Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It doesn't say you have to talk to them. If your job description includes talking to people, then you must, whether you approve of them or not, and you're not allowed to verbally abuse or harass them --- on pain of dismissal, not prison.

Ask Peterkin; he's the one who originally posted the above quote.

Just before claiming he doesn't know which law I'm talking about.

Edited October 11, 2021 by MigL

[Peterkin]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Biill C-16 has been mentioned several times. 
It is what brought J Peterson his 'fame'.

This one:

Quote

First: It was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, joining a list of identifiable groups that are protected from discrimination. These groups include age, race, sex, religion and disability, among others.

Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech — defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred — where it joins other identifiable groups.

And Peterson has been riding it to fame, because he represents the ban on hate speech, plus previously existing rules of harassment, to be a violation of his rights. However,

Quote

Pronoun usage

Does the bill legislate the use of certain language? And could someone go to jail for using the wrong pronoun?

In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act.

“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.”

The Canadian Human Rights Act does not mention pronouns either. The act protects certain groups from discrimination.

 

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There were such laws only a few decades ago.

And are you now suggesting they were appropriate ???

They were to the power elite of the time. The laws against homosexuality and miscegenation, and any representations thereof in print or graphic form] were enacted so that the privileged could force their personal value system on everyone else. They had that prerogative. The gradual, hard-fought amendments to relax the moral clutch of that elite (you know, old white guys who got to the top of the heap by knocking out young black guys) continues against a strenuous rearguard actions.

19 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Draw me a scenario where you think it can result in someone getting fired.

A teacher is hired to teach all the students.

If he bans a, Iraqi student, or blind student, or female student or transgendered student from his lectures or tutorials - and these banned students are not disruptive in their behaviour - he's broken his contract as well as human rights law. 

He is also hired as an authority figure presiding over young people. Whether his contract specifies this or not, the policy of the institution regarding drug use, demeanour, fraternization, favouritism, standard of discourse, sexual misconduct and harassment has presumably been made clear before he accepted the job. If he fails to meet those standards, he can be fired. Just like any other job.

 

[CharonY]

27 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

A teacher is hired to teach all the students.

If he bans a, Iraqi student, or blind student, or female student or transgendered student from his lectures or tutorials - and these banned students are not disruptive in their behaviour - he's broken his contract as well as human rights law. 

He is also hired as an authority figure presiding over young people. Whether his contract specifies this or not, the policy of the institution regarding drug use, demeanour, fraternization, favouritism, standard of discourse, sexual misconduct and harassment has presumably been made clear before he accepted the job. If he fails to meet those standards, he can be fired. Just like any other job.

I understand when discrimination can get one fired. However, I wanted to know from MigL a situation when someone could be unjustly fired due to the bill. And how it differs from other anti-discrimination laws at workplaces. Because the way he sets it up it almost reads as if he is in favour of discriminating against folks, which I know is not what he means. I therefore think that he is misunderstanding some aspects of it.

So I wanted to see what kind of realistic situation he can see where not acknowledging someone's presented gender would be justified and should not result in legal troubles. 

And again, the only possible scenario I have seen if that behaviour is part of discriminatory actions which could be ground for termination well before C-16.

Also, when it comes to places like universities, the general rule I have seen across the board is to make accommodation by students, provided they are made in good faith. So no "your majesty" or similar nonsense some folks like to propagate.

 

[Peterkin]

21 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I understand when discrimination can get one fired. However, I wanted to know from MigL a situation when someone could be unjustly fired due to the bill.

Of course you do. It was just a second opportunity to draw the distinction between contractual obligation and criminal law.

If a prince were to be in one's class and he preferred to be called 'royal highness' but you didn't like to say that, you could address him Prince X, which is his proper name, without using the title. You could not call him Mac, or Shiela or  Towelhead. 

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

If a prince were to be in one's class and he preferred to be called 'royal highness' but you didn't like to say that, you could address him Prince X, which is his proper name, without using the title. You could not call him Mac, or Shiela or  Towelhead. 

If we were all in the same class for the same reason, I would expect we all would be calling each other by our first names...prince or pauper.

[TheVat]

Well,  there's this prof,  who faced disciplinary action, and the federal appeals court sided with him.... 

 

A Christian professor of philosophy who was reprimanded for refusing to refer to a trans student as a woman can pursue his lawsuit against Shawnee State University in Ohio, a federal appeals court said Friday.

Shawnee State “punished a professor for his speech on a hotly contested issue,” the appeals court said. “And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment.”

The case stemmed from a 2018 political philosophy class in which the professor, Nicholas Meriwether, called a trans woman “sir.” Meriwether said it happened accidentally, as no one informed him of the student’s preferred pronoun. After class, the student “demanded” to be called “Ms.,” like other female students, and threatened to have him fired if he didn’t, according to Meriwether’s lawsuit.

The university initially asked Meriwether to stop using masculine and feminine titles and gendered pronouns, but he argued this was next to impossible. Instead, he said he would refer to the student in question by her last name only. The student was dissatisfied with this approach, as Meriwether continued to address other students as “Ms.” and “Mr.” Meriwether also called the student “Mr.” again in front of the class by accident, he says.

The student allegedly threatened to sue Shawnee State, which in turn pressured Meriwether further to address the student in her preferred manner. Meriwether agreed -- on the condition that he could put a disclaimer in his syllabus about how he was following the university’s pronoun policy under compulsion, and stating his views about biological sex and gender being one and the same and immutable.

Meriwether’s dean rejected this as incompatible with the university’s gender identity policy. The case was referred to the university’s office for compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits gender-based discrimination. Meriwether, who continued to refer to the student by her last name only, was found to have created a “hostile environment” for her via disparate treatment. (Again, he continued to call other students "Mr." and "Ms.")

Meriwether argued against this finding, saying that the student received high marks in the course, and that he didn’t treat her substantially differently from any other student. “Reasonable minds” could differ about this “newly emerging cultural issue,” he said in a letter to his provost.

Unswayed, the provost put a warning letter in Meriwether’s personnel file, telling him to follow the pronoun policy to “avoid further corrective actions.”

(.....)

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/03/29/court-sides-professor-who-repeatedly-misgendered-trans-student

My feeling is everyone was pretty rigid about their position and there could have been less hyperventilating all the way around.   The professor, for all his claims of "accident" seemed to be being provocative.   Most of us who reach adulthood figure out to call other people what they want to be called - it's called common courtesy.  The trans student,  in turn,  didn't need to start threatening lawsuits and getting him fired,  because the professor is a jerk.   The best way to disappoint a jerk is to ignore their petty provocations.  And there's always those teacher evaluation forms, at semester's end.   I'm sure he's going to pay for all that "Mister" crap,  when those forms reach the Dean's desk.   But putting him on unemployment for it seems extreme to me.   

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

My feeling is everyone was pretty rigid about their position and there could have been less hyperventilating all the way around.   

I suspect every one of them was deliberately testing the situation. If the student didn't stand up for her right to the preferred form of address, the old status quo would prevail by default - the jerk would chalk up another victory. The professor wanted to draw attention to what he perceived as an infringement of his right to "call them like he sees them" and maybe teach the uppity student a lesson.  The administration wanted to establish their policy and had to be seen enforcing it, or else have the same issue raised again and again, until it poisoned the whole atmosphere.  

 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

If we were all in the same class for the same reason, I would expect we all would be calling each other by our first names...prince or pauper.

Classmates, maybe, though not necessarily. The teacher - especially a teacher of adults - might not be so familiar. And a privileged student from a very different culture might not welcome such familiarity.

[CharonY]

58 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Classmates, maybe, though not necessarily. The teacher - especially a teacher of adults - might not be so familiar. And a privileged student from a very different culture might not welcome such familiarity.

Depends on the country and setting, actually. In the US and Canada it has become very unusual to address folks with their last name in class. Or even in semi-formal correspondence. That being said, students (mostly affluent ones) threatening lawsuits has (based on anecdotes) increased by a fair bit for all sorts of reasons (often by claiming that it would inhibit their otherwise stellar careers). While most of these threats are empty, administration tends not to want any hassle.

I think it is also fair to say that this issue was meant to be pushed before court, effectively the stakes were low, from what I understand. The student threatened, the provost reprimanded, but from what I see, it was basically a threat of corrective actions and there was no termination in play (yet).

It is important to note that the whole thing is (as I understand it) connected to first amendment rights that are specific to issues of academic freedom. After all, a corporate employee might get fired far more easily for any range of stupid (and less stupid) reasons.

 

[Peterkin]

We don't have any princes. Even that temporary one moved to California.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

  Classmates, maybe, though not necessarily. The teacher - especially a teacher of adults - might not be so familiar. And a privileged student from a very different culture might not welcome such familiarity.

The norm where I come from, is we all [students] address each other by our first names. I distinctly remember that same informal manner when Charlie came out here to school at Timbertop...you know Charlie? Liz's and the Greek's first born child? Charlie often said it was the best and most enjoyable part of his education.

Any "priveliged student" from any culture can either like it or lump it.

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Any "priveliged student" from any culture can either like it or lump it.

Depends on the protocol of the individual school. What students call one another is not exactly relevant to the topic anyway. The example was for a professor who dislikes a title that the student prefers. He doesn't have to say the loathsome words that will singe his lips; he can use a polite form of the student's name instead. What he can't do is use belittling, derisive or bigoted words when addressing that student.

41 minutes ago, beecee said:

The teacher - especially a teacher of adults - might not be so familiar. And a privileged student from a very different culture might not welcome such familiarity.

Last I heard, New Zealand culture was not very different from British - back then, much less so. 

[Intoscience]

During my school years all the teachers just used our surnames when addressing us. Maybe it was a show of authority, I doubt there was any other particular underlining reason other than to gain respect for that authority. No big deal, and I'm sure it had no effect on anyone's wellbeing or state of mind then and now. 

People are far too sensitive these days and over react to such petty political correctness. Maybe if people focused more on real problems that require solving, which will have an actual positive impact on society rather than wasting time and effort over interpretation of the use of language, the world would be a better place for all of us.

    

 

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

People are far too sensitive these days and over react to such petty political correctness. Maybe if people focused more on real problems that require solving, which will have an actual positive impact on society rather than wasting time and effort over interpretation of the use of language, the world would be a better place for all of us.

Hear hear. +1

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

People are far too sensitive these days and over react to such petty political correctness. Maybe if people focused more on real problems that require solving, which will have an actual positive impact on society rather than wasting time and effort over interpretation of the use of language, the world would be a better place for all of us.

I appreciate the sentient, but your words leave me wondering where accountability, personal responsibility, and progress fall in all of this. 

“Stop being so sensitive. All I did was refer to her as sugar-tits. She’s got a great bosom… it’s a compliment!”

”Stop being so sensitive. All I did was call him a commie. It’s a joke… live a little.”

”Stop being so sensitive. All I did was call him a kraut. He is from Germany, after all.”

”Stop being so sensitive. All I did was call that blackie a nigger. It’s just a word… sticks and stones and whatnot.”

What is deemed acceptable to a civilized society rightly evolves with time. We must each ask ourselves if our own ambiguous connection to words from history is somehow more worthy or important than the very real connection others have with cultural acceptance and belonging.

After all… Perhaps the world would be a better place for all of us if more people were just a little bit more sensitive. Food for thought. 

Edited October 12, 2021 by iNow

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

After all… Perhaps the world would be a better place for all of us if more people were just a little bit more sensitive. Food for thought. 

You beat me to it +1

All I would add is, I don't really know what it is to be offended by a word, I'm a white guy in England.

Everyday (almost) there's a post on FB, a picture of dog shit with a lament of the dangers of stepping in it.

What's the point of the post?

Every dog owner already knows that, if he/she is seen to not pick it up, he/she will be punished by the army of the righteously indignat. So your not gonna persuade them to do the right thing, you've just confirmed that they haven't been seen...  

They don't even realise the irony of the post, if you don't pick it up you're part of the problem...

 

[StringJunky]

51 minutes ago, iNow said:

I appreciate the sentient, but your words leave me wondering where accountability, personal responsibility, and progress fall in all of this. 

“Stop being so sensitive. All I did was refer to her as sugar-tits. She’s got a great bosom… it’s a compliment!”

”Stop being so sensitive. All I did was call him a commie. It’s a joke… live a little.”

”Stop being so sensitive. All I did was call him a kraut. He is from Germany, after all.”

”Stop being so sensitive. All I did was call that blackie a nigger. It’s just a word… sticks and stones and whatnot.”

What is deemed acceptable to a civilized society rightly evolves with time. We must each ask ourselves if our own ambiguous connection to words from history is somehow more worthy or important than the very real connection others have with cultural acceptance and belonging.

After all… Perhaps the world would be a better place for all of us if more people were just a little bit more sensitive. Food for thought. 

I find it perplexing that some/many black folk refer to themselves as "Nigga"; they aren't helping themselves if they want words like that to disappear from the 21st century lexicon. Many blacks have straight blond hair and yet call out white folk for 'blackfishing' (cultural appropriation) when they braid theirs. I read thiis morning Nicki Minaj had to defend a white co-singer for blackfishing. First thing to do is to check for hypocrisy.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I find it perplexing that some/many black folk refer to themselves as "Nigga"; they aren't helping themselves if they want words like that to disappear from the 21st century lexicon.

Really, didn't they turn that word from slave to friend?

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Really, didn't they turn that word from slave to friend?

So why can't white people use it in the same context?

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

So why can't white people use it in the same context?

I don't know, all I know is 'I have' to my best friend and he wasn't offended... 😉 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't know, all I know is 'I have' to my best friend and he wasn't offended... 😉 

But that's not the way it goes between more distant social  relations, is it? We can all find a data point of one.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

We can all find a data point of one.

Indeed, we should start from there...

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

So why can't white people use it in the same context?

I wouldn't presume because I didn't fight hard to own the word so I could turn the meaning into something me and my children could live with. I didn't grow up using it and having it used against me. Even if I would never use the word in the venomous context for which it originally was intended, I don't think I'm entitled to share in its new friendly meaning. Not because I'm white, but because it would be like claiming I helped build a house just because I didn't complain about the noise during construction. But because I'm white, I'm also willing to let black people use it to mean friend (and defend it as such) until nobody is using it to mean unworthy animal. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I don't really know what it is to be offended by a word, I'm a white guy in England.

Okay, boomer

 

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

So why can't white people use it in the same context?

Too heated and nuanced to discuss here, IMO. New thread please if there's a desire to further explore. 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

People are far too sensitive these days and over react to such petty political correctness. Maybe if people focused more on real problems that require solving, which will have an actual positive impact on society rather than wasting time and effort over interpretation of the use of language, the world would be a better place for all of us.

Perhaps it takes on a different air when you consider that these are likely not one-off events. People are being denigrated on a daily basis, perhaps multiple times a day. I'd imagine I'd get sick of it, too, and here I only have to put up with being called e.g. swansnot on occasion. I typically let it slide. When it keeps happening I have to wonder if it's deliberate, and I say something. If that was my continual existence, though? I imagine it would have a greater impact and wear me down. 

I can't truly fathom what it would like to be belittled for whatever characteristics of what I look like or how I am. The reality is likely far, far worse than what I can imagine. So maybe characterizing this as petty political correctness is underselling the problem, and perhaps we can recognize that there are issues within this class of problem that are very real and need solving (bullying and harming people because they're different, keeping them from exercising their rights, etc.) so that (as with iNow's examples above) brushing this off is doing a disservice to the effect it has on people.

[Curious layman]

 

Quote

only have to put up with being called e.g. swansnot on occasion. I typically let it slide. When it keeps happening I have to wonder if it's deliberate

@swansont

Um, what else would someone call you, that's your name. Are you really that brittle?