What's your opinions on Jordan Peterson?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Gorfias:

erttheking:
I know which one I give more of a shit about

I care about men's issues.

Then act like it. Again, it is not a winner take all competition. We need to care about the needs of both genders to make a fairer work environment.

Oh trust me, I am acting like it. I'm acting like it by stamping out the idea that complaining about not being able to have tits on your desktop at work is anything more than a massive waste of fucking time.

As a man who struggled with depression, who contemplated suicide, something countless men struggle with and don't get adequate help for, you acting like your FUCKING DESKTOP is a men's right issue that is a big deal is one of the most FUCKING INSULTING things I have ever had thrown in my face in my life. And if you think I'm going to humor your non-problem for so much as half a second, you've got another thing coming.

And you telling me that "I" need to act like I care about men's rights. Oh, words cannot describe how utterly pissed the fuck off I am right now.

erttheking:

Oh trust me, I am acting like it. I'm acting like it by stamping out the idea that complaining about not being able to have tits on your desktop at work is anything more than a massive waste of fucking time.

As a man who struggled with depression, who contemplated suicide, something countless men struggle with and don't get adequate help for, you acting like your FUCKING DESKTOP is a men's right issue that is a big deal is one of the most FUCKING INSULTING things I have ever had thrown in my face in my life. And if you think I'm going to humor your non-problem for so much as half a second, you've got another thing coming.

And you telling me that "I" need to act like I care about men's rights. Oh, words cannot describe how utterly pissed the fuck off I am right now.

Let's try a different tack.

What is your opinion on women using their looks and sexuality to gain favor in the workplace? Because it happens. Example: a woman slept with our first shirt back in the USAF. He got her separate rations (off base housing and a food allowance). Almost immediate after getting her cash and prizes, she dumped him. We can argue as to whether or not this really was a bargain for exchange but for the sake of argument, assume that it was on her part. (As I recall, he really did flip for her and was heart broken). Is there anything we can/should do about this sort of thing?

Gorfias:

erttheking:

Oh trust me, I am acting like it. I'm acting like it by stamping out the idea that complaining about not being able to have tits on your desktop at work is anything more than a massive waste of fucking time.

As a man who struggled with depression, who contemplated suicide, something countless men struggle with and don't get adequate help for, you acting like your FUCKING DESKTOP is a men's right issue that is a big deal is one of the most FUCKING INSULTING things I have ever had thrown in my face in my life. And if you think I'm going to humor your non-problem for so much as half a second, you've got another thing coming.

And you telling me that "I" need to act like I care about men's rights. Oh, words cannot describe how utterly pissed the fuck off I am right now.

Let's try a different tack.

What is your opinion on women using their looks and sexuality to gain favor in the workplace? Because it happens. Example: a woman slept with our first shirt back in the USAF. He got her separate rations (off base housing and a food allowance). Almost immediate after getting her cash and prizes, she dumped him. We can argue as to whether or not this really was a bargain for exchange but for the sake of argument, assume that it was on her part. (As I recall, he really did flip for her and was heart broken). Is there anything we can/should do about this sort of thing?

I'm more concerned with the fact that there's a boss taking sexual favors from his employees than the perceived concept that it's unfair that a woman can use her boobs and/or vagina to get ahead in the game.

Also, I still consider a woman getting a slight edge up on a man due to sexual favors to be small potatoes to male suicide.

erttheking:

I'm more concerned with the fact that there's a boss taking sexual favors from his employees than the perceived concept that it's unfair that a woman can use her boobs and/or vagina to get ahead in the game.

Also, I still consider a woman getting a slight edge up on a man due to sexual favors to be small potatoes to male suicide.

While I don't share your opinion on this, I appreciate your honest answer. Thanks.

Gorfias:

erttheking:

I'm more concerned with the fact that there's a boss taking sexual favors from his employees than the perceived concept that it's unfair that a woman can use her boobs and/or vagina to get ahead in the game.

Also, I still consider a woman getting a slight edge up on a man due to sexual favors to be small potatoes to male suicide.

While I don't share your opinion on this, I appreciate your honest answer. Thanks.

Don't thank me. I am still quite unhappy with you.

erttheking:

Don't thank me. I am still quite unhappy with you.

About?

I've not once stated that I don't care about women's issues. It's just that I do note that change has to be in both directions.

You are correct that the first shirt has to be held more accountable as he is senior in this relationship. But not much more so. She was out of line too. Not that I know what you do about it.

I do not know why you would think this female predator should be treated as virtually blameless in this scenario.

Gorfias:

Saelune:
A man runs for office, says disparaging things about women constantly, sexually assaults women, treats them as shit, claims he would fuck his own daughter. He becomes President of the US.

And yet women still live longer then men.

Again, can we just agree both genders have issues and there is no good reason to ignore one over the other. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. That's what Jordan is telling us.

How is that any sort of justification for the systematic oppression of women!?

We? You are the one making multiple topics about how men are oppressed more than women, not me. Jordan is telling us that women should be subservient to men and that expressing different gender identities is too inconvenient for him to respect, so lets not respect people who do not conform to gender identity.

Saelune:
How is that any sort of justification for the systematic oppression of women!?

We? You are the one making multiple topics about how men are oppressed more than women, not me. Jordan is telling us that women should be subservient to men and that expressing different gender identities is too inconvenient for him to respect, so lets not respect people who do not conform to gender identity.

Women living longer than men is not women being systemically oppressed.

How is Jordan telling women to be subservient to men? I think he was genuine with Cathy Newman saying he wants fairness..

I do think he would use pronouns like Zee and Zer had the not made it a law telling him he has to do so. I think he thinks that this sort of thing leads to death camps, gulags and killing fields.

Even if I do think men get the shorter end of the stick in Western civilization, I think women have issues too. I just don't want the men being forgotten. Their issues matter too.

Gorfias:

Saelune:
How is that any sort of justification for the systematic oppression of women!?

We? You are the one making multiple topics about how men are oppressed more than women, not me. Jordan is telling us that women should be subservient to men and that expressing different gender identities is too inconvenient for him to respect, so lets not respect people who do not conform to gender identity.

Women living longer than men is not women being systemically oppressed.

How is Jordan telling women to be subservient to men? I think he was genuine with Cathy Newman saying he wants fairness..

I do think he would use pronouns like Zee and Zer had the not made it a law telling him he has to do so. I think he thinks that this sort of thing leads to death camps, gulags and killing fields.

Even if I do think men get the shorter end of the stick in Western civilization, I think women have issues too. I just don't want the men being forgotten. Their issues matter too.

You used them living longer as if it somehow justifies sexism against women. I was saying it doesn't.

Vrex does a better job pointing out Jordan's sexism http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1055183-Whats-your-opinions-on-Jordan-Peterson?page=7#24242193 I would quote them, but it is alot.

...The fuck? That is just an absurd thing to even say. For one, no. It is not because of any law forcing him, and two...so? We would not need laws that 'force' us to respect eachother on a human level if people just did that! If you think he thinks that will lead to death camps, then you think just as poorly of him as I do and should stop using him as a credible source.

If you really wanted to fix men's issues, you would focus on fixing women's issues and fixing ACTUAL issues men face. Like racial discrimination, or perhaps the discrimination gay and bisexual men face. What is more 'Men's rights' than men's right to love another man!? Or a man's right to wear whatever clothing they wish, even if it is considered the clothing of women?

If you really and truly care about this liek you say you do, then you need to realize you are coming at this at the complete wrong angle. You are coming at this as if fighting for women's rights means you have to hurt men to do it, cause you don't. If you fight to make women equal to men, then you are inherently fighting to make men equal to women.

Gorfias:

erttheking:

Don't thank me. I am still quite unhappy with you.

About?

I've not once stated that I don't care about women's issues. It's just that I do note that change has to be in both directions.

You are correct that the first shirt has to be held more accountable as he is senior in this relationship. But not much more so. She was out of line too. Not that I know what you do about it.

I do not know why you would think this female predator should be treated as virtually blameless in this scenario.

Your utterly fucked priorities.

I am not talking about women's issues. I am talking about men's issues. Real men's issues. The ones you seem less than concerned with in favor of this garbage.

And PREDATOR!? Calm the fuck down with the hyperbole. She didn't assault him or rape him.

Saelune:
You used them living longer as if it somehow justifies sexism against women. I was saying it doesn't.

It doesn't. You stating that there is a male pig President, as opposed to an abusive Feminist for President, means that everything is horrible for women. It isn't.

Vrex does a better job pointing out Jordan's sexism http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1055183-Whats-your-opinions-on-Jordan-Peterson?page=7#24242193 I would quote them, but it is alot.

That is a ton. StatusNil does a pretty good responding too. (S)He's pointing out that Peterson is saying that serial monogamy and Polygamy are going to have negative social consequences. They do and have. Not sure what to do about it. Plenty on youtube stating women have gotten a raw deal in the sexual revolution and it is making them less happy. I do counter, they are not about to surrender other gains they have obtained through such a revolution.

...The fuck? That is just an absurd thing to even say. For one, no. It is not because of any law forcing him, and two...so? We would not need laws that 'force' us to respect each other on a human level if people just did that! If you think he thinks that will lead to death camps, then you think just as poorly of him as I do and should stop using him as a credible source.

Why? Why wouldn't one expect that excessive group "rights" indoctrination, such as was in Nazi Germany, USSR, Cambodia, Venezuela, pose a danger, a threat of a dire future? Not a definite thing but a danger?

If you really wanted to fix men's issues, you would focus on fixing women's issues and fixing ACTUAL issues men face. Like racial discrimination, or perhaps the discrimination gay and bisexual men face. What is more 'Men's rights' than men's right to love another man!? Or a man's right to wear whatever clothing they wish, even if it is considered the clothing of women?

If you really and truly care about this liek you say you do, then you need to realize you are coming at this at the complete wrong angle. You are coming at this as if fighting for women's rights means you have to hurt men to do it, cause you don't. If you fight to make women equal to men, then you are inherently fighting to make men equal to women.

Of course it has hurt men. When you are telling employers to discriminate against men and hire less qualified women, those men have been harmed. I don't care how rich Al Gore is: when you deny me a job opportunity due to my race and gender, you have discriminated against me as an individual. I object.

erttheking:

Your utterly fucked priorities.

I am not talking about women?s issues. I am talking about men?s issues. Real men?s issues. The ones you seem less than concerned with in favor of this garbage.

And PREDATOR!? Calm the fuck down with the hyperbole. She didn?t assault him or rape him.

This portion of the conversation has been about JP's statement about lipstick. Not suicide rates, Family court biases, men being a smaller voting demographic, being 10x as likely to be homeless. Lipstick. I write of having to police the very things I say in what is now a defacto hostile environment to point out men are changing their behavior to make room for women, even in small ways. And people act shocked that there are things women can do as well, such as what Peterson suggest: if you really want the work place to be sexually sterile (and I do not. Not sure about him) then no lipstick.

As for that woman that used her sexuality to use and exploit our first shirt, that was predatory. You don't have to assault or rape someone for it to be such. If a 60 year old hits on a 20 year old intern saying he can do things for her career, that isn't assault or rape either. But he's out of line. He's using his power to obtain sex. Not using sex to get power is a simple corollary. And it happens. And I think it part of what would make that 60 year old think such exchanges are appropriate. We need to be fair and tell both sexes to stop it.

Gorfias:

Do all men have to act like they are in Chinese school (no more laughing no more fun, if you show your teeth or tongue...)

Obviously not; nobody here believes that. What does this have to do with the questions I asked?

Gorfias:

Saelune:
You used them living longer as if it somehow justifies sexism against women. I was saying it doesn't.

It doesn't. You stating that there is a male pig President, as opposed to an abusive Feminist for President, means that everything is horrible for women. It isn't.

Vrex does a better job pointing out Jordan's sexism http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1055183-Whats-your-opinions-on-Jordan-Peterson?page=7#24242193 I would quote them, but it is alot.

That is a ton. StatusNil does a pretty good responding too. (S)He's pointing out that Peterson is saying that serial monogamy and Polygamy are going to have negative social consequences. They do and have. Not sure what to do about it. Plenty on youtube stating women have gotten a raw deal in the sexual revolution and it is making them less happy. I do counter, they are not about to surrender other gains they have obtained through such a revolution.

...The fuck? That is just an absurd thing to even say. For one, no. It is not because of any law forcing him, and two...so? We would not need laws that 'force' us to respect each other on a human level if people just did that! If you think he thinks that will lead to death camps, then you think just as poorly of him as I do and should stop using him as a credible source.

Why? Why wouldn't one expect that excessive group "rights" indoctrination, such as was in Nazi Germany, USSR, Cambodia, Venezuela, pose a danger, a threat of a dire future? Not a definite thing but a danger?

If you really wanted to fix men's issues, you would focus on fixing women's issues and fixing ACTUAL issues men face. Like racial discrimination, or perhaps the discrimination gay and bisexual men face. What is more 'Men's rights' than men's right to love another man!? Or a man's right to wear whatever clothing they wish, even if it is considered the clothing of women?

If you really and truly care about this liek you say you do, then you need to realize you are coming at this at the complete wrong angle. You are coming at this as if fighting for women's rights means you have to hurt men to do it, cause you don't. If you fight to make women equal to men, then you are inherently fighting to make men equal to women.

Of course it has hurt men. When you are telling employers to discriminate against men and hire less qualified women, those men have been harmed. I don't care how rich Al Gore is: when you deny me a job opportunity due to my race and gender, you have discriminated against me as an individual. I object.

erttheking:

Your utterly fucked priorities.

I am not talking about women?s issues. I am talking about men?s issues. Real men?s issues. The ones you seem less than concerned with in favor of this garbage.

And PREDATOR!? Calm the fuck down with the hyperbole. She didn?t assault him or rape him.

This portion of the conversation has been about JP's statement about lipstick. Not suicide rates, Family court biases, men being a smaller voting demographic, being 10x as likely to be homeless. Lipstick. I write of having to police the very things I say in what is now a defacto hostile environment to point out men are changing their behavior to make room for women, even in small ways. And people act shocked that there are things women can do as well, such as what Peterson suggest: if you really want the work place to be sexually sterile (and I do not. Not sure about him) then no lipstick.

As for that woman that used her sexuality to use and exploit our first shirt, that was predatory. You don't have to assault or rape someone for it to be such. If a 60 year old hits on a 20 year old intern saying he can do things for her career, that isn't assault or rape either. But he's out of line. He's using his power to obtain sex. Not using sex to get power is a simple corollary. And it happens. And I think it part of what would make that 60 year old think such exchanges are appropriate. We need to be fair and tell both sexes to stop it.

Everything is horrible for women because we live in a country where a rapist and sexist man is put into office!

Stop defending Peterson. Peterson is a sexist bigot and you keep defending his views.

Gorfias:
I do think he would use pronouns like Zee and Zer had the not made it a law telling him he has to do so. I think he thinks that this sort of thing leads to death camps, gulags and killing fields.

Hmmrm. I thought I'd clarified this twice already in this thread; C-16 did not and does not legally compel a person to use "zee" and "zer" pronouns. That is a gross misrepresentation of the substance and meaning of the law.

I don't mean to agree or disagree with the other stuff you're saying because to be frank I haven't been keeping up with the discussion close enough to do so, but this one point is rapidly becoming something of a pet peeve for me, and it popped right out while I was skimming the page.

bastardofmelbourne:

Hmmrm. I thought I'd clarified this twice already in this thread; C-16 did not and does not legally compel a person to use "zee" and "zer" pronouns. That is a gross misrepresentation of the substance and meaning of the law.

I don't mean to agree or disagree with the other stuff you're saying because to be frank I haven't been keeping up with the discussion close enough to do so, but this one point is rapidly becoming something of a pet peeve for me, and it popped right out while I was skimming the page.

I think he is stating that regardless of how the law is framed, it will ultimately be used to even put people in jail if they don't use these pronouns. (Someone says, no, they just fine you to which he responds, "and if I refuse to pay the fine?".

At a minimum, he is saying be careful. Authoritarians take what sounds like reasonable law and then abuses it. Example: The RICO act was created to fight organized crime. It ended up being used to punish anti-abortion activists. As this is unprecedented, we need to be cautious.

Silvanus:

Obviously not; nobody here believes that. What does this have to do with the questions I asked?

I was doing what you were doing. You got polarizing: acting like there are things that need not cause concern unless I can show the issue is one supported by all women. Nonsense.

Saelune:

Everything is horrible for women because we live in a country where a rapist and sexist man is put into office!

Stop defending Peterson. Peterson is a sexist bigot and you keep defending his views.

I know of no rape accusation vs. the President that is ongoing (some were charged and dropped). But I honestly think women in the USA are pampered, privileged and powerful enough to discriminate against and exploit men.

And I did start a thread: If you are against Feminism, does that leave you to call yourself a Sexist? Is being a sexist someone that simply thinks men and women are different from each other? Because you are correct, JP is anti Feminist and can support his views. He is a clinical psychologist.

Everyone needs to take a step back in this topic and de-escalate a bit. If you can't keep it civil or be respectful, don't post.

Gorfias:

I think he is stating that regardless of how the law is framed, it will ultimately be used to even put people in jail if they don't use these pronouns. (Someone says, no, they just fine you to which he responds, "and if I refuse to pay the fine?".

Yeah, but Peterson's argument here is stupid. His argument is that he will break the law, then refuse to take his punishment if he's convicted for breaking it. That's some really twisted logic. Peterson is first breaking the law by exercising hate speech (potentially, this hasn't been tried in court, remember?), for which he can be fined. But he'll get thrown in jail for refusing to comply with the verdict of the court, which is another crime.

Let's show you how it works in another example: A feminist calls Peterson a fucking rapist asshole. Peterson sues for libel and wins. Feminist refuses to pay the fine claiming they did nothing wrong and the law shouldn't punish them for using their free speech and being an independent thinker. Feminist gets thrown in jail. Feminist now claims that she got thrown in jail because Canada has taken away free speech. It does not follow, like at all.

Gorfias:
At a minimum, he is saying be careful. Authoritarians take what sounds like reasonable law and then abuses it. Example: The RICO act was created to fight organized crime. It ended up being used to punish anti-abortion activists. As this is unprecedented, we need to be cautious.

a) It is not Peterson saying "be careful", it is Peterson using hyperbole to misrepresent the actual law amendment.
b) There's precedent because the law already exists and has been in use for other forms of hate speech. C-16 only amends an already existing law to include gender and gender expressions on the list of protected groups.

Gorfias:

And I did start a thread: If you are against Feminism, does that leave you to call yourself a Sexist? Is being a sexist someone that simply thinks men and women are different from each other? Because you are correct, JP is anti Feminist and can support his views. He is a clinical psychologist.

Being a clinical psychologist has nothing to do with his political views. More notably, Peterson has done most of his research on addiction and its' impact on human psychology and has, by his own (unintended) admission, been a pretty shitty clinical psychologist. He has literally stated that most of the people that came to him for therapy or counseling only needed to be told to start taking responsibility, stop being lazy and start acting instead of playing at being a victim. As someone who works in a closely related field and engages with psychologists on a daily basis, I can tell you that Peterson's idea of therapy and counseling is shit.

Not that any of it has anything to do with his anti-feminism. A credible academic or intellectual anti-feminist should probably be in one of the social sciences, where the actual research on society and culture takes place. That Peterson has done a lot of important research on addiction does not make him any more suitable to criticize feminism then you or me.

Gethsemani:
A credible academic or intellectual anti-feminist should probably be in one of the social sciences, where the actual research on society and culture takes place. That Peterson has done a lot of important research on addiction does not make him any more suitable to criticize feminism then you or me.

I disagree. He has to have mastered disciplines I do not possess to get his credentials. And he hates the social sciences. He states they are undisciplined with very poor over site. From my experience, he has a point.
And I understand you analogy about breaking 2 laws but at the end of the day, you would maintain a legal right to even kill JP (won't pay fine, resists arest [a 3rd crime] were he to refuse to use your preferred pronouns. Again, unprecedented. Sounds like a bad, abusive idea to me by ideologues interested in imposing authority over otherwise free people, which is what he is protesting.

Gorfias:

I disagree. He has to have mastered disciplines I do not possess to get his credentials. And he hates the social sciences. He states they are undisciplined with very poor over site. From my experience, he has a point.

See, I've recently gotten my postgraduate in Nursing. That does not magically make me an expert on physics, just as a doctorate in physics does not possess much in the way of nursing skills. Peterson has 'mastered' (in as much as one can master any academic field) addiction psychology, that's where his research has been focused. That means we should all listen to him in discussions about the effect addiction has on the human psyche, but it does not mean that Peterson has any deeper or greater understanding of sociology.

It is an important distinction to make, especially when he claims expertise and knowledge in an area which he considers poor science himself. This is made even more amusing by the fact that Peterson is a psychologist, which is another field people like to criticize as undisciplined and with poor academic oversight. One would think that would humble him a bit before he lobbed that criticism against another academic field.

Gorfias:
And I understand you analogy about breaking 2 laws but at the end of the day, you would maintain a legal right to even kill JP (won't pay fine, resists arest [a 3rd crime] were he to refuse to use your preferred pronouns. Again, unprecedented. Sounds like a bad, abusive idea to me by ideologues interested in imposing authority over otherwise free people, which is what he is protesting.

That doesn't follow. Peterson is saying he'd be imprisoned for committing one crime, but the truth (which he obfuscates by omitting some very vital information) is that he'd be imprisoned for committing another crime. It is a very deceptive and dishonest way of framing the issue to make the potential repercussions of C-16 seem much more ominous and dangerous than they actually are. As I said before, there's plenty of precedent here and the law is specific in that the punishment is fines at most. Peterson exaggerates the dangers of C-16 to suit his own political narrative.

Gorfias:
I think he is stating that regardless of how the law is framed, it will ultimately be used to even put people in jail if they don't use these pronouns. (Someone says, no, they just fine you to which he responds, "and if I refuse to pay the fine?".

If he refuses to pay the fine, the HRT refers the matter to a federal court, which decides whether the fine was fair or not and then orders him to pay it. This only happens if both the HRT and the federal court decide that this is an appropriate use of their time; if the fine is less than what it costs to hold court for a day, they'll just drop it. If they for some reason don't drop it and he still refuses to pay the fine, he risks being charged with misdemeanour contempt for not doing what the court said. Then he can appeal that to the Federal Court of Appeals and, if that fails, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

His odds of serving any jail time whatsoever would be infinitesimal. The procedure is largely comparable in scale to what happens when you refuse to pay a parking ticket.

Gorfias:
At a minimum, he is saying be careful. Authoritarians take what sounds like reasonable law and then abuses it. Example: The RICO act was created to fight organized crime. It ended up being used to punish anti-abortion activists. As this is unprecedented, we need to be cautious.

I'd like if it Jordan Peterson applied his "be careful" warning to the things he was saying, which naturally carried a high risk of misinforming a large number of people as to the actual content of the law that he was criticising.

It'd also be great if he could balance that warning of caution against the clear benefit of solving the procedural loophole where it was illegal for an employer to fire someone because they were black or Christian but legal for them to fire someone because they were transgender. Because that was what C-16 was trying to fix.

It wasn't unprecedented, either - look, I linked my last two breakdowns of Peterson's C-16 criticism in my earlier post, I'd be very grateful if you could just go read them to get a picture of the legal situation, because I feel very silly doing this a third time.

Gethsemani:
snip

One of my hats includes an education in a field where you aren't even allowed to call yourself one type of expert or another. Even if his initial focus were on addiction personality, he is supposed to have learned the skill sets necessary to move onto other areas of this discipline. I do wonder if this is how he knew about the impact of certain drugs on lobsters.

bastardofmelbourne:
snip

First I've read of employment discrimination. First time I'd seen this guy speak, all of the people actually attacking him were complaining about him not using their preferred pro-nouns. Again, what the bill actually says means very little compared to how it might be, and after Count Dankula, likely will be, used. Reviewing.

Gorfias:
That sounds correct. This all started with outrage at Peterson suggesting that if the workplace is to become a sexually sterile place, women will need to make changes too, such as not wearing lipstick. Why does this seem to be beyond the pale when so much else has had to be done in the past?

I don't think significant numbers of people advocate a workplace entirely absent of any sexual content. Complaining about lipstick is thus a misrepresentation of what is actually being called for; a straw man, reductio ad absurdam. We all understand that there's a spectrum, and at some point we have to find a reasonable boundary on that spectrum. The argument is not and never has been 0 or 1, but 0.2 or 0.3.

A workplace is a social environment. These decisions must ultimately be by approximate consensus and average of the people who make up the workplace and society. Maybe it's too sterile for some and too sexy for others - but so what? As long as it is a reasonable middle ground, mostly satisfactory to the vast majority, we've done it right. We also have to accept that people vary, and trends can change. Maybe an old-hand doesn't get that the younguns see things differently, or a tyro unresonably expects the workplace to bend to his newfangled ideas. Well... tough. You can't just claim the rules in 1980 should still be the rules today, reflecting the preferences of workers long departed, and you can't just pretend your 2018 college rules take priority over everyone else's who've been at it up to 40 years.

Gorfias:

One of my hats includes an education in a field where you aren't even allowed to call yourself one type of expert or another. Even if his initial focus were on addiction personality, he is supposed to have learned the skill sets necessary to move onto other areas of this discipline. I do wonder if this is how he knew about the impact of certain drugs on lobsters.

Other areas of his discipline, yes. That discipline being psychology, not social science. Just like how I'm a psychiatric nurse now, but could fairly easily switch over to another kind of nursing to specialize in should I wish it. That I could become a anesthetic nurse with some work and additional college courses does not, however, mean I am qualified to make informed academic statements about economics. So what you just wrote just means that my point still stands.

Gethsemani:

Other areas of his discipline, yes. That discipline being psychology, not social science.

Psychology is a social science though.

StatusNil:

Psychology is a social science though.

You're right, I should have been more clear in that it is not interchangeable with other social sciences. There's a marked difference between psychology, anthropology, sociology and archaeology, for example. While they share commonalities, the approach you take to research and the basic knowledge you need within your field are quite different for all of them.

Gethsemani:

Yeah, but Peterson's argument here is stupid. His argument is that he will break the law, then refuse to take his punishment if he's convicted for breaking it. That's some really twisted logic. Peterson is first breaking the law by exercising hate speech (potentially, this hasn't been tried in court, remember?), for which he can be fined. But he'll get thrown in jail for refusing to comply with the verdict of the court, which is another crime.

Let's show you how it works in another example: A feminist calls Peterson a fucking rapist asshole. Peterson sues for libel and wins. Feminist refuses to pay the fine claiming they did nothing wrong and the law shouldn't punish them for using their free speech and being an independent thinker. Feminist gets thrown in jail. Feminist now claims that she got thrown in jail because Canada has taken away free speech. It does not follow, like at all.

In this setting, the difference I can see is that the feminist said something (hateful and slanderous) of their own volition. Peterson would be fined (and imprisoned when not complying with the fine) for NOT saying something. For going against FORCED Speech.

Agema:

Gorfias:
That sounds correct. This all started with outrage at Peterson suggesting that if the workplace is to become a sexually sterile place, women will need to make changes too, such as not wearing lipstick. Why does this seem to be beyond the pale when so much else has had to be done in the past?

I don't think significant numbers of people advocate a workplace entirely absent of any sexual content. Complaining about lipstick is thus a misrepresentation of what is actually being called for; a straw man, reductio ad absurdam. We all understand that there's a spectrum, and at some point we have to find a reasonable boundary on that spectrum. The argument is not and never has been 0 or 1, but 0.2 or 0.3.

A workplace is a social environment. These decisions must ultimately be by approximate consensus and average of the people who make up the workplace and society. Maybe it's too sterile for some and too sexy for others - but so what? As long as it is a reasonable middle ground, mostly satisfactory to the vast majority, we've done it right. We also have to accept that people vary, and trends can change. Maybe an old-hand doesn't get that the younguns see things differently, or a tyro unresonably expects the workplace to bend to his newfangled ideas. Well... tough. You can't just claim the rules in 1980 should still be the rules today, reflecting the preferences of workers long departed, and you can't just pretend your 2018 college rules take priority over everyone else's who've been at it up to 40 years.

This reaching approximate consensus is what will always be dangerous because it is guaranteed that you are going to run afoul of someone's sensibilities at some point. But that is freedom. Messy and dangerous. Beats the alternative.

Vendor-Lazarus:

In this setting, the difference I can see is that the feminist said something (hateful and slanderous) of their own volition. Peterson would be fined (and imprisoned when not complying with the fine) for NOT saying something. For going against FORCED Speech.

No. Peterson would be fined for not using the person's preferred gender pronoun, thus choosing to say something on his own volition. His decision to invoke a gendered pronoun at all is very much of his own volition, as he could pick one that wasn't gendered at all ("This student", "You say", "This person" etc.). Let's not pretend as if someone of Peterson's intellectual level would be incapable of finding a synonym that wouldn't fall under hate speech with C-16.

I mean, it is sort of like saying that some other lecturer was unable to find synonyms to words like nigger or fag. I think we can all reasonably agree that actively choosing to use racist or sexist slurs when engaging with students is actively unprofessional. So why should we make an exemption for Peterson just because he doesn't want to acknowledge that transsexual people actually exist?

As others have said in this thread before: the reason Peterson is so very upset about this and uses all this hyperbole is because he wants the right to actively insult his students if they fall within a category of people that he doesn't like on ideological grounds. It astounds me that people actively go out of their way to defend him, because even if this was a free speech issue (it ain't) it would still be so very unprofessional that I can't even imagine any of my senior lecturers doing it and keeping their jobs.

Gorfias:

Gethsemani:
snip

One of my hats includes an education in a field where you aren't even allowed to call yourself one type of expert or another. Even if his initial focus were on addiction personality, he is supposed to have learned the skill sets necessary to move onto other areas of this discipline. I do wonder if this is how he knew about the impact of certain drugs on lobsters.

bastardofmelbourne:
snip

First I've read of employment discrimination. First time I'd seen this guy speak, all of the people actually attacking him were complaining about him not using their preferred pro-nouns. Again, what the bill actually says means very little compared to how it might be, and after Count Dankula, likely will be, used. Reviewing.

Count Dankula isn't Canadian, and Canada isn't a colony anymore, so I don't know how, exactly, British case law is supposed to effect a Canadian law that doesn't have anything to do with it.

StatusNil:

Gethsemani:

Other areas of his discipline, yes. That discipline being psychology, not social science.

Psychology is a social science though.

And Peterson seems to think that depictions of snakes fucking means that ancient cultures were depicting DNA.

Maybe being (arguably) good in one discipline means jack shit if you're talking about a different one.

altnameJag:
Count Dankula isn't Canadian, and Canada isn't a colony anymore, so I don't know how, exactly, British case law is supposed to effect a Canadian law that doesn't have anything to do with it.

No, it isn't exact. But it is a warning. Allegedly well meaning law meant to diminish hostility, hate speech law, that exists through out the West, is getting increasingly hostile to liberty.

Gethsemani:

Vendor-Lazarus:

In this setting, the difference I can see is that the feminist said something (hateful and slanderous) of their own volition. Peterson would be fined (and imprisoned when not complying with the fine) for NOT saying something. For going against FORCED Speech.

No. Peterson would be fined for not using the person's preferred gender pronoun, thus choosing to say something on his own volition. His decision to invoke a gendered pronoun at all is very much of his own volition, as he could pick one that wasn't gendered at all ("This student", "You say", "This person" etc.). Let's not pretend as if someone of Peterson's intellectual level would be incapable of finding a synonym that wouldn't fall under hate speech with C-16.

I mean, it is sort of like saying that some other lecturer was unable to find synonyms to words like nigger or fag. I think we can all reasonably agree that actively choosing to use racist or sexist slurs when engaging with students is actively unprofessional. So why should we make an exemption for Peterson just because he doesn't want to acknowledge that transsexual people actually exist?

As others have said in this thread before: the reason Peterson is so very upset about this and uses all this hyperbole is because he wants the right to actively insult his students if they fall within a category of people that he doesn't like on ideological grounds. It astounds me that people actively go out of their way to defend him, because even if this was a free speech issue (it ain't) it would still be so very unprofessional that I can't even imagine any of my senior lecturers doing it and keeping their jobs.

Which is what I said..
"Peterson would be fined for not using the person's preferred gender pronoun"..
Also, THAT person's preferred pronoun. When everyone can make up a pronoun for themselves, it's not about facts and science anymore. It's about being a narcissistic snowflake with special privileges playing an emotional victim card for power.
Which will come down to saying those peoples pronouns. Or refrain from saying the only two genders that exist.
Even trying to tow the line and not saying either the pronoun or he/she will probably result in being labeled as "hate speech" as they will be "denying their gender identity".

Vendor-Lazarus:

Gethsemani:

Vendor-Lazarus:

In this setting, the difference I can see is that the feminist said something (hateful and slanderous) of their own volition. Peterson would be fined (and imprisoned when not complying with the fine) for NOT saying something. For going against FORCED Speech.

No. Peterson would be fined for not using the person's preferred gender pronoun, thus choosing to say something on his own volition. His decision to invoke a gendered pronoun at all is very much of his own volition, as he could pick one that wasn't gendered at all ("This student", "You say", "This person" etc.). Let's not pretend as if someone of Peterson's intellectual level would be incapable of finding a synonym that wouldn't fall under hate speech with C-16.

I mean, it is sort of like saying that some other lecturer was unable to find synonyms to words like nigger or fag. I think we can all reasonably agree that actively choosing to use racist or sexist slurs when engaging with students is actively unprofessional. So why should we make an exemption for Peterson just because he doesn't want to acknowledge that transsexual people actually exist?

As others have said in this thread before: the reason Peterson is so very upset about this and uses all this hyperbole is because he wants the right to actively insult his students if they fall within a category of people that he doesn't like on ideological grounds. It astounds me that people actively go out of their way to defend him, because even if this was a free speech issue (it ain't) it would still be so very unprofessional that I can't even imagine any of my senior lecturers doing it and keeping their jobs.

Which is what I said..
"Peterson would be fined for not using the person's preferred gender pronoun"..
Also, THAT person's preferred pronoun. When everyone can make up a pronoun for themselves, it's not about facts and science anymore. It's about being a narcissistic snowflake with special privileges playing an emotional victim card for power.
Which will come down to saying those peoples pronouns. Or refrain from saying the only two genders that exist.
Even trying to tow the line and not saying either the pronoun or he/she will probably result in being labeled as "hate speech" as they will be "denying their gender identity".

As a society, were already assumed to memorize people's names. THAT persons name. Which everyone can make up for themselves. Names that aren't on their birth certificate. That aren't tied to how they look.

If you can call someone by a name they asked you to call them by, you can call someone by the pronoun they asked you to call them by.

Gorfias:
We can argue as to whether or not this really was a bargain for exchange but for the sake of argument, assume that it was on her part.

I think, for the sake of argument, we should assume it wasn't a bargain for exchange on her part. When you assume to know what others think you're in a poor position to draw conclusions.

Obviously, if you've already drawn conclusions and are working backwards from there it's quite convenient to make these assumptions!

undeadsuitor:

As a society, were already assumed to memorize people's names. THAT persons name. Which everyone can make up for themselves. Names that aren't on their birth certificate. That aren't tied to how they look.

If you can call someone by a name they asked you to call them by, you can call someone by the pronoun they asked you to call them by.

Will you be fined for committing a Human Rights Violation if you get someone's name wrong?

Also, the proliferation of custom pronouns seems to defeat the very purpose of pronouns, which after all are convenient words that can be used in place of nouns to make communication flow smoother. It would be easier to drop them altogether and just use the name, but that would be clunky as fuck and possibly confusing. "News: President Trump is discussing Trump's earlier statement about Trump's knowledge about Trump's campaign employee's actions with Trump's legal team."

And for what? What is it that makes forcing the world to adopt a made-up word to refer to someone so necessary? Like, I read on Everyday Feminism that there are more genders than people in the world, since some have more than one. So what use is such a concept then?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked