Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

We seem to have multiple issues going on here. Gender terms, transphobia, legal ramifications, celebrity support, and misinformation are just a few. These are all discussion-worthy by themselves, but when we talk about them all simultaneously, we end up going around in circles, trying to apply each argument to many issues. Staff has been wanting to split these topics into separate discussions, hoping for some focus, but it hasn't been easy to figure what needs its own topic.

We're on page 25 of this thread, and it feels like 5 pages have just been repeated 5 times. Weirdly, just like politics and voters in general, most folks are displaying a lack of long-term memory and just keep rehashing the same points and ignoring what others have replied to them. 

We'd like to float the idea of talking about Jordan Peterson's ideas on gender terms vs the law, and also talk about Dave Chappelle and his issues with transgenders, and also about misinformation on mental health issues, and also about perspectives on the arguments applied to sensitive issues in this age of extremist views, but NOT ALL AT ONCE. We're going to leave this open for suggestions on how to proceed, but please don't add to the chaos here.

Would you like to discuss these issues separately, or should we close this and go fume in our respective corners?

 

[MigL]

I'm OK with closing.
It's getting hard to keep track of arguments that have been made, and the need to argue around one or more on going differing discussions..

I did find the discussion interesting, and hope that we have, at least, been able to consider each other's perspectives. I would not mind continuing discussion, but in a more tightly controlled manner and focusing on single issues as you have mentioned, Phi.

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Would you like to discuss these issues separately, or should we close this and go fume in our respective corners?

Yes! (Except for the fuming part.) I would certainly appreciate some of these issues separately. Each topic started with a single, unambiguous question would work best, IMO.

[iNow]

Do whatever, but comments and personal gripes will bleed across the threads and references will be made to others. I see the logic in splitting, but feel it will fail in implementation. 

Also, it’s only one or two people who are tossing in red herrings. Maybe deal with the bad actors instead of the topic as a whole. 

[naitche]

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Do whatever, but comments and personal gripes will bleed across the threads and references will be made to others. I see the logic in splitting, but feel it will fail in implementation. 

Also, it’s only one or two people who are tossing in red herrings. Maybe deal with the bad actors instead of the topic as a whole. 

I haven't been able to catch up with this and would like the chance to address questions put to me that I feel are very relevant to the O.P. and perhaps also to the polarization of the political environment in general.

SH*ts happening though and I'm so far unable to take the time needed.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Do whatever, but comments and personal gripes will bleed across the threads and references will be made to others. I see the logic in splitting, but feel it will fail in implementation. 

Also, it’s only one or two people who are tossing in red herrings. Maybe deal with the bad actors instead of the topic as a whole. 

But...we still want to hear your opinions iNow...

[iNow]

Rimshot 

[koti]

I don’t feel I have much of a voice anymore like the remaining regulars because I am no longer a regular so I’m ok with closing or splitting, whatever the regulars decide. What I can give from myself is I will try to avoid antagonising the discussion which effectively will mean I will not participate in these kinds of threads because by definition, there is no room for a ballanced discussion in these kinds of subjects.  It was a mistake that I lured myself into this thread when all I need from this site is just the science.
 

As for iNow’s desperate cry for eliminating „bad actors” from the thread, I’m sure Peterson would smack this rhetoric out of iNow’s mouth with a witty comment but I personally feel there is no need for me to adress this as it very much speaks for itself. 

Edited November 4, 2021 by koti

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, koti said:

I don’t feel I have much of a voice anymore like the remaining regulars because I am no longer a regular so I’m ok with closing or splitting, whatever the regulars decide.

This makes it sound like reason and sound arguments can only be made by "regulars", or that "regulars" get special treatment that amplifies their voice, or that "regulars" with lesser arguments can gang up on a better argument to overwhelm it. Or is it something else? Because after all the dust settles from a fractious conversation here, I can still go back and re-read to tell the good arguments from the bad, and adjust my worldview accordingly.

Perhaps the subject of a thread in Comments & Suggestions if you're concerned about it?

[koti]

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps the subject of a thread in Comments & Suggestions if you're concerned about it?

No thank you, I’m good. Futile actions are out of my scope of interest. 

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, koti said:

Futile actions are out of my scope of interest. 

I used to feel the same way about threads where people focused mostly on ridicule and making the other person's arguments look silly rather than making their own look strong, but all we can ever do is voice our concerns and see if they're shared, and hopefully the reasoning gets the spotlight instead of the drama. 

[koti]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I used to feel the same way about threads where people focused mostly on ridicule and making the other person's arguments look silly rather than making their own look strong, but all we can ever do is voice our concerns and see if they're shared, and hopefully the reasoning gets the spotlight instead of the drama. 

I absolutely agree but this is only valid if youre not in an echo chamber, a very hermetic echo chamber.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that making strong arguments with reasoning doesn't work in politics and this thread is politics. 

[iNow]

5 hours ago, koti said:

As for iNow’s desperate cry for eliminating „bad actors” from the thread

Lol... I desperately cried when saying this? Good to know. 

17 hours ago, iNow said:

it’s only one or two people who are tossing in red herrings. Maybe deal with the bad actors instead of the topic as a whole. 

I look forward to Jordan Peterson smacking "this rhetoric out of [my] mouth with a witty comment" so I may reply in kind to his ridiculous hyperbole and strawman attack. 

31 minutes ago, koti said:

this is only valid if youre not in an echo chamber, a very hermetic echo chamber.

I'd like to highlight here how nobody is silencing you except yourself. You still have an open platform to make your point and support your stance. You've just failed miserably at every attempt to do so, but the platform remains open to you and you're the only one saying you're taking your ball and going home. 

31 minutes ago, koti said:

making strong arguments with reasoning doesn't work in politics

Out of curiosity, specifically which of your posts or points do you feel was a "strong argument with reasoning?" I saw a lot of requests to call you Ze and Thou, and bunches of personal barbs at me, for example, but not these "strong arguments with reason."

I'm sure the fault is mine, though, and I simply missed it. Maybe you could use the quote function to reshare it and help me overcome my flaws / provide the opportunity for me and others to see the wisdom of your point and reconsider our own positions?

Edited November 4, 2021 by iNow

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I look forward to Jordan Peterson smacking "this rhetoric out of [my] mouth with a witty comment" so I may reply in kind to his ridiculous hyperbole and strawman attack. 

As do I...

32 minutes ago, koti said:

I absolutely agree but this is only valid if youre not in an echo chamber, a very hermetic echo chamber.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that making strong arguments with reasoning doesn't work in politics and this thread is politics. 

Much like baging you're dogs shit and hanging it from a tree, someone else gets to pick it up...

[Peterkin]

If I can remember that far back, I think there was something about lobsters, tough guys and women red in tooth and claw on Page 1, and then lost of bogus attacks on an amendment to the  Bill of Rights. Other than that, I have seen very little on the title topic. Dr. Peterson seems to have plenty of reactions and attitudes to matters political, but I never saw one single "idea". In that sense, the whole thread can be considered a failure.

OTOH, I'd never heard of or from this Peterson, or Dave Chapelle until now, so my database on 'influencer' culture is greatly enriched.

I meant lots, but will leave it.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Peterkin

[Arete]

1 hour ago, koti said:

I absolutely agree but this is only valid if youre not in an echo chamber, a very hermetic echo chamber.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that making strong arguments with reasoning doesn't work in politics and this thread is politics. 

Your argument boils down to "It's my right to discriminate against others based on how they identify", which you justified with a suite of logically fallacious reasoning, such as slippery slope, argumentum ad martyrdom and emotive outbursts. To me, personally, you did not present any objectively strong or valid arguments, rather one that contradicts the biological fact that gender is not fixed nor binary, and wreaks of your own fragility and ignorance. 

There's certainly political ideologies that embrace the same line of thinking as you and Peterson with many adherents, just not ones I personally have any respect for.

[koti]

1 minute ago, Arete said:

Your argument boils down to "It's my right to discriminate against others based on how they identify" 

What absolute load of BS, youre not only manipulating me into a stance which I never expressed but youre also doing it intentionally. What I and a few others in this thread including MigL tried to convey is concern that both legislative, lawful and social action is being taken against people who "commit a crime" of not using prefered pronouns towards an individual. Examples were given of people loosing their jobs in Canada, Bill C-16 was refused by a few of the people in this thread as no evidence for anything which is wrong because a Bill is already a piece of legislation. I can understand constant backflips to push own agenda but you will not push down my throat something which I do not stand for (discriminate against others based on how they identify)

Quote

and wreaks of your own fragility and ignorance. 

What wreaks of fragility and ignorance is your attempt to imply views which are not mine as my own.
 

[CharonY]

11 minutes ago, koti said:

Examples were given of people loosing their jobs in Canada,

And again, there weren't. And definitely not plural. You repeat this claim but it is simply not true. 

 

12 minutes ago, koti said:

Bill C-16 was refused by a few of the people in this thread as no evidence for anything which is wrong because a Bill is already a piece of legislation. I can understand constant backflips to push own agenda but you will not push down my throat something which I do not stand for (discriminate against others based on how they identify)

No one said that is is not a piece of legislation. That would be a strawman. What folks said is that a) legal experts have examined it and explained that it does not lead to persecution based on misgendering alone because they would either need to meet the threshold of hate speech, call for genocide, or discrimination. These are actually high hurdles. It seems that in your imagination this legislation has resulted in the aforementioned loss of jobs. However, if you re-read the threads (where the evidence is actually not presented) and perhaps one or two articles on the bill written by actual lawyers and legal scholars, you would come to a different conclusion.

[Arete]

24 minutes ago, koti said:

What absolute load of BS
 

Except: 

24 minutes ago, koti said:

For example I won’t refer to a person who is biologically capable of baring children as a „he” despite if she demands it.

Here you state your position is that you would refuse to acknowledge an individual's gender identity if, in your opinion, their physical appearance did not meet your personal expectations of that gender identity - but you would accept a person's gender identity if it did match your preconceived notions of gender. Which is by definition, discrimination based on gender identity. 

So either you've changed your stance since page 15, or you're just persisting with the emotional outbursts because you don't like being called on your position being flawed. 

24 minutes ago, koti said:

What I and a few others in this thread including MigL tried to convey is concern that both legislative, lawful and social action is being taken against people who "commit a crime" of not using prefered pronouns towards an individual.
 

If you consistently choose to acknowledge one individual's preferred gender identity, but not another person's, you're discriminating. I'm yet to see a valid argument why gender identity is distinct from other protected classes, or why its inclusion would suddenly impinge on the freedoms of others in a manner that existing anti-discrimination legislation doesn't already. 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Arete

[koti]

16 minutes ago, Arete said:

Except: 

So, you're going to decide that YOU know a person's gender because some form of genetic telepathy or other magic, and you're going to refuse to use their own preferred gender identity because YOU don't agree with it, yet you're fine with using other people's preferred identities if they match your own biologically incorrect version of reality. So either you've changed your stance since page 15, or you're just persisting with the emotional outbursts because you don't like being called on your position being flawed. 

If you consistently choose to acknowledge one individual's preferred gender identity, but not another person's, you're discriminating.  Why is that so hard? 

If I refuse to call someone who has a uterus a „he” or someone who is incapable genetically to bare children a „she” is not discrimination in my opinion. If I am asked to do so I would probably comply just not to be perceived as an a hole by someone who has loose screws but again, and you refuse to see this - its not about that, its about lawful consequences of those actions that Im talking about. It is one thing to tell someone to jump and another to tell him to jump or you’ll go to jail. Why is this so difficult to understand? 

Edited November 4, 2021 by koti

[Arete]

1 hour ago, koti said:

If I refuse to call someone who has a uterus a „he” or someone who is incapable genetically to bare children a „she” is not discrimination in my opinion.

You're wrong and your biological definitions are flawed. This position is fragile, deluded and ignorant. 

Individuals with Swyer syndrome have XY chromosomes and a uterus. 5% of the XX female population are infertile due to genetic conditions. 1.7% of people are born with an intersex condition. Only 0.7% of the global population identify as transgender.

1 hour ago, koti said:

 and you refuse to see this - its not about that, its about lawful consequences of those actions that Im talking about. It is one thing to tell someone to jump and another to tell him to jump or you’ll go to jail.

No one is going to jail because that's not how discrimination laws work. That's a strawman argument. You still have no explanation as to why this doesn't apply to other categories that are legally protected from discrimination. 

The "Oh no, someone's going to change their pronouns every hour and throw me in jail if I get them wrong!" argument has all the veracity of the "If we let the trangenders use the women's bathroom, rapists will dress in drag and sneak in to rape women!" (i.e. none). 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Arete

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, koti said:

It is one thing to tell someone to jump and another to tell him to jump or you’ll go to jail. Why is this so difficult to understand

Understanding is easy. Believing is impossible - since it's (still, in spite of much repetition) not true.

1 hour ago, koti said:

f I refuse to call someone who has a uterus a „he” or someone who is incapable genetically to bare children a „she” is not discrimination in my opinion.

How can you tell? Do you really believe you know better what's under their clothes and skin than they do?  And why is it so important to you to classify people by their reproductive capability? 

[koti]

7 minutes ago, Arete said:

Individuals with Swyer syndrome have XY chromosomes and a uterus. 5% of the XX female population are infertile due to genetic conditions. 1.7% of people are born with an intersex condition. Only 0.7% of the global population identify as transgender.

We've agreed 10 pages ago that people with various medical/genetic conditions are not part of this conversation, how insensitive one has to be to condemn someone for the way one was born. Were doing very large circles here. 

 

Quote

No one is going to jail because that's not how discrimination laws work. That's a strawman argument. You still have no explanation as to why this doesn't apply to other categories that are legally protected from discrimination. 

I have no idea what kind of a mental backflip this is.

[Arete]

Just now, koti said:

We've agreed 10 pages ago that people with various medical/genetic conditions are not part of this conversation, how insensitive one has to be to condemn someone for the way one was born. Were doing very large circles here. 

And yet, to quote: 

1 hour ago, koti said:

If I refuse to call someone who has a uterus a „he” or someone who is incapable genetically to bare children a „she” 

 

Just now, koti said:

I have no idea what kind of a mental backflip this is.

It's a CIVIL LAW. The only way you could go to jail is if you refused to comply with a court decision, in which case you'd go to jail for contempt of court, not discrimination. 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Arete

[MigL]

Don't you know how offensive it is that you're not agreeing to their world-view, Koti ?
And they are not offended at all that you can't voice your opinion without being accused of discrimination and ignorance 

IOW, if your opinion is that you are a 'Ze', you are a good person; and the echo chamber agrees and upvotes you.
If you are of the opinion that someone who identifies as 'Ze', is a self-centered university student, with too much privilege, an agenda, and demands a 'safe' space to spew his/her nonsense, then you must be an ignorant prejudicial discriminator.