Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[Phi for All]

21 hours ago, koti said:

I am more than disappointed in you Phi, you were always the high ground for me on this site. Now you've either unkowingly become a slave to a PC agenda or you really do believe that giving birth to a child is a made up thing. Which is it? 

Either or, is it? I call False Dilemma, since my stance is neither. And your second option is a strawman. You see why it's so hard to discuss this with you? The way you frame your stance is murky and belligerent, and sets the whole discussion up as confrontational. Can we try something different?

Since you make it personal, if my daughter told me she never felt right being called "she" or "her", am I supposed to tell her she can't feel that way because that's how she was born? If she told me she was gay and I accepted that, why wouldn't I use the pronouns she wants me to? Every person who talks about us during a day uses gender pronouns several times in each conversation. If they don't feel right to you for any reason, that's got to be quite a burden. Every conversation you hear words ABOUT YOU that you don't feel right, that point out to you that you don't fit what people call "normal". 

If I look through another person's eyes, I can see how different their world is from mine. I'm glad it's that way, since if everyone was like me, the rest of you would be superfluous.

[koti]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

...Since you make it personal, if my daughter told me she never felt right being called "she" or "her", am I supposed to tell her she can't feel that way because that's how she was born? If she told me she was gay and I accepted that, why wouldn't I use the pronouns she wants me to?...

It's not about that, for the n'th time this is about your daughter using legal action against you, leading a witch hunt against you at the end of which you loose your job. The fact that you (and a few others) remain blind to what this is about is astonishing.

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, koti said:

It's not about that, for the n'th time this is about your daughter using legal action against you, leading a witch hunt against you at the end of which you loose your job. The fact that you (and a few others) remain blind to what this is about is astonishing.

Well, koti, if I didn't react the way I posted, if I refused to accept my daughter's feelings as valid, if I called her choices "ludicrous" or "ridiculous", if I insisted on using words she's told me are hurtful or uncomfortable or make her miserable, and if I insisted on MY terms for addressing HER to the point where she had to hire a lawyer to make me stop and recognize her wishes as valid, I HOPE THE JUDGE THROWS THE BOOK AT ME, or at least helps me see that this isn't about me.

I would be a shitty father NOT supporting something that obviously means so much to my child. It's astonishing to me that you don't see it that way, but my child may be older than yours, so if she tells me something like this seriously, I don't assume it's a phase she's going through, or something she's doing for the PC reasons you see everywhere. I don't assume her choice is ridiculous. It's not like this is the 50s and I want her to hide her bizarre gender choices from society. I care too much to do something to turn her so firmly against me that it goes to court.

[iNow]

Also, nobody’s gone to court. Nobody’s lost rights. Nobody’s lost jobs. The lesbian example to which Koti keeps clinging was a resignation, not a firing. 

Still arguing against the fantasies of those with the audacity to call others delusional. Ho hum. 

[koti]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

…The lesbian example to which Koti keeps clinging was a resignation, not a firing.

The level of your blindness which is caused by your bias is only topped by your hypocrisy.

[MigL]

On 11/9/2021 at 11:28 AM, iNow said:

Have you considered their perspective and how exhausting it is to live every single day of your entire life not being accepted for who you are, being targeted for violence, and needing to constantly defend yourself against the perceptual whims of others?

Yes, I asked Kathleen Stocks 😁 .

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

The lesbian example to which Koti keeps clinging was a resignation, not a firing. 

You've never done root-cause analysis, have you ?

I wonder, if the suicide rates among disenfranchised, disgraced, fired, or forced to quit professors is higher than in the general population, are we going to assume it's because they are oppressed, and we should grant them more  freedom to say whatever they want, and socially force others to agree with them.

[CharonY]

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

I wonder, if the suicide rates among disenfranchised, disgraced, fired, or forced to quit professors is higher than in the general population, are we going to assume it's because they are oppressed, and we should grant them more  freedom to say whatever they want, and socially force others to agree with them.

What we should do is take a look whether that is actually the case. From what I have seen burnout and job-related issues are far more common among academics. That includes dealing with students whining about their grades. BTW, at no point did anyone said that one should be forced to agree. Again, it is just the freedom for either side to say what they think and the freedom of either side to call the other dumbass for that. 

And in academia specifically most countries have a tenure system, which is supposed to be a safeguard of academic freedom and which, as far as I can tell, has not been violated. So at least in that regard academics are protected. Specifically in this case I see it that the public has the right to object to her claims (whatever they are) and she has very much the right to ignore them and rely on being protected by the tenure system. 

However, the only protection against public opinion is really only not to become a public figure. I will acknowledge that this becoming more and more difficult these days. Nonetheless, there is a reason why some folks do not have a big social media presence and why some researchers working on potentially dicey projects in the past have not made it very public. 

Or to put it differently, if someone makes a statement that you personally agree with, do you want to force others not to object to it? 

[MigL]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Or to put it differently, if someone makes a statement that you personally agree with, do you want to force others not to object to it? 

No, I guess that would undermine my whole argument.
 

[CharonY]

48 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, I guess that would undermine my whole argument.
 

Thanks for clarifying, that is very much appreciated. I have the feeling that at least part of your objection (which I sympathize with, and correct me if I am misinterpreting it, or perhaps not express it well- coffee has worn off) is that the public discourse seems to be entirely confrontational, rather a discussion on the matter, and I do feel that a big part of it is because a significant proportion of these is done via twitter/facebook rather than in-person and in a better thought-out manner. I suspect that this is because we (as in the population) have become lazier (or perhaps were always that lazy, and just cared less).

Ultimately, we have to live with the fact that many folks won't share all our values, even if we assume they do. In the past it was easy to ignore that, but with the oversharing we see nowadays it has become weird, to say the least.

For example, you might have very friendly acquaintance that you share a beer with every now and then, and then during the pandemic you find out that they are conspiracy-driven anti-vaxxers. It creates a difficult situation to navigate, in my mind. Often, one can defuse or at least try to settle issues amicably, assuming we share at least a minimum of respect or trust (and in that regard I am not a fan of dogpiling on issues when folks involved do not at least put in a minimum of effort to understand the situation- you sometimes refer to that as virtue signaling, but I think that this behaviour is common to tons of situations, independent of common political axes). However, with the ongoing polarization of situations and an overarching attempt to frame things as either/or it has become tricky.

But anyway, just my 2 cents on that matter.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Either or, is it? I call False Dilemma, since my stance is neither. And your second option is a strawman. You see why it's so hard to discuss this with you? The way you frame your stance is murky and belligerent, and sets the whole discussion up as confrontational. Can we try something different?

Since you make it personal, if my daughter told me she never felt right being called "she" or "her", am I supposed to tell her she can't feel that way because that's how she was born? If she told me she was gay and I accepted that, why wouldn't I use the pronouns she wants me to? Every person who talks about us during a day uses gender pronouns several times in each conversation. If they don't feel right to you for any reason, that's got to be quite a burden. Every conversation you hear words ABOUT YOU that you don't feel right, that point out to you that you don't fit what people call "normal". 

If I look through another person's eyes, I can see how different their world is from mine. I'm glad it's that way, since if everyone was like me, the rest of you would be superfluous.

 

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Well, koti, if I didn't react the way I posted, if I refused to accept my daughter's feelings as valid, if I called her choices "ludicrous" or "ridiculous", if I insisted on using words she's told me are hurtful or uncomfortable or make her miserable, and if I insisted on MY terms for addressing HER to the point where she had to hire a lawyer to make me stop and recognize her wishes as valid, I HOPE THE JUDGE THROWS THE BOOK AT ME, or at least helps me see that this isn't about me.

I would be a shitty father NOT supporting something that obviously means so much to my child. It's astonishing to me that you don't see it that way, but my child may be older than yours, so if she tells me something like this seriously, I don't assume it's a phase she's going through, or something she's doing for the PC reasons you see everywhere. I don't assume her choice is ridiculous. It's not like this is the 50s and I want her to hide her bizarre gender choices from society. I care too much to do something to turn her so firmly against me that it goes to court.

Well, IMO, all that makes you a good father, with high personal accountability...and a bit of a fascist if you expect judges to throw the book at your neighbours if they don't meet your standards.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, koti said:

The level of your blindness which is caused by your bias is only topped by your hypocrisy.

I’m perfectly willing to be convinced that I am wrong or mistaken. I am always open to the idea that maybe I’m being inconsistent and even unfair. I will readily acknowledge fault and error when it’s highlighted for me. 

Posts like this one from you, however, will lead to none of those outcomes.

Posts like this serve only to further deteriorate my already limited and continuously eroded respect for you. Posts like this cause me only to reinforce my view of you as a childish poster seemingly incapable of making cogent coherent points without resorting to personal barbs and emotional outbursts. 

Did your favorite lesbian professor quit or was she fired? Nothing I said was inaccurate. Let’s start there, perhaps. What about me saying this objectively true statement led you to call me blind, biased, and hypocritical, because I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

You've never done root-cause analysis, have you ?

Like, within the last 2 hours, or just today? Maybe you mean how many have I done since last week? Please clarify. 

[koti]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m perfectly willing to be convinced that I am wrong or mistaken. I am always open to the idea that maybe I’m being inconsistent and even unfair. I will readily acknowledge fault and error when it’s highlighted for me. 

Posts like this one from you, however, will lead to none of those outcomes.

Posts like this serve only to further deteriorate my already limited and continuously eroded respect for you. Posts like this cause me only to reinforce my view of you as a childish poster seemingly incapable of making cogent coherent points without resorting to personal barbs and emotional outbursts. 

Did your favorite lesbian professor quit or was she fired? Nothing I said was inaccurate. Let’s start there, perhaps. What about me saying this objectively true statement led you to call me blind, biased, and hypocritical, because I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. 

No. You are not perfectly willing to be convinced that youre wrong or mistaken, your stance is predetermined and biased. I am willing to accept that and agree to disagree. I certainly will not launch a witch hunt against you to get you fired, call you a bigott, conspiracy theorist, call your thinking anti vaxxer/climate change denialist or try to put you in my line of thinking with a dozen downvotes. See the difference? 
While youre convinced that your stance is well ballanced in this thread and that you analised all view points to arrive in your convlusions, I assure you its not the case after seeing what has been happening in this thread. 
Youre locked in your bubble so tightly and for so long that its no longer the case that you don’t see the light coming in, you forgot that the light even exists. 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

…Posts like this serve only to further deteriorate my already limited and continuously eroded respect for you…

Maybe I should find out who you are, flood your employer with how youre not respecting me and hire people to spray paint your house with „iNow is a biggot, fire iNow!”  After all, I want you to respect me and I feel youre not doing a very good job on it.

Edited November 11, 2021 by koti

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, koti said:

No. You are not perfectly willing to be convinced that youre wrong or mistaken, your stance is predetermined and biased.

Pot meet kettle , the difference is iNow has been shown too, many time's. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by dimreepr

[iNow]

4 hours ago, koti said:

No. You are not perfectly willing to be convinced that youre wrong or mistaken, your stance is predetermined and biased. I am willing to accept that

You’re willing to accept that I am wrong and biased? Wow, how magnanimous of you. 😂 

4 hours ago, koti said:

Maybe I should find out who you are, flood your employer with how youre not respecting me and hire people to spray paint your house with „iNow is a biggot, fire iNow!”

Whatever. Good luck with that. 

[MigL]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

16 hours ago, MigL said:

You've never done root-cause analysis, have you ?

Like, within the last 2 hours, or just today? Maybe you mean how many have I done since last week? Please clarify. 

You are perfectly capable of getting onboard the train of thought that Trans people commit suicide in much higher rates, not of their own volition, but due to the external pressures of oppression and bullying.
Yet you can't grasp that the professor quit because of those same external pressures, and keep insisting that she quit and was not fired ?

Maybe I should have asked "Do you choose to apply root-cause analysis only when it suits your argument ?"

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe I should have asked "Do you choose to apply root-cause analysis only when it suits your argument ?"

Aren't we all capable of that? 

It doesn't mean we're all wrong.

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Well, IMO, all that makes you a good father, with high personal accountability...and a bit of a fascist if you expect judges to throw the book at your neighbours if they don't meet your standards.

I think this is a case where I'm imagining the outrageous horrorshow of insensitivity that would push my daughter to the brink of asking the courts to stop me from purposely causing her pain and anguish wrt how she is addressed by insisting on my own preferences multiple times a day, and you're imagining my neighbors getting perp-walked to a squad car just because they forgot to use my daughter's pronouns a few times. I don't think this argument is ever going to be meaningful in its present format.

 

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yet you can't grasp that the professor quit because of those same external pressures, and keep insisting that she quit and was not fired ?

To be clear, I very much can and do. I’m primarily pushing back on the actual root cause and scale.

You gave one single anecdote of one single person just one single time being held accountable for their speech and actions, and I’m pushing back on the consistently false claim that they were fired. They were not. They resigned, and that remains true even if I stipulate that social pressures likely motivated that choice. Sadly, it keeps getting presented as something it’s not. They were NOT fired. They were NOT victimized by the law underlying this entire discussion. 

I and others here, however, are speaking of millions upon millions of people globally who every single day of their lives for decades upon decades are being targeted for violence and discrimination more broadly simply for being themselves… for expressing who they are authentically in public… for asking to be called Janet instead of James.

I’m pushing back on this ridiculous suggestion of equivalence between the two. The equivalence being asserted is plainly false, especially since you keep misrepresenting your counter example as being something it actually is not. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think this is a case where I'm imagining the outrageous horrorshow of insensitivity that would push my daughter to the brink of asking the courts to stop me from purposely causing her pain and anguish wrt how she is addressed by insisting on my own preferences multiple times a day, and you're imagining my neighbors getting perp-walked to a squad car just because they forgot to use my daughter's pronouns a few times. I don't think this argument is ever going to be meaningful in its present format.

 

Let me see if I can express in your modus operandi, even if ensures you will continue to be blind to one side of the issue:

The format where you decide what I meant, interpreted in the most absurd fashion?

You're probably right, and why you are incapable of understanding J Peterson's argument, and will continue to choose to believe that it's about his malicious attempt to avoid showing any respect for some very vulnerable members of society.

How did I do?

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

To be clear, I very much can and do. I’m primarily pushing back on the actual root cause and scale.

You [MigL] gave one single anecdote of one single person just one single time being held accountable for their speech and actions, and I’m pushing back on the consistently false claim that they were fired. They were not. They resigned, and that remains true even if I stipulate that social pressures likely motivated that choice. Sadly, it keeps getting presented as something it’s not. They were NOT fired. They were NOT victimized by the law underlying this entire discussion. 

Looking in again,  get the impression you are somewhat talking past each other.   I think the pressured-to-quit example is being used as a sort of "representative anecdote" of a broad cultural repression of certain kinds of speech.   Really could have its own thread,  since it seems more about what Jon Ronson called the shaming culture,  and less about legal restrictions on behavior.   

I don't think anyone here would disagree that learning institutions should embody free discourse and not doing dogpiles on unpopular opinions to where teachers feel forced out.   So it seems like a red herring, really.   But I may have missed stuff here - things got busy in the Vat household the past week or so. 

[iNow]

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

I think the pressured-to-quit example is being used as a sort of "representative anecdote" of a broad cultural repression of certain kinds of speech.

Of course it is, and the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence.

Worse, in this thread we don’t even have plural anecdotes. We have ONE… one that is only tenuously… sorta kinda somewhat if you squint real hard and tilt your head sideways like a confused dog… connected. It’s an example of a professor one time somewhere in one place once resigning due to social backlash when she stuck her foot in her mouth.

So, we’re left wondering… where are all of these examples of cultural repression and retaliation that’s been so passionately decried and detested throughout this thread? The examples given have all this far been unrelated garbage red herrings stacked like Jenga blocks on top of strawmanesque misrepresentations of a law. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by iNow

[MigL]

There are plenty of examples of 'social backlash' on university campus.
Not all have to do with pronouns or gender association.
Here is one from today ...

John Cleese pulls out of Cambridge Union event over ‘woke rules’ | John Cleese | The Guardian

( though I'm sure you will claim J Cleese quit, and circumstances/pressures had nothing to do with it 🙂 )

[iNow]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Not all have to do with pronouns or gender association.

Which makes them worth F-all / exactly zero in this particular thread then, wouldn’t you say?

Also, why are you conflating “social backlash” with “termination” and jail?

[J.C.MacSwell]

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, we’re left wondering… where are all of these examples of cultural repression and retaliation that’s been so passionately decried and detested throughout this thread? The examples given have all this far been unrelated garbage red herrings stacked like Jenga blocks on top of strawmanesque misrepresentations of a law. 

You mean the concerns that something that effects free speech get a foothold in law?

You might want to point your strawman meter a little less directed outward.

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which makes them worth F-all / exactly zero in this particular thread then, wouldn’t you say?

Also, why are you conflating “social backlash” with “termination” and jail?

To you of course, yes absolutely. to those that read the title of the thread...not so much...

The OP:

On 10/5/2021 at 8:50 AM, Hans de Vries said:

What do you think about the ideas of Jordan Peterson? More precisely the idea that history of human society is that of dialogue between conservatives and liberals and that if conservatives and liberals can agree on something, then it's likely a good thing to do. In other words too much conservatism is bad and too much liberalism is also bad

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

To you of course, yes absolutely. to those that read the title of the thread...not so much...

The OP:

Yes. You’re, of course, correct. The last 32 pages of thread have been focused laser tight on what people think of Jordan Petersons views and NOBODY has been misrepresenting a law, saying people would go to jail for using wrong pronouns, and that people are losing jobs en masse despite a dearth of examples… nope. Totally correct. That conversation never happened. 

/sarcasm