Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[iNow]

What am I dodging, exactly? What specifically are you dismissing outright as ridiculous?

4 minutes ago, koti said:

Sure, you can dodge all you want but it won't make all this any less ridiculous. 

 

[MigL]

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Serious question. Who are these people you are referring to? And what I'm asking for is their names or other identifying information.

Well let me see if I can point out at least one of them ...

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Plus he dresses funny, in public yet! Heaven knows (oh, It does!) what he gets up to in the closet.

IIRC, Peterkin knows that Religious beliefs are one of the protected areas under Bill C-16, yet he has no problem being offensive to Catholics, by making fun of priests, and implying they all get up to bad behaviour.
If I had said that about gay/ trans/women or any of his favored causes, he would have been all over me.
( sort of like when a mosque or synagogue gets vandalized, and there's lots of hand-wringing/political visits and posturing, but about 50 Cathlic churches are burned down in Western Canada, in the wake of the residential school mass graves, and most don't even make the news )

Seems some people are more interested in appearing politically correct for the 'cause celebre', and wearing their 'offense' on their sleeve than actually protecting people's feelings. Apparently they want to pick and choose which areas they apply their politically correct views to.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

People who are (in my opinion) overly sensitive and then dramatize/blow out of context the use of grammar,  are either attention/sympathy seeking or/have mental health issues that require professional attention.  

Well I wouldn't go that far, but he is certainly a hypocrite.

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, koti said:

Your stance should be the first example explaining what hypocrisy is in an encyclopedia. 

What exactly was hypocritical?

[MigL]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

What am I dodging, exactly? What specifically are you dismissing outright as ridiculous?

37 minutes ago, koti said:

Sure, you can dodge all you want but it won't make all this any less ridiculous. 

Shouldn't I be the one to make that decision.
Or are you going to be 'offended' for me, INow ?

I don't care f you use they or he, as long as the meaning is clear and not ambiguous ( I would think Clint Eastwood clearly looks like a he ).

Language is not a 'weapon', it is a tool that translates ideas to other people.
And ideas cannot be prohibited, only actions can.

Edited October 14, 2021 by MigL

[koti]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Shouldn't I be the one to make that decision.
Or are you going to be 'offended' for me, INow ?

I was just about to substitute You with me so we could have a more „fruitful” dialog on this with iNow but I’m glad you came in.

Edit:

Okay, this is where we differ, I do care if iNow refers to me as a „they” and I certainly do not wish to be refered to as „they” I am a „he”.

It is Thursday today and if for some reason I loose my mind and by Sunday I decide everyone should refer to me as „your highness” while being sane at the moment of typing this, I would not want  iNow to bare legal consequences of not refering to me as „your highness”

Edited October 14, 2021 by koti

[MigL]

Glad to be here, buddy.

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, koti said:

I was just about to substitute You with me so we could have a more „fruitful” dialog on this with iNow but I’m glad you came in.

As long as you are available koti, can you please answer my question to you? I'm just really curious. Don't mean to rush you.

[koti]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

As long as you are available koti, can you please answer my question to you? I'm just really curious. Don't mean to rush you.

I pretty much explained in my edit above - I do not wish to be refered to as „they” but iNow insists on it. The hypocrisy is both very aparent and very self explanatory. 

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

I pretty much explained in my edit above - I do not wish to be refered to as „they” but iNow insists on it. The hypocrisy is both very aparent and very self explanatory. 

iNow did not refer to you as 'they'. He gave an example of how to use 'they' in a sentence for MigL.

[TheVat]

My impression which is (full disclosure) based on random observations over many decades is that "oversensitive" is often what white,  straight,  middle-class, Christian, normally-abled people call people whose life difficulties they've never remotely experienced.  In other words, it's often used in ignorance and applied to a group of people they don't know and whose forms of discrimination they're never going to experience.    

These responses remind of that classic Onion headline:  Racism Over,  White People Declare!   

  

 

[koti]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

iNow did not refer to you as 'they'. He gave an example of how to use 'they' in a sentence for MigL.

Yes, I hijacked iNow’s referral to MigL as my own. I hope that doesn’t bare the same consequences as refering to someone who can bare children as a she? I really wouldn’t want to go to some kind of a woke program to avoid jail, where I would need to attend this:

 

https://youtu.be/UPLQNUVmq3o

[zapatos]

Just now, koti said:

Yes, I hijacked iNow’s referral to MigL as my own. I hope that doesn’t bare the same consequences as refering to someone who can bare children as a she? I really wouldn’t want to go to some kind of a woke program to avoid jail, where I would need to attend this:

 

https://youtu.be/UPLQNUVmq3o

But then he specifically said he would respect the choice of the person to whom the pronoun would be applied. 

Quote

 

And when he corrects me, I'll respect that this is THEIR choice to make, not mine. 

 

So again, what did he do that was hypocritical? 

[Peterkin]

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

IIRC, Peterkin knows that Religious beliefs are one of the protected areas under Bill C-16, yet he has no problem being offensive to Catholics, by making fun of priests, and implying they all get up to bad behaviour.

I know that religious beliefs are protected. I also know there is nothing in the bill that prevents me finding a priest's costume amusing. Nowhere have I referred to "them all" or attributed any particular behaviour, either good or bad, to "them all" . 

 

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

( sort of like when a mosque or synagogue gets vandalized, and there's lots of hand-wringing/political visits and posturing, but about 50 Cathlic churches are burned down in Western Canada, in the wake of the residential school mass graves, and most don't even make the news )

I'm reasonably sure my tiny jest, as hypocritical and inapproriate as it may be, doesn't compare in scope, scale or intent with the burning of houses of of worship.

 

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, koti said:

I do not wish to be refered to as „they” but iNow insists on it.

You appear to be arguing against an pretty obvious strawman here. I'll chalk it up to lack of valid comprehension, not intentional malice. 

57 minutes ago, MigL said:

Shouldn't I be the one to make that decision.

Precisely. Why can't the trans community have that same decision making authority for pronouns applied to them?

[koti]

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

You appear to be arguing against an pretty obvious strawman here. I'll chalk it up to lack of valid comprehension, not intentional malice. 

Sure. Please use "his" instead of "theirs" when refering to me in any future dialog, thank you.

42 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So again, what did he do that was hypocritical? 

Don't you mean what did 'they' do that was so hypocritical?

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, koti said:

Don't you mean what did 'they' do that was so hypocritical?

I feel like I am debating with a child. If you don't want to take this seriously I have better things to do.

[koti]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I feel like I am debating with a child. If you don't want to take this seriously I have better things to do.

Seriously?! You're kidding right?

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

Seriously?! You're kidding right?

No

[Arete]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Thanks!   If you read the rest of my post, which didn't get quoted,  it indicated that I saw compelling cases made here for that sort of respect.  But kudos for bringing some statistical  facts to the issue.   Plus one. 

Apologies - I did not mean to offend. I was simply attempting to point out that there's very clear objective evidence that discrimination toward transgender individuals both exists and causes harm. 

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But if you made a mistake and said "while there HE bought food and supplies. I told HIM it would've been better to wait..." Which is a natural unconscious statement with no intent to offend, then why would Migl be offended?,

Peterson is not expressing concern that he will be punished for making a mistake, he's specifically stating that the proposed legislation infringes his supposed, asinine "right" to deliberately ignore preferred pronouns and assign his own assumed genders to them. 

Generally speaking, in other contexts, discrimination and harrassment constitutes repeated, unwanted behavior. For example, asking a colleague on a date is not harrassment. Repeatedly asking them to go on a date after they have declined, is harrassment. Similarly, I would assume that under the proposed legislation mistakenly using incorrect pronouns for someone would not constitute discrimination, but repeatedly and deliberately doing it after they have asked you to use their preferred pronouns would. 

[koti]

Just now, zapatos said:

No

Well then look closely to what I am demanding above - do not ever refer to me as a ‚they’ as I find it offensive. My whole childhood I was forced to refer to state people (teachers at school for example) as „they” as a part of the charade the communist regime built for 45 years in Poland after the war. Refer to me per „he” because I am a man. 
 

Also, if you keep on refering to me as „they” I won’t press charges.

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, koti said:

Please use "his" instead of "theirs" when refering to me in any future dialog, thank you.

I'm totally fine with this. Why aren't others is, I believe, the actual question under discussion. 

[Arete]

Just now, koti said:

Refer to me per „he” because I am a man. 

"No. Your physical appearance is sexually ambiguous, and I refuse to accept you are male. I will therefore refer to you as it/its/that from now on." (N.B. This is not actually my position, but it is essentially what Peterson is arguing is his right to do)

[koti]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I'm totally fine with this. Why aren't others is, I believe, the actual question under discussion. 

Whats under discussion is something completely different and you know it very well. Whats under discussion, is Jordan Peterson's stance that one should not be forced by law to comply with refering to people per their prefered pronouns and his reasoning stems mainly from the fact that creating artificial language constructs will not work and is essencially silly. The fact that some people (C-16 in Canada) try to legislate it by law is not only silly but also disturbing.

1 minute ago, Arete said:

"No. Your physical appearance is sexually ambiguous, and I refuse to accept you are male. I will therefore refer to you as it/its/that from now on." (N.B. This is not actually my position, but it is essentially what Peterson is arguing is his right to do)

As much as I am not a huge fan of JP's persona I have to say that your twisting of his views is really something else.  

[Peterkin]

4 minutes ago, koti said:

My whole childhood I was forced to refer to state people (teachers at school for example) as „they” as a part of the charade the communist regime built for 45 years in Poland after the war.

Not Comrade Instructor? You were lucky! Yes, various political regimes have made some silly forms of address, collective nouns, offices, ranks and titles. Also many private corporations and schools; also social organizations and government agencies, police and merchant marine, road crews and medical institutions. Not even to mention religions and armed forces!  And somehow, the people who joined those organizations or were coerced to abide by those protocols managed to navigate their complexity and use the right word at the right time. What you can do under duress, you can probably do voluntarily, when somebody asks nicely.

3 minutes ago, koti said:

The fact that some people (C-16 in Canada) try to legislate it by law is not only silly but also disturbing.

Also untrue. As Peterson knows and pretends not to.

[zapatos]

21 minutes ago, koti said:

Well then look closely to what I am demanding above - do not ever refer to me as a ‚they’ as I find it offensive.

WTF are you talking about? When did I refer to you as "they"? I asked you a specific question and rather than answer you asked a non-sensical question in return.

Edited October 14, 2021 by zapatos