must be perpetually aware of and cautious about how others feel when we start (or keep) laughing at them. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

It is not enough to voice their objections and distaste for his opinions with opinions of their own; they want him cancelled. They want his ability to voice those nasty opinions shut down.

Some folks seem to want that, yet I do not see his special being pulled. This, again is not a new thing. A lot of folks wanted to have movies pulled or censored due to violence, blasphemy, sex or whatever folks did not like at that point. It depends a lot on the outlet whether folks are successful in doing so. TV tends to self-censor a fair bit and the rating systems of movies are a similar mechanism. That all being said as many others I am in favour of having that available and, as you suggested to have discussions about it. 

While I think Dave's message was way clumsier than his usual and a bit overshadowed by somewhat excessive complaining, it is in itself not just an outright tirade of insults as others have made. I think it would have played better if his jokes were, well, better. To paraphrase Seinfeld: you can make very offensive jokes and get away with it. The important bit is that your jokes (the craft) has to be so much better to pull it off. And here, I think he fell a bit short.

That being said, I get some of Dave's complaints although he kind of brushed over issues of intersectionality (in my memory his bit with trans black folks were rather clumsy additions and could have been so much better) it is interesting to see some folks are (from his perspective) more willing to accommodate non-binary folks (implicitly white trans folks) than (straight, non-binary) black folks. I think his view is a bit skewed, but considering how poorly black folks are treated, one can kind of get it. But of course looking at history, there is also the observation that black men were allowed to vote before women. And during the civil rights movement there were quite a bit of clashes between those fighting for equal rights for black men and those for women, whereas especially black women were getting all the short ends of various sticks.

In all honesty I think Chappelle really only caused a controversy because, a) he is considered one of the greats in comedy and b) his bits have been very vocal about issues of black experiences (where some folks accuse him of race-baiting, which is missing the point entirely). 

[Intoscience]

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I see it as more of a fallacious argument, where it isn't necessarily wrong, but it often leads to wrong conclusions. It's dangerous because it places the person who uses it in an unassailable position ("You're the fool, I'm not, and I get to define your behavior as I choose"). If the phrase is used instead of critical thinking and reasoned response, I think it's being misused.

 It's a phrase that can mask a weak reply. Like any fallacy, the danger is accepting it blindly. Slippery Slope is like that; burning a book doesn't always lead to burning more books, but it happens so often that it seems like a strong argument. You also have to be careful with those who claim to be "skeptics". Like "suffer no fools", claiming skepticism puts the claimant in a position of judgement over others, and makes them the arbiter of what's right/wrong/foolish, and MAY cause others to look less closely for a valid argument from them. Does that make sense? I'm not saying your phrase is always misused, it just has a very high potential for it.

Fair enough, we have difference of opinion. I think that many phrases have the potential for mis-use, in fact we see this all the time. This is the problem with interpretation, context and intent. What might start out as an innocent term or phrase can be easily mistaken as offensive or discriminative.

18 hours ago, iNow said:

We're not talking about some random person who made the silly suggestion that we replace the word "black" in the name of the fruit "black berries" because it might be racist. It's a single anecdotal example of a foolish claim, not something being advocated culturally or requested by tens of millions, and it is self-evidently silly... and it's silly on purpose. 

The problem with your point is that you continue equating these silly on purpose examples with the very real and valid need to align ourselves on how society accepts the gender identification of millions and millions of fellow humans... of folks who are non-binary or who identify differently now than they were assigned at birth. 

You continue (whether consciously or not, it's there) suggesting that when someone assigned as female at birth later identifies as male and asks that their gender identification be respected by others... you suggest this is similar to someone saying we should stop using the word "black" to describe black berries because it's racist. It shows rather plainly just how non-serious you consider these totally fair and legitimate requests to respect someone's gender identification... and my assertion regarding how little seriousness you treat this with is amplified when you follow-up immediately by lumping these requests to respect the gender identify of others into a simple category we can all easily and without thought cast aside and dismiss as "too PC."

Well, no actually... It's not just about being politically correct. It's not just about some people being ridiculous, nor is it about people living in some sort of a delusion, nor a mental issue, nor a desire for attention, nor any of the other countless things so many people here have ignorantly suggested across the last 20 pages of thread discussion.

Nobody is being asked to be called new labels like "Ze" or "thou" or "dog" or "pilgrim." This is about gender and the request is for others to use He/Him, She/Her/, They/Them, etc. These are established categories in accepted parlance, and the need is not to invent new categories and labels, but to instead gently adjust the thresholds we use when applying them.

However, when you say this request is about being "PC" or mention that it is "ridiculous," or implicitly assert that these requests are functionally equivalent to suggesting we no longer call black berries "black" because one dude  one time somewhere said it might be racist and we fear the slippery slope... Well, then it's pretty hard to take you at your word when you also say:

... because the evidence provided by your repeated posts, the way you frame the argument, and the examples you share in your comments rather strongly suggests otherwise.

It never crossed my mind to equate my example with sexual identity in the way that you assume, consciously or otherwise. You have made an assertion that I have "lumped" the two together in one simple category. On the contrary to this, my whole point is that you cannot lump these things together!! But this seems to have passed over your head.

But people are asking for ridiculous things like changing the name of black berries, then comparing this to genuine offensive and discriminative words or phrases. This is my point!!  

I have a good friend who is trans (which I have mentioned previously in the transgender athletes thread) so I can assure you, your assumption that I'm transphobic is way off the mark.  

18 hours ago, MigL said:

 Intoscience is accused of 'judging' by Dimreepr, and of being intolerant of other's opinions by others.

Ironic isn't it,

If your opinion is not with the "status quo" then you are judged accordingly, and in the process accused of being the judger and intolerant.

If my opinion of someone is that they are an idiot, but someone else's opinion is that they are a genius. I'm wrong to assert such an opinion but the other person is fine to assert theirs? 

Hmmm... doesn't seem much equality there now does there?    

Edited October 28, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Ironic isn't it,

If your opinion is not with the "status quo" then you are judged accordingly, and in the process accused of being the judger and intolerant.

No it's a strawman, I didn't accuse you of either:

I asked ("who are you too judge?") in the context of "suffering fool's"; that's a sincere question, I ask it of myself all the time; I'm judging no-one.

Then I suggested that we all should tolerate more, with a mantra to help us do just that "tolerating 'a thing' doesn't equal liking 'a thing'" and "If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

You're the accuser here.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Fair enough, we have difference of opinion. I think that many phrases have the potential for mis-use, in fact we see this all the time. This is the problem with interpretation, context and intent. What might start out as an innocent term or phrase can be easily mistaken as offensive or discriminative.

So you disagree with my interpretation of the phrase you used, but agree that phrases like it have the potential for misuse. I hope I have that right.

I don't think the phrase has a problem with interpretation, context, or intent. I think the phrase can mask a weak argument, that's all, and it's often used to prop up a stance that has nothing else to keep it going. "Suffering fools" is like flipping a coin where you get to claim "Heads I win, tails you lose".

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

your assumption that I'm transphobic is way off the mark. 

To be perfectly clear, I'm not assuming you're transphobic. I'm suggesting you potentially have blindspots on this topic about which you may not be consciously aware. 

[Phi for All]

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

I'm suggesting you potentially have blindspots on this topic about which you may not be consciously aware. 

Trust me on this, it's your blind spots that will cause you the most woe as you get older. The longer you take to find them, the more shocking and disruptive they'll be when they're uncovered. Ignorance is bliss until it's suddenly not.

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

So you disagree with my interpretation of the phrase you used, but agree that phrases like it have the potential for misuse. I hope I have that right.

I don't think the phrase has a problem with interpretation, context, or intent. I think the phrase can mask a weak argument, that's all, and it's often used to prop up a stance that has nothing else to keep it going. "Suffering fools" is like flipping a coin where you get to claim "Heads I win, tails you lose".

Yeah pretty much.

I don't agree that that particular phrase masks a weak argument, unless used in the wrong context. But I agree that that phrase, and many similar can be subject to misuse dependent on context.

For example, if I completed a test where I scored high and another person scored low and I was to remark that I won't consider that persons idea's or opinions such that I used the phrase "I don't suffer fools" then this would be an example of poor use of the phrase in this particular context. But if a person was persistently been idiotic with the intent on disruption and I stated the same phrase then I would find this acceptable use   

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

To be perfectly clear, I'm not assuming you're transphobic. I'm suggesting you potentially have blindspots on this topic about which you may not be consciously aware. 

Ok, fair enough. I don't claim to be anymore or less aware than others, so am open to the fact that you and others may  see my blind spots. 

It might be that its just a matter of interpretation, or difference of opinion also, which at the moment that's how it seems to me. 

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Trust me on this, it's your blind spots that will cause you the most woe as you get older. The longer you take to find them, the more shocking and disruptive they'll be when they're uncovered. Ignorance is bliss until it's suddenly not.

Something we can agree on in this thread.