Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

That cuts both ways ...
If you want a positive outcome from a discussion, forcing/coercing them to say what you want to hear, is not productive.

Understanding is a double edged sword, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them think...

 

[Peterkin]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Understanding is a double edged sword, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them think...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK2u4y7J58I

[iNow]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

So you think it is a fantasy that people who have opposing opinions are labelled ignorant and bigoted ?

No, not at all, but I must highlight how all you’ve done here is to move the goalposts. 

You claimed use of force. You claimed coercion. I pushed back on those two points specifically. Now you’ve shifted to labels of ignorance and bigotry. It seems self evident to me that those are quite different concepts, yet you’re now conflating them. 

This isn’t supposed to be so hard. It’s right there in writing. Here it is again for convenience:

13 hours ago, MigL said:

That cuts both ways ...
If you want a positive outcome from a discussion, forcing/coercing them to say what you want to hear, is not productive.

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Please, my friend, help me understand…

By what specific mechanism are you being forced or coerced to do absolutely anything at all?

Your position is being challenged. Criticized. Flaws highlighted and shown. As we do in science. 

But you’re claiming coercion. You’re claiming use of force.

11 hours ago, MigL said:

So you think it is a fantasy that people who have opposing opinions are labelled ignorant and bigoted ?

See? Different... Much like the law isn’t what you keep saying it is despite repeated correction. 

[MigL]

6 hours ago, Arete said:

1. You're missing the point that the grey area between sexes is well, grey and not easily classifiable.

2. Why do YOU get to decide who's a "real" transgender person and who is not? 

Ahhh, but that's exactly the point.
I'm only deciding for MYSELF.
You want to decide for EVERYONE ELSE.

4 hours ago, iNow said:

You claimed use of force. You claimed coercion.

Maybe you don't understand the meaning of force/coercion.
I can pressure you to do all sorts of things.
I could label you ignorant/bigoted and besmirch your professional reputation, simply for having the 'unfashionable' opinion, and you could lose your job.
I don't see that as moving goalposts; I see it as force/coercion.

Again, you are fine with calling anyone who doesn't believe there are any 'Ze' identities in the homo sapiens species, a racist or bigot, vilifying them, causing them all sorts of distress, and possibly having them lose their job, yet, you don't think it is 'helpful' to call someone who thinks he is a 'ze' delusional, as that might hurt their feelings.
I think I need to mplore you.
Please brother. Help me understand why and how you can have such double standards.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Ahhh, but that's exactly the point.
I'm only deciding for MYSELF.
You want to decide for EVERYONE ELSE.

So do you introduce yourself with a name?  I mean, that is like deciding for everyone else what your identity is, isn't it? Do you accept whatever folks decide who you are?

In your righteous indignation you seem to forget that each interaction between individuals is governed by a range of social norms, ranging from language, how folks are being addressed and what potential consequences are. 

It goes back again to what we discussed a dozen pages earlier that you basically want those rules set up in a given way that your freedom of expression trumps all consequences, a situation that had never existed in human history (married folks know what I am talking about...).

Of course you may decide that you are not going to be coerced to greet folks or niceties, for example. But on the same note you cannot complain that folks may not like you for that reason.

[iNow]

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

Please brother. Help me understand why and how you can have such double standards.

Are you familiar with the paradox of tolerance?

[MigL]

I believe I'm starting to be.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I can pressure you to do all sorts of things.

I sincerely doubt that. People can be coerced to the limit of their willingness to comply; beyond that, they have the option of the consequences of non-compliance. If you insist on responding negatively to the opinions of internet posters with whom you disagree, the option is to be called an arrogant, cherry-picking, virtue-signalling hypocrite. There is always a choice. Rarely do the options include D - Do as you please and everyone always approves. 

[MigL]

21 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So do you introduce yourself with a name?  I mean, that is like deciding for everyone else what your identity is, isn't it?

Would you call me an ignorant bigot, or cause me to lose my job, if I called you 'Fred' ?

[CharonY]

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

Would you call me an ignorant bigot, or cause me to lose my job, if I called you 'Fred' ?

Depends on the context. If I was your boss and with an ego problem I might resent someone calling me by an imaginary name (it's Mr. Fred for you). If so, depending on what kind of worker protection exist one might either directly fire you or at least ding your evaluation (and use that to fire you). 

You seem to forget that once you address folks, you are not alone anymore and whatever you do reflects on you. Folks are not fired for using wrong pronouns. They are used for establishing a certain pattern of behaviour. What pattern might result in firing or promotion varies a lot. 

Also as a general point, let's assume that a company institutes a policy of using preferred pronouns, a certain dress code and a given official language. Would you be equally against all of these policies and would you be surprised if you are let go if you violated those? 

[koti]

9 hours ago, Arete said:

...same argument is used by climate change deniers and antivaxxers...

 

It is fascinating that I think pretty much the same of your rhetoric. Your constant inability to grasp what I am trying to convey and instead clinching to your biology knowledge (which is very informative btw I have to admit) which has nothing to do with the subject at hand is pretty much what the climate change denier and antivaxxer morons are displaying. There is an exception though, you are not a moron - it's almost as you are stuck in your little bubble incapable and unwilling to see that Kathleen Stock a lesbian feminist professor has been driven out of her job by a bunch of ideology driven kids. I feel there isn't room for any evidence I can give further as you dismiss everything I have given in this thread (Dave Chappelle, Krauss, and now this lesbian feminist professor who I look like she's in my tribe) and focus on clownfish and your broad biology knowledge instead. If I wasn't a gentleman, I'd say youre full of shit Arete. 

Edited November 6, 2021 by koti

[studiot]

59 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So do you introduce yourself with a name?  I mean, that is like deciding for everyone else what your identity is, isn't it? Do you accept whatever folks decide who you are?

Some interesting questions  -  for many people.

If you are bald would you answer to curly ?

When I got married, it was conventional for women to take their husband's family name.
My wife choose to keep hers , which I fully support.

So we are Mr Smith and Mrs Jones.

This difference makes some others feel uncomfortable, so unless someone is being akward or a nuisance, I will answer to Mr Jones, to save them that, in say a restaurant that my wife has booked, unless there is a good reason to use the correct term.

For my wife there is the benefit that we know immediately a telephone caller who asks for Mrs Smith is one of those bogus scum who plague modern society, since there is no such person in the directory as all bona fide callers know us.

I just regard this as getting along with folks and knowing which battles are worth making a fuss about and which are not.

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by studiot

[CharonY]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

I just regard this as getting along with folks and knowing which battles are worth making a fuss about and which are not.

Absolutely, this is why I think the discussion should be more about how we should navigate these conflicting viewpoints rather than having a strong categorical stance. In a society we need to accommodate each other to a certain degree and I do not think that we can draw strict lines in the sand. These lines will be blurry and shift depending on the situation and with whom you interact. And it has been so since the beginning of time, and many of our habits and rituals stem come from that. 

Changing social mores are always going to be a challenge but at some point society settles on, well, something. I do think that public discussions have changed a bit due to the internet, which allows impersonal and superficial involvement in many, many issues, often with limited information.  But then maybe that is just how getting old feels like.

[Arete]

23 minutes ago, koti said:

 If I wasn't a gentleman, I'd say youre full of shit Arete. 

Hopefully you never have to interact with a member of the trans community, because they wouldn't deserve to be subject to your outbursts. 

[koti]

18 minutes ago, Arete said:

Hopefully you never have to interact with a member of the trans community, because they wouldn't deserve to be subject to your outbursts. 

I have and in fact I have plenty interacted with trans people in my life. I used to make my living as a DJ in the mid and late 90’s. I’ve interacted with thousands of people in both my club days and later in my work life and the vast majority of people are in my tribe. The ones who are insincere are not.

Edited November 7, 2021 by koti

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, koti said:

t's almost as you are stuck in your little bubble incapable and unwilling to see that Kathleen Stock a lesbian feminist professor has been driven out of her job by a bunch of ideology driven kids.

I find it highly ironic that you do not recognize that this is freedom of expression at work. She said her thing and her colleagues as well as students did theirs. While I am not a fan of this kind of discourse, what would be a viable alternative? Compel her critics to remain silent? Freedom cuts both ways.

[koti]

29 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I find it highly ironic that you do not recognize that this is freedom of expression at work. 

I think it is safe to say that you are delusional. At the beginning of this thread I ironically asked you what pronouns you use and while being a maried man you replied „I don’t care”  She has been mentally raped by her own community and the fact that you have zero empathy for her is deplorable.

Have a great Sunday CharonY.

Edited November 7, 2021 by koti

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, koti said:

I think it is safe to say that you are delusional.

Of course it is! Doesn't matter how big and nasty a lie you tell, it is your right to tell it, and nothing will happen to you: nobody's silencing, muzzling or oppressing you.

1 hour ago, koti said:

She has been mentally raped

What is that hyperbole supposed to mean? Criticized? Disapproved of? Denounced? She said something unpopular and people reacted. Maybe overreacted; maybe she was surprised. You have to take the temperature of the room before you decide on a potentially inflammatory course of action.

Quote

The university said it unequivocally defended her right to free speech.

She didn't lose her job; she wasn't turfed out or forced out. She was uncomfortable with the reaction - which is what she knew would happen - and quit. That's certainly one of the options. So is taking her message to social media, her blog, You Tube, and interview programs that invite her.

She's not injured; not violated, not jailed, not destitute. She made an informed choice as an autonomous adult. 

She wasn't blamed for refusing to say something somebody was trying to force on her that she found repugnant. She was blamed for saying something she didn't have to say that other people found repugnant. There is a substantial difference.

Where is the state/institutional oppression?

Edited November 7, 2021 by Peterkin
link and clarity

[MigL]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

just regard this as getting along with folks and knowing which battles are worth making a fuss about and which are not.

 

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Absolutely, this is why I think the discussion should be more about how we should navigate these conflicting viewpoints rather than having a strong categorical stance.

 

21 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

She said something unpopular and people reacted. Maybe overreacted; maybe she was surprised.

Yup.
If someone asks me to call them Fred, or even Ze ( short for Zeke ), I don't have a problem, it is so written on their licence and ID cards, after all.
But if someone chooses to make up a pronoun like 'Ze', because that is how they feel, or their way of 'standing out' in a crowd, I should be able to choose NOT to be courteous, and suffer the consequences of being discourteous.
However, what is happening is that immediately the label ignorant bigot gets thrown out, and we all know the ramifications and repercussions of being so labelled.
Nobody makes the news for being discourteous, and very few lose their jobs for it. That is not the case for people with different views who get labelled ignorant bigots. is it ?
Lets stop pretending.

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Lets stop pretending.

Good idea!

Let's stop pretending anyone has lost their job for being discourteous.

Or for being called ignorant bigots.

[MigL]

I thought that's what I said.
It helps if you think before you post.

Nobody loses their job for being discourteous.
People DO lose their jobs after being labelled ignorant bigots.

See the difference ?
Or should I send a PM explaning further ?

Edited November 7, 2021 by MigL

[zapatos]

Regarding Kathleen Stock:

I think because of the hypocrisy in politics recently it has become more obvious to me when people express views that are good for themselves or their group, rather than when their views are based strictly on some objective reasoning. Kathleen Stock falls into this category.

I'm sure there is reason involved in her arguments to exclude trans women from the 'real' women group, but I think it likely she developed a reasoned argument in part to be able to exclude others from her 'space'; that is, the sex-based-female space.  Kathleen's feminism resulted in her fighting to break into the sex-based-male space in her quest for equal rights while many men fought to defend their space from intruders. Now the shoe is on the other foot and people are fighting to get into HER space for equal rights (i.e. the sex-based-female space), and she is pushing back just as men did against her.

Think of Mitch McConnell making a reasoned argument why when close to a Presidential election you should NOT confirm any Supreme Court Justices so the People can have a say in the selection (when the sitting President is a Democrat) then four years later following that up with a reasoned argument why when close to a Presidential election you SHOULD confirm  a Supreme Court Justice since 'elections have consequences' (when the sitting President is a Republican).

Personally I am not in the least concerned that Kathleen Stock is running into trouble. That is how society works through new paradigms. There is a lot of pushing, shoving and yelling, people get mad, some people get hurt, and in the end society has worked out a reasonably good approach to a new type of problem. The adversarial system at its best.

 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, koti said:

I think it is safe to say that you are delusional. At the beginning of this thread I ironically asked you what pronouns you use and while being a maried man you replied „I don’t care”

I literally do not care. My name makes it difficult for folks to figure out my gender and I have been misgendered (in writing). Folks get my name wrong very often. I accepted that this just comes as being a foreigner with a weird name. I am slightly annoyed that folks that know me for years keep misspelling my name (especially in high-profile situations) and I do sometime feel I should be more outspoken about it. But emotionally I literally do not care. But thanks for trying to force your view on me.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I should be able to choose NOT to be courteous, and suffer the consequences of being discourteous.

I have not seen that anyone has argued against that.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

the label ignorant bigot gets thrown out, and we all know the ramifications and repercussions of being so labelled.

That could be said consequence. Folks interpret your action and while might think it is courageous, others might interpret it differently. Personally I tend not to assume based on initial reactions (again, being foreigner and all that) but based on subsequent interactions. 

For example not wanting to use, say "ze" but finding another way to accommodate folks (e.g. using their name) sounds like a perfectly fine compromise to me. Some might disagree, and we can have a conversation about that. In contrast, if we start with a an untenable premise (e.g. not using "ze" lands you in prison) then it is an attempt to curb discussion.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Nobody loses their job for being discourteous.
People DO lose their jobs after being labelled ignorant bigots.

You have not worked in service, do you? If you are repeatedly and publicly discourteous, especially in an outward facing position, you better believe that your job is in peril. However, if folks are terminated due to discrimination laws, it is insufficient to label them as something, there will be a test that needs to meet the standards of discriminatory behaviour. And generally a one-off is rarely sufficient evidence for that. 

The way you describe it, it seems that if just someone calls someone else a bigot, it would result in firing, which of course is silly. 

 

And you know what, in contrast to your assumptions how things are, let me also give you a refutation of your first point.

In Canada serious misconduct in the workplace is a cause for termination without severance. Like with discrimination, there are a series of tests that apply. But what could be considered misconduct related to rudeness?

One, for example is insolence. This would include " derisive, contemptuous or abusive language, generally directed at a superior". It depends of course how you define discourteous, but: 

Quote

The Court of Appeal observed that while, an isolated act of insolence would not normally justify dismissal, exceptional circumstances could tip the balance the other way. These could include situations where (1) the employee and superior were no longer capable of maintaining a working relationship; (2) the incident undermined the superior’s credibility in the workplace and therefore his ability to supervise effectively; or (3) the employer had, as a result of the incident, suffered a financial loss, a loss of reputation or its business interests had been seriously harmed as when, for example, the incident occurred in front of customers.

 

Another possibility would be breach of company policies which can have a wide range of demands, provided that they are lawful. Thus, depending on how discourteous you are, you can in fact be fired for that without being called a bigot.

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

People DO lose their jobs after being labelled ignorant bigots.

After or for? Name three of each, with credible citations. Okay, name one. 

[MigL]

OK Zap, I can make an absurd comparison too ...

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

There is a lot of pushing, shoving and yelling, people get mad, some people get hurt, and in the end society has worked out a reasonably good approach to a new type of problem. The adversarial system at its best.

The French Revolution, the October ( actually November ) Revolution of the Bolsheviks and the Nazi 'night of broken glass', involved all of those things.
How did the 'adversarial system' work out for those societies ?