What's your opinions on Jordan Peterson?

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

Vrex360:
Well since he subscribes to the bullshit idea that if we just force women to marry men, you know like 'widespread monogamy' we'll solve the current problem of violent 'Incels' going around killing people, my opinion of him isn't very high frankly.

Because my opinion of anyone who validates this kind of mindset and prevents these guys from actually seeking therapy and help and climbing out of these hate filled echo chambers is actually pretty damn low. There are many vulnerable young men out there who could use support but people like Peterson just reinforce the ideas that create the next Elliot Rodger and the next one after that and it's hard not to think at least part of that is because it's much more profitable to stoke young male hatred and bitterness towards women then suggest 'hey guys, maybe try and find healthier ways of living?'

Um, that's not accurate. Like at all. He did put it in an awkward way, using an obscure social science term ("enforced monogamy"), so it's perhaps unreasonable to expect people to understand what he meant. Especially with a hack looking to take him down in charge of translating his message.

First of all, "enforced monogamy" does not mean "forcing women to marry men". An alternative term would be "normative monogamy", which means cultural disapproval of non-monogamous sexual relationships. That doesn't imply forcing anyone into a sexual relationship, but the limiting of the types of relationship that are considered acceptable without any level of social sanction. So one example would be "slut shaming" that's applicable to men as well.

Second, he's not unequivocally demanding a return to such an encompassing norm, but saying that sexual liberation hasn't reckoned with its unintended consequences, and so there are unacknowledged social problems resulting from it that should be addressed, and aren't because of the ideological investments at stake. As in actually "starting a conversation".

Now, let's take a look at this theory of social science (based on aggregated data, as opposed to a humanist theory of society) this view is based on. Very briefly, the underlying assumption is that people are to a large extent driven by a preconscious imperative to procreate, which can be satisfied with lower level proxies such as the kinds of intimate relationships that are conducive to viable procreation. In other words, we all need the love, man, and we're in a competition to achieve it. And failure feels bad.

Owing to the difference between the procreative functions of males and females, this competition manifests itself differently in men than it does in women. Theoretically it's a perfectly viable procreative strategy for a male to spread their seed far and wide and take their chances that many of those offspring will survive, while the vastly greater physical investment of a female pretty much requires forming lasting bonds to support the task. That means men in general are far less discriminating in their banging around than women, who tend to pursue the optimal mate available with more of an exclusive focus. Also, while male intra-sex competition can involve a lot of direct use of force, female intra-sexual competition tends towards avoidance of direct confrontation, social manipulation and compromise.

The theory is that these general strategies (Disclaimer: No-one's saying every single individual is following such a script, though even homosexual individuals often follow the general pattern. Ever hear this one: "What do you call it when two Lesbians move in together?" "Second date." Muh sides!) will in practice lead towards polygamy, with high-status males gaining a harem of discreetly competitive sister wives who are rejecting all the males deemed inferior. This is obviously bad for all the dudes who are not getting any, but also for the women in polygamous relationships who have to compete for the support of their chosen mate with the rest of the harem. Hence, the cultural institution of monogamy, "enforced" or "normative" because it's not a biological tendency of our species. (Which by the way is a rebuttal of the charges of "naturalistic fallacy" so often thrown at people concerned with such issues. In this case, "natural" certainly isn't ideal.)

Looking at the data, social scientists have found that polygamous societies (such as Islamic ones) are generally much more violent than monogamous ones, and obviously much of the violence is committed by young men who are unable to attain an intimate relationship. So the violence emerges from the nihilism engendered by the lack of a compelling long term purpose, or from extreme measures in intra-sexual competition. That's bad for everyone in those societies.

So, to recap, what Dr. Peterson was saying is not that any given young lady should be forcibly married to some random dude, but that when we as a society blithely started to celebrate the freedom of fucking all comers with contraceptives, we neglected to consider that monogamy was an evolved cultural solution to an inherent anti-social aspect of our nature, and thus also neglected a real effort to find an alternative cultural solution. That is indeed a conservative position, but it's hardly an outrageously tyrannical one.

StatusNil:

Um, that's not accurate. Like at all. He did put it in an awkward way, using an obscure social science term ("enforced monogamy"), so it's perhaps unreasonable to expect people to understand what he meant. Especially with a hack looking to take him down in charge of translating his message.

Okay perhaps it's owing to these direct quotes from the guy that are pretty fucking indefensible no matter how many pseudo intellectual terms you slather them with.

image

First of all, "enforced monogamy" does not mean "forcing women to marry men". An alternative term would be "normative monogamy", which means cultural disapproval of non-monogamous sexual relationships.

Yeah and that's prudish and stupid, people should be allowed to have time dating many people, discovering who they are and living a life of experiences and then after all that settle down with the person or persons they have chosen to love or hell just be allowed to be single and have casual relationships. We are all constantly searching for happiness and it's not like there's a one size fits all situation and people shouldn't need to be socially shamed into marrying the first person they met way too young and spending the rest of the lives faking happiness just to appease a bunch of emotionally unstable sociopathic misogynists who threaten to go on shooting sprees or date rape passed out girls unless society cowtows to them.

That doesn't imply forcing anyone into a sexual relationship, but the limiting of the types of relationship that are considered acceptable without any level of social sanction. So one example would be "slut shaming" that's applicable to men as well.

Yeah that's always been true but let's not kid ourselves, men never get nearly as much shit for sleeping around. 'Condemnation of promiscuity' has always been a dog whistle for slut shaming women. It's the 'state's rights' of gender relations.

Second, he's not unequivocally demanding a return to such an encompassing norm, but saying that sexual liberation hasn't reckoned with its unintended consequences, and so there are unacknowledged social problems resulting from it that should be addressed, and aren't because of the ideological investments at stake. As in actually "starting a conversation".

There might be consequences to sexual liberation, sure. But don't tell me your one of those 'OMG WIMIN ONLY GO FOR THE TOP 10% OF MEN' types. The social issues, in my opinion, are to do with entitlement, social isolation, putting sex on a pedestal and shaming men for not living up to the 'standard' and attributing the value of men to how many women they had sex with (and how hot they were) literally reducing sex and women to commodities is probably a bigger issue. Having a celebration of sexuality isn't the issue, emphasizing the value of sex way too much and making it out as the solution to all life's problems is. And dude I'm talking about Incels, don't try to talk about 'love', the shit I've seen them post makes it abundantly clear many of them are incapable of 'love'.

Now, let's take a look at this theory of social science (based on aggregated data, as opposed to a humanist theory of society) this view is based on. Very briefly, the underlying assumption is that people are to a large extent driven by a preconscious imperative to procreate, which can be satisfied with lower level proxies such as the kinds of intimate relationships that are conducive to viable procreation. In other words, we all need the love, man, and we're in a competition to achieve it. And failure feels bad.

Yes true I am driven by my preconscious animal instincts, that's why I personally devoured all of my step children before I impregnated my wife, to ensure that my offspring would inherit the territory that I've been proudly urinating on all over the place. Jesus Christ dude stop putting evolutionary psychology on things. People want emotional attachments because humans are emotional beings and they like to feel loved and supported. It's not a 'drive' to procreate because then how do you explain all the couples who decide they don't want to have kids? Of which there are actually quite a few, and there are people who enjoy being single. Heck this is internally contradictory, because on the one hand your saying that promiscuity is running rampant and is bad for our natural instinct to procreate but if we are driven to procreate 'the most likely way' then why would there even BE a widespread issue of promiscuity? You think we couldn't collectively understand this stuff on our own? We needed a dude from Canada to tell us this?

Owing to the difference between the procreative functions of males and females, this competition manifests itself differently in men than it does in women. Theoretically it's a perfectly viable procreative strategy for a male to spread their seed far and wide and take their chances that many of those offspring will survive, while the vastly greater physical investment of a female pretty much requires forming lasting bonds to support the task.

STOP. TALKING. ABOUT. PEOPLE. LIKE. THEY. ARE. REPTILES!

That means men in general are far less discriminating in their banging around than women, who tend to pursue the optimal mate available with more of an exclusive focus.

Yeah but you don't see women shooting up shopping centres when they can't find someone to sleep with/marry. I wonder what that might mean.

Also, while male intra-sex competition can involve a lot of direct use of force,

Please clarify what you mean by 'force'.

female intra-sexual competition tends towards avoidance of direct confrontation, social manipulation and compromise.

Gee with ideas like this I can't imagine why people associate this guy with misogyny.

The theory is that these general strategies (Disclaimer: No-one's saying every single individual is following such a script, though even homosexual individuals often follow the general pattern. Ever hear this one: "What do you call it when two Lesbians move in together?" "Second date." Muh sides!)

Oh god the only thing I want Peterson to talk about less than women is the LGBTQ community.

will in practice lead towards polygamy, with high-status males gaining a harem of discreetly competitive sister wives who are rejecting all the males deemed inferior.This is obviously bad for all the dudes who are not getting any, but also for the women in polygamous relationships who have to compete for the support of their chosen mate with the rest of the harem. Hence, the cultural institution of monogamy, "enforced" or "normative" because it's not a biological tendency of our species. (Which by the way is a rebuttal of the charges of "naturalistic fallacy" so often thrown at people concerned with such issues.

That doesn't happen. You know what happens? Men who are attractive have lots of sex with other attractive women, the key? The women also tend to have relations with other people. Your thinking this is some kind of pyramid, instead of it just being people having casual hookups and relationships for fun. I have a friend who, before settling down with her boyfriend, had many casual hookups and relationships with many men (and women), she liked to keep her options open and loved partying. She regularly hooked up with people after she'd had a few drinks at a party and she enjoyed her life being free and single. She never signed up to be the exclusive property of a handsome jock, she wasn't a 'sister wife. Fuck I'd love to see a guy try to pull that with her, she'd verbally eviscerate him! She was someone who had a lot of casual relationships and now she lives with her boyfriend who she loves. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up getting married and having kids one day. And you know what? Her story isn't unique, most of my female (and male) friends have similar stories. It's almost like people just date around and fuck casually as a way of figuring themselves out and falling in love with someone eventually. None of them signed up to be the exclusive member of a harem and I know men of all works of life and shapes and sizes who have dated a variety of women. Jordan Peterson is a scharlatan restating harmful myths that only help to validate the self destructive beliefs that the Incel types destroy themselves with almost daily.

In this case, "natural" certainly isn't ideal.)

True, devouring my step children wasn't great for my diet. My wife had such fat kids.

Looking at the data, social scientists have found that polygamous societies (such as Islamic ones)

I'm glad you found a way to sneak Islam into the conversation somehow.

are generally much more violent than monogamous ones, and obviously much of the violence is committed by young men who are unable to attain an intimate relationship.

I was a virgin until I was almost 24. I never killed anyone. I'm single right now, see how I'm not killing/raping anyone? That's total bullshit and an attempt to blame women for men's actions. And yes that is what this is, you can bullshit that away with psuedoscience all you want but that's what that means.

So the violence emerges from the nihilism engendered by the lack of a compelling long term purpose,

Yeah no argument here. Personally though I think there are a lot of societal issues at play here, not just 'I can't get laid'.

or from extreme measures in intra-sexual competition. That's bad for everyone in those societies.

Seriously, just google 'Toxic Masculinity' and read some academic works about it with the same level of detail you do with Peterson, you'll find it makes a lot more sense to explain the Incels than some magic pseudo science.

So, to recap, what Dr. Peterson was saying is not that any given young lady should be forcibly married to some random dude, but that when we as a society blithely started to celebrate the freedom of fucking all comers with contraceptives, we neglected to consider that monogamy was an evolved cultural solution to an inherent anti-social aspect of our nature, and thus also neglected a real effort to find an alternative cultural solution. That is indeed a conservative position, but it's hardly an outrageously tyrannical one.

Not tyrannical, still vaguely smart sounding bullshit designed to make excuses for a really toxic mindset that is in turn being used to validate the idea that women are at fault for men's actions.

Vrex360:
-Snorp-

And this entire breakdown is proof of why Evo Psych is utter bullshit.
I could kiss you right now but my breath is rank so I'll just settle for cheering and clapping like a doofus.

StatusNil:
First of all, "enforced monogamy" does not mean "forcing women to marry men". An alternative term would be "normative monogamy"

I'm sorry, but if he meant "normative monogamy" he'd have bloody said that. Monogamy has never needed to be "normalized", it's already normal, in fact, all relationships are considered - by default - monogamous unless otherwise specified! Open relationships are still looked down on by larger society! Polyamory/polygamy are both looked down on by larger society! Hell, polygamy is illegal in the US! Monogamy doesn't need to be normalized, it's already normal.

So one example would be "slut shaming"

We've been slut shaming women for at least a full century now, it hasn't worked then, it won't work now. Men get praised for sleeping around, women get shat on. "A key that opens many locks is a good key, a lock that opens to many keys is a shitty lock" and all that bullshit.

Gergar12:
He misrepresented the C-16 bill in Canada in order to say it was about free speech when it really was about discrimination. Kind of like how Ben Shapiro is against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he viewed it as an overreach of the Government.

Why do people keep making claims like yours Gergar? This is like the Google Memo, it's not difficult to open the source and read it, it's not a 1500 page bill like in the US where pretty much no one has actually read the damn thing. Reading bill C-16 and claiming Peterson was wrong is factually incorrect, legal experts are one sided on the matter on the same side as him for a reason. The unconstitutional nature of the bill is Clime Change level in terms of how one sided it is.

Seanchaidh:
Jordan Peterson is proof that it takes no intelligence whatsoever to become a "respected intellectual" of the political right.

As a conservative I'm glad to see socialists trying to fore 85% of the country's voter base into my wing, but what exactly is the benefit to anyone else of making all moderates and liberals right wing against their will?

altnameJag:

Gergar12:
He misrepresented the C-16 bill in Canada in order to say it was about free speech when it really was about discrimination. Kind of like how Ben Shapiro is against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he viewed it as an overreach of the Government.

Par for the course. He also thinks "enforced monogamy" is gonna fix our incel problem, and for the life of me I can't figure out how without going to some horrifying places.

He's the stereotypical no-nothing academic

Alright so I know there's a bad habit of people either using only hearsay or misrepresentation to represent their opponents, but damn, taking "well I don't know, the only thing I can think of is forcing them into relationships, and that's abhorrent" and turning it into that gives at best an incredibly incorrect perception of what he said. I mean hell he called incels losers (though he did apologise later).

Vrex360:
Well since he subscribes to the bullshit idea that if we just force women to marry men, you know like 'widespread monogamy' we'll solve the current problem of violent 'Incels' going around killing people, my opinion of him isn't very high frankly.

Verx, out of curiosity, what third party did you get this information from? Because I doubt you'd be one to intentionally misrepresent someone to such a shocking degree.

It's interesting to see socialists overtly trying to declare liberals to be right wing, but I am fascinated by how like so many other things (Google Memo and Sargon come to mind) there seems to be an odd divide between those who oppose the thing in question and those who only know of it through third party sources. I'm going to be blunt, anyone who claims he's wrong about C-16 hasn't read the fucking bill. Anyone who claim's Peterson is right wing hasn't watched what he has to say. Anyone who claims he's an alt-right figure have no idea what the alt-right is (seriously for all the stuff people have posted in this thread, no one here has come anywhere close to the alt-right in terms of hating Peterson).

It smells of desperation that someone who libertarians, conservatives, moderates and liberals have been listening to is being attacked by the fringes (far left and far right). It's actually hilarious to watch both claim the other fringe is who he's "really" part of. The far left pretends he's part of the alt-right (as you can see just about anywhere), and the alt-right pretend's he's just another leftist (just look at /pol/). Peterson is many things, an extremists isn't one of them, which is probably why extremists hate him so much. I wonder if Professor Saad would have had the same negative reaction to holding similar centre left views, given his being non-white is probably why he isn't being similarly attacked.

He's a leftist who really hates the Alt-right defending him.


And here's him and Stephen Fry defending free speech

Peterson is the type of guy who you know is doing something right due to who his enemies are, and what they resort to when attacking him.

Zontar:
anyone who claims he's wrong about C-16 hasn't read the fucking bill.

Have you?

Seanchaidh:

Zontar:
anyone who claims he's wrong about C-16 hasn't read the fucking bill.

Have you?

Yes, I have, it's not a long read. Canadian law isn't long bills, our national health care bill is 34 pages, and half of it is the same thing repeated a second time in French.

'K, so how is adding gender identity to already existing hate crime laws going to be the beginnings of totalitarianism?

Zontar:

Why do people keep making claims like yours Gergar? This is like the Google Memo, it's not difficult to open the source and read it, it's not a 1500 page bill like in the US where pretty much no one has actually read the damn thing. Reading bill C-16 and claiming Peterson was wrong is factually incorrect, legal experts are one sided on the matter on the same side as him for a reason.

Here's the Canadian Bar Association advocating passing the bill

altnameJag:
'K, so how is adding gender identity to already existing hate crime laws going to be the beginnings of totalitarianism?

1) that's not what the bill did
2) those hate crime laws violate the constitution to begin with (which is why they aren't prosecuted in a court of law), so even if that was the case that wouldn't change anything

I don't think people from outside Canada truly realise the damage Trudeau I left on us when he created an illegal court system outside of the judiciary. There's a reason why someone being willing to reject the social authoritarianism that permeates Canadian society and stand up to the Tribunals is hailed as a hero by everyone right of Mao.

Edit:

Here's the Canadian Bar Association advocating passing the bill

I said legal experts, not political organisations that used to be legal entities (and still are on paper but are not treated as such by even its own members). I know it's a meme that Americans tend to not know much about Canada (people love to use us as examples of "reasonable gun control" while living in places with stricter gun control then ours), but really now, the Canadian Bar Association? I assume then you support the PATRIOT Act, given the CBA also supported our equivalent to it.

Zontar:

altnameJag:
'K, so how is adding gender identity to already existing hate crime laws going to be the beginnings of totalitarianism?

1) that's not what the bill did
2) those hate crime laws violate the constitution to begin with (which is why they aren't prosecuted in a court of law), so even if that was the case that wouldn't change anything

I don't think people from outside Canada truly realise the damage Trudeau I left on us when he created an illegal court system outside of the judiciary. There's a reason why someone being willing to reject the social authoritarianism that permeates Canadian society and stand up to the Tribunals is hailed as a hero by everyone right of Mao.

So why did the Canadian Bar Association advocate passing the bill?

altnameJag:
So why did the Canadian Bar Association advocate passing the bill?

Because they're a political body at this point and they support any law that increases authoritarianism in the country, and have consistently done so for the past 20 years. They're actually oddly non-partisan in that regard.

Now tell me, since the CBS supported our equivalent to the PATRIOT Act, I must know why you supported that bill.

I'll also take this opportunity to point out many of the loudest advocates against C-16 (and our other unconstitutional "hate crime" state harassment bills as well) have been members of the CBS, since membership isn't particularly voluntary, but touting the party line is.

Zontar:

altnameJag:
So why did the Canadian Bar Association advocate passing the bill?

Because they're a political body at this point and they support any law that increases authoritarianism in the country, and have consistently done so for the past 20 years. They're actually oddly non-partisan in that regard.

Now tell me, since the CBS supported our equivalent to the PATRIOT Act, I must know why you supported that bill.

I'll also take this opportunity to point out many of the loudest advocates against C-16 (and our other unconstitutional "hate crime" state harassment bills as well) have been members of the CBS, since membership isn't particularly voluntary, but touting the party line is.

So, when you say "law experts", you only mean "law experts that agree with me".

Zontar:

1) that's not what the bill did

That's literally all it does. Like you said, it's not a particularly long bill. Maybe you could point out some contradictory verbiage?

EDIT:

Edit: And a link to the whole thing

altnameJag:
So, when you say "law experts", you only mean "law experts that agree with me".

No, I mean people who aren't lobby groups, but actual legal experts. I know there's a general ignorance of Canada in the US beyond the simplistic caricature the media paints us as, but only an American could see the CBS supporting a bill as meaning "legal experts support it". Not even the CBC would try to make such a claim, and they're the lowest of the national news outlet (since the CRBC's guidelines do not apply to them).

That's literally all it does

image

Maybe you could point out some contradictory verbiage?

If you actually read it, you wouldn't need me to point out the problem. Let's move away from the impasse for me to ask you this: why does intent of a bill matter more then its effect? Because that's what this all boils down to. Those who support the bill support it because of its stated intend, those who oppose it do so because of its effect, namely the violation of Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the fact it does nothing to actually protect the people it claims to (in fact it breeds resentment due to yet another group being given state backed means to attack random people), opens the door wider to yet even more illegal laws being passed (Canada's been in the midst of a constitutional crisis for years now because of this type of shit), and all the problems that are associated with state enforced speech.

I know it's an old meme at this point, but watching feminists and Islamist who on paper should hate each other more then almost anyone in society put aside their differences to support these laws that are a direct attack on liberalism is just odd. It's a good thing I'm conservative, because I'd probably be furious if I was a liberal in Canada, the US or UK given liberals have no place in politics despite being the second largest demographic after conservatives.

Zontar:
No, I mean people who aren't lobby groups, but actual legal experts. I know there's a general ignorance of Canada in the US beyond the simplistic caricature the media paints us as, but only an American could see the CBS supporting a bill as meaning "legal experts support it". Not even the CBC would try to make such a claim, and they're the lowest of the national news outlet (since the CRBC's guidelines do not apply to them).

Citations please.

If you actually read it, you wouldn't need me to point out the problem.

Relying on your footwork to dodge questions you don't like again, Zontar?
When someone asks you for what the supposed contradictions are that you're pointing to, usually it's so they can examine the text and your argument to make a counter point. But the fact that you're even including "Let's move away" without shame makes me think you've got nothing.
Put up or shut up.

Zontar:
...legal experts are one sided on the matter on the same side as him for a reason...

Except they're not one-sidedly in support of him, as would be obvious to anyone prepared to read outside their own ideological echo chamber.

Zontar:
...and our other unconstitutional "hate crime" state harassment bills...

In particular, some of the people who have disagreed with Peterson are explicit that using incorrect pronouns under C-16 is not a criminal offence; if it's anything, it's a lower order legal offence roughly equivalent to a parking violation.

Since this site is being a pain in the ass, I'm not going to bother with quoting and arguing with people who vociferously renounce the teachings of Evolution and all His Earthly works. So you didn't come from no damn dirty apes, eh? Fine, keep adjudicating the Scopes Monkey Trial, as long as you're not going to misrepresent what Peterson is saying for shock effect.

I'm gonna have to weigh in on this Bill C-16 thing, though. As far as I can tell, a major issue here is that the Bill is incredibly vague as to what exactly constitutes these "hate crimes", leaving the interpretation up to the "courts, tribunals, and commissions" themselves. The relevant passage in the guidelines published on the website of the Canadian Department of Justice thus proclaimeth:

In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms "gender identity" and "gender expression" are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms "gender identity" and "gender expression" have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example. The Commission has provided helpful discussion and examples that can offer good practical guidance. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will provide similar guidance on the meaning of these terms in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/identity-identite/faq.html

In other words, the tribunals are in a sweet position of shaping the standards they base their judgments on simultaneously with rendering judgments supposedly based on those standards. Quite an alarming circularity going on there, especially since these "tribunals" and "commissions" are clearly activist bodies seeking to extend their power over society.

If the best response to this is to belittle the significance of getting branded as a "hate criminal" by a grandly named "Human Rights Tribunal" (words that were supposed to carry serious weight, considering their 20th Century background), you must be even more cynical than me. Consider how such a mark against a person is liable to constitute legitimized grounds of discrimination against them. All based on the arbitrary and unchecked decrees of activist groups who keep pushing the boundaries of unacceptable discourse. "In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible", of course.

StatusNil:
Since this site is being a pain in the ass, I'm not going to bother with quoting and arguing with people who vociferously renounce the teachings of Evolution and all His Earthly works. So you didn't come from no damn dirty apes, eh? Fine, keep adjudicating the Scopes Monkey Trial, as long as you're not going to misrepresent what Peterson is saying for shock effect.

Jesus Christ you could feed a thousand horses with that much straw. I know we evolved dude, there's an amazing amount of fossil evidence alone to pretty much show the development of the evolution of vertebrates from as far back as the Cambrian era to the Holocene (roughly speaking 'now'). Humans undoubtedly still have some animal instinct, that's why we instinctively know how to avoid things that are dangerous and seek out other humans for companionship. The difference is we have also evolved and the need to procreate is simply not the all purpose driving force it used to be because simply put the need to keep our population in large numbers lest predatory animals come and eat us is relatively slim all things considered. Again humans are undoubtedly animals but we are far more complex than our predecessors. We have evolved cognitive abilities to a certain extend, complex emotions and are able to ponder our own existences. We may still have the 'instinct' to procreate but we are also capable of choosing to ignore that instinct if we so choose.

It's not because I don't believe in evolution, it's because I don't like bullshit pseudo science being used as a mask for otherwise good old fashioned moralizing.

Zontar:
It's interesting to see socialists overtly trying to declare liberals to be right wing, but I am fascinated by how like so many other things (Google Memo and Sargon come to mind) there seems to be an odd divide between those who oppose the thing in question and those who only know of it through third party sources. I'm going to be blunt, anyone who claims he's wrong about C-16 hasn't read the fucking bill.

I have read the bill, and he's wrong.

We had this argument a while back, Zontar. Late 2016, if I remember correctly, when the bill was being passed. If you'd care to listen, we can give this another go and maybe this time it'll stick.

1. C-16 adds gender identity to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. This had the effect of proscribing the act of discriminating against someone based on their gender identity; anti-discrimination law works by listing protected categories, such as race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, political beliefs, etc. These provisions predate C-16; they have been around since the passage of the HRA in 1977.

2. C-16 also adds gender identity to the definition of an identifiable group under the hate crimes sections of the Canadian Criminal Code. These sections make it a criminal offence to advocate or promote genocide against an identifiable group (s318) and to incite or promote hatred against an identifiable group (s319). This offence predates C-16; I am not sure when Canada passed its first hate speech laws, but all C-16 did was add gender identity to the list alongside race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. etc.

3. Allegations of illegal discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act are assessed by the Human Rights Commission, and then referred to and adjudicated by the Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal does not have criminal jurisdiction and cannot convict someone of a crime. All cases decided by the HRT can be appealed to a federal court and beyond.

4. Allegations of criminal hate speech under s318 or s319 are dealt with in a federal court, as with all other federal criminal offences. They are subject to the same evidentiary standards as other criminal offences, and have a list of statutory defences.[1]

5. The maximum possible sentence for an offence under s318 (advocating genocide) is five year's imprisonment; the maximum possible sentence for an offence under s319 (inciting hatred) is either two years or six months depending on whether the offence is prosecuted as a felony or a misdemeanour.

6. The only thing C-16 did was add gender identity to the lists of protected categories for pre-existing legislation. These offences already existed before C-16. They have existed for years. They were not being abused by the courts and tribunals of Canada before C-16, because such abuse was either tremendously and obviously unethical or flatly impossible. Saying that C-16 would hypothetically allow for people to be prosecuted and imprisoned for innocuous, innocent acts of free speech is kind of like saying that the provisions for criminal homicide hypothetically allow for a person to be prosecuted and imprisoned for innocuous, innocent acts tangentially related to a death; it's certainly possible, but it would require an impoverished defendant with no competent counsel, an attorney-general's office with no ethics whatsoever and severely skewed priorities, a jury full of people whose mothers the defendant has personally fucked, and for three levels of the federal judiciary to simultaneously forget all of their legal training and experience and transform into drooling newborns. [2]

Jordan Peterson's vocal criticism of C-16 was aimed at a fantasy bill - a devilish piece of straw legislation that he constructed in his mind (whether because he innocently misinterpreted the law or because he saw an opportunity to exploit the publicity) and which he loudly complained about until a number of online commentators and fans - none of whom seem to have fucking law degrees - became convinced that this mild-mannered psychologist was an authoritative expert on Canadian hate speech legislation.

To those commentators and fans: get a fucking grip. He was wrong, and he led you wrong. That's the end of it.

Zontar:
Those who support the bill support it because of its stated intend, those who oppose it do so because of its effect, namely the violation of Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

Neither the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Criminal Code violate section 2 of the Charter. Section 2 guarantees freedom of religion, belief, thought, conscience, expression, peaceful assembly, association and the press. The Canadian Human Rights Act cannot impose a penalty that would violate s2 because it does not have the power to impose penalties of that severity, and the Criminal Code includes a list of very explicit defences (see my footnote) that serve to protect a person acting under s2 freedoms from the effect of the legislation.

It's not about intent or effect. Peterson doesn't care about the bill's intent and he also doesn't seem to care about its effect. There's just a bunch of scaremongering surrounding what is ultimately a pathetically trivial piece of legislation.

I mean, the bill passed almost two years ago, but Peterson has just been truckin' on saying all the shit he was saying before - all the shit that he claimed would get him arrested if C-16 were to pass. Has he been put in jail yet? Can you find anyone who has been jailed as a result of C-16?

StatusNil:
I'm gonna have to weigh in on this Bill C-16 thing, though. As far as I can tell, a major issue here is that the Bill is incredibly vague as to what exactly constitutes these "hate crimes", leaving the interpretation up to the "courts, tribunals, and commissions" themselves.

This is incorrect. As listed above, hate crimes are defined in s318 and s319 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

As your own quote demonstrates, the terms left undefined are "gender identity" and "gender expression." As your own quote also demonstrates, this is an extremely common trick used in drafting legislation, because it allows the court a certain degree of latitude for the application of common sense.

Take, for example, the reasonable person standard. You will not find a single piece of legislation in the world that adequately defines "reasonable person," but you will find a hell of a lot of reference to what a reasonable person would say, think, or do. This is because what constitutes a "reasonable person" is determined almost entirely by the judge and jury in the context of a specific case.

StatusNil:
In other words, the tribunals are in a sweet position of shaping the standards they base their judgments on simultaneously with rendering judgments supposedly based on those standards.

You are conflating the Human Rights Commission with the Human Rights Tribunal. They are separate entities. For context, this is a lot like conflating the federal court with the federal prosecutor.

Also, the Human Rights Commission does not have the authority to define what "gender identity" or "gender expression" are. They can just recommend their definition, which the tribunal or court can accept or reject in the circumstances. Again, this is a lot like the prosecutor recommending their interpretation of a criminal offence to a judge, who can accept it or reject it.

StatusNil:
Quite an alarming circularity going on there, especially since these "tribunals" and "commissions" are clearly activist bodies seeking to extend their power over society.

Oh, dial down on the fucking paranoia, would you?

These guys aren't activists. They're members of an administrative tribunal. Do you know how these guys work? They're all lawyers, they wear suits every day, and they hear disputes in the meeting room of an office building amidst mounds of paperwork. They're not "activist bodies seeking to extend their power over society."

I mean, honestly. They've been around since the fucking 70s! No-one had a problem with them until Peterson stood up and told a fat pack of lies about who they were and what they do.

[1] These defences include factual truth (so that one cannot be prosecuted for stating a fact), religious convictions (so one cannot be prosecuted for hate speech if such speech is in line with their religious beliefs) and public interest (so one cannot be prosecuted if they can demonstrate that the subject is relevant to the public interest.)
[2] And even then, the maximum sentence - so long as you didn't advocate genocide! - would be two years, which would be a miscarriage of justice but not a particularly severe one.

Zontar:

Vrex360:
Well since he subscribes to the bullshit idea that if we just force women to marry men, you know like 'widespread monogamy' we'll solve the current problem of violent 'Incels' going around killing people, my opinion of him isn't very high frankly.

Verx, out of curiosity, what third party did you get this information from? Because I doubt you'd be one to intentionally misrepresent someone to such a shocking degree.

Well I appreciate the high opinion of me, sincerely thanks. And secondly I base it largely off of an interview that directly quoted his words: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
Specifically the quotes above. I admit I phrased it badly but my simplified version of Peterson's ideas aren't actually that dissimilar from what he said.

And again as a general rule if the Incels, as in the people who mobilize under the name 'Incels' and rant about Femoids and Roasties and Normies and Chads and want to be allowed to rape women and idolize mass shooters, like your ideas then there is something about your ideas that are fundamentally wrong.

Zontar:

If you actually read it, you wouldn't need me to point out the problem.

Nope, even posted the bill. Not very long. All it does is add gender identity to existing hate crime laws and statues.

Zontar:

Let's move away from the impasse for me to ask you this: why does intent of a bill matter more then its effect? Because that's what this all boils down to. Those who support the bill support it because of its stated intend, those who oppose it do so because of its effect, namely the violation of Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

"Oh no, people aren't allowed to encourage genocide or put up White's Only signs, what about our rights?"

Zontar:
the fact it does nothing to actually protect the people it claims to (in fact it breeds resentment due to yet another group being given state backed means to attack random people),

Yeah, because that's how that shakes out, not the other way around like congressional hopefuls filming trans people in bathrooms

Zontar:
opens the door wider to yet even more illegal laws being passed (Canada's been in the midst of a constitutional crisis for years now because of this type of shit), and all the problems that are associated with state enforced speech.

"Oh no, people aren't allowed to encourage genocide or put up White's Only signs, what about our rights?"
"Oh no, people aren't allowed to encourage genocide or put up White's Only signs, what about our rights?"
I know it's an old meme at this point, but watching feminists and Islamist who on paper should hate each other more then almost anyone in society put aside their differences to support these laws that are a direct attack on liberalism is just odd.[/quote]I dunno, is it because Muslims in North America are generally more supportive of LGBT and female rights than Christian conservatives, showing that the problem is more environmental than religious as far as Islam's more problematic views? Trans rights in particular are an odd duck, can you imagine anything like this getting passed in the west?

Zontar:

It's a good thing I'm conservative, because I'd probably be furious if I was a liberal in Canada, the US or UK given liberals have no place in politics despite being the second largest demographic after conservatives.

Wait, if liberals have no place in politics, how are these bills getting passed?

Or are you saying liberals shouldn't have a place in politics, in which case it's a tad hypocritical to be banging on about the assault on you freedom, inn'it?

I mean, as somebody on the left, capital L liberals tend to be pro-corporate empty suits ever striving for the mythical center, but I'm not gonna say the6 neither influence politics or that there isn't some limited use for centrists.

So, a man in a position of power preaches the necessity of said positions of power because reasons.

Sounds trustworthy.

StatusNil:

In other words, the tribunals are in a sweet position of shaping the standards they base their judgments on simultaneously with rendering judgments supposedly based on those standards. Quite an alarming circularity going on there, especially since these "tribunals" and "commissions" are clearly activist bodies seeking to extend their power over society.

Yes, but that's not how the legal system works in practice. Many laws are vague, but judges don't just pull decisions out of their backsides. They are examined with regard to norms, precedents in related cases, and there's a whole system of checks and balances with appeals, etc. Never mind that this is not an entirely new law per se, but that gender representation is being added to a list of "protected" categories under existing laws.

The question is then whether Canada is hopelessly awash with dodgy hate crime cases seeing people criminalised for approximately nothing under the prior legal remits. Honestly, I have no idea. But if we consider that dodgy cases generate international attention (as, for instance, in the UK with its poorly constructed electronic communications laws) and Canada is turning up approximately none, I would be inclined to conclude there is no significant problem here.

When the OP started the thread, I had no idea of who Jordan Peterson was. Now it seems that the Internet can't stop talking about him. "I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words (like 'zhe' and 'zher')" is one of his oldest quotes, and it gets worse from there.

Profile summary: Professional Jerk.

undeadsuitor:
So, a man in a position of power preaches the necessity of said positions of power because reasons.

Sounds trustworthy.

Don't forget that you should never question his position of power or think critically about anything ever. Except feminists, you can think critically about them. But capitalism? Gender? The current hierarchy? Don't you dare think about questioning that shit.

BreakfastMan:

undeadsuitor:
So, a man in a position of power preaches the necessity of said positions of power because reasons.

Sounds trustworthy.

Don't forget that you should never question his position of power or think critically about anything ever. Except feminists, you can think critically about them. But capitalism? Gender? The current hierarchy? Don't you dare think about questioning that shit.

Question everything except me and my opinions.

Kinda like how there's no such thing as cold hard logical thinking. people who say that are just processing different emotions

So, uh, update. The friend of his who helped him get the professor position he now has is now saying "I regret it and I think he's become dangerous".

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

I already disliked JP when he made such a huge fuss about not using people's preferred pronouns, which is really not a big deal and is just common courtesy, really. (EDIT: Oh, apparently he's at least in favor of using trans people's pronoun of choice according to how they physically present. Alright, he's earned a golf clap for that)

I already lost any potential respect for him after he claimed that without religion we somehow lose art, poetry narrative and morality. (not to mention claiming that moral people are inherently religious even if they say they're not, which is looney toons nuts)

I already had disdain for him after his "enforced monogamy" comment in response to incel type violence.

Then this article comes around and gives me the context to now go "hoooh boy...I'm kinda concerned". I mean, seriously, "My wife had a dream, which are sometimes prophetic, she dreamed it's 5 minutes to midnight"?

If it's 5 minutes to midnight, it's not because "roh no, trans people are upsetting the natural order of society", it's because the clown in chief south of the border has just stacked his administration with known warmongers who want nothing more than open war with iran, and possibly world war 3.

aegix drakan:

I already lost any potential respect for him after he claimed that without religion we somehow lose art, poetry narrative and morality. (not to mention claiming that moral people are inherently religious even if they say they're not, which is looney toons nuts)

Peterson is obviously deeply conservative in many ways, even though he might have unusual and intellectually refined justifications for it compared to most conservatives. That's a major reason why he's so popular with the right.

I already had disdain for him after his "enforced monogamy" comment in response to incel type violence.

"What we need is more individualism. Except where angry young men need sexual partners, at which point we need to societally enforce monogamy."

Agema:

aegix drakan:

I already lost any potential respect for him after he claimed that without religion we somehow lose art, poetry narrative and morality. (not to mention claiming that moral people are inherently religious even if they say they're not, which is looney toons nuts)

Peterson is obviously deeply conservative in many ways, even though he might have unusual and intellectually refined justifications for it compared to most conservatives. That's a major reason why he's so popular with the right.

I already had disdain for him after his "enforced monogamy" comment in response to incel type violence.

"What we need is more individualism. Except where angry young men need sexual partners, at which point we need to societally enforce monogamy."

One thing we're seeing is that a statement is taken out of context to seem outrageous and therefore, the subject becomes an intellectual untouchable. Doing this makes Western civilization harmed. We lose out of the minds and views of people who have interesting things to stay. An individual must be viewed as the whole of their works.

JP: very interesting mind. Classical liberal (or as Sargon of Akkad would say, Liberalist). The goal should be a difficult to define fairness rather than, as Pol Pot might have wanted, equality of outcome. We will all be equal in the grave.

aegix drakan:
So, uh, update. The friend of his who helped him get the professor position he now has is now saying "I regret it and I think he's become dangerous".

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

I already disliked JP when he made such a huge fuss about not using people's preferred pronouns, which is really not a big deal and is just common courtesy, really. (EDIT: Oh, apparently he's at least in favor of using trans people's pronoun of choice according to how they physically present. Alright, he's earned a golf clap for that)

I already lost any potential respect for him after he claimed that without religion we somehow lose art, poetry narrative and morality. (not to mention claiming that moral people are inherently religious even if they say they're not, which is looney toons nuts)

I already had disdain for him after his "enforced monogamy" comment in response to incel type violence.

Then this article comes around and gives me the context to now go "hoooh boy...I'm kinda concerned". I mean, seriously, "My wife had a dream, which are sometimes prophetic, she dreamed it's 5 minutes to midnight"?

If it's 5 minutes to midnight, it's not because "roh no, trans people are upsetting the natural order of society", it's because the clown in chief south of the border has just stacked his administration with known warmongers who want nothing more than open war with iran, and possibly world war 3.

Pretty much sums up my feelings. A critical thinker and historian on autocrats is slow becoming one himself.

Gorfias:

JP: very interesting mind. Classical liberal (or as Sargon of Akkad would say, Liberalist). The goal should be a difficult to define fairness rather than, as Pol Pot might have wanted, equality of outcome. We will all be equal in the grave.

Yeah, I'm becoming convinced that Peterson would go full Pol Pot if he ever got power. Or at least Wilson or McCarthy. It's a great sentiment but his other ideas don't match that at all. He's more about "people need to act the way I like and only that." You know, the complete opposite of a Liberalist/ Classical Liberal.

He says that women are Avatars of Chaos.

I'm not keen to trust the words of someone who takes Warhammer lore that seriously.

Smithnikov:
He says that women are Avatars of Chaos.

I'm not keen to trust the words of someone who takes Warhammer lore that seriously.

I can't wrap my head around him claiming that women are chaotic

But also THE stabilizing force in men's lives.

Which is it

undeadsuitor:

Smithnikov:
He says that women are Avatars of Chaos.

I'm not keen to trust the words of someone who takes Warhammer lore that seriously.

I can't wrap my head around him claiming that women are chaotic

But also THE stabilizing force in men's lives.

Which is it

Men would be too orderly otherwise, obviously. Because if there is anything that is guaranteed when you get a bunch of dudes together, it is that they will be very orderly. Man aren't known to dare each other to do stupid shit, no siree.

I just listened to several lengthy interviews with him to get a sense of what he was about. To be honest, he doesn't seem all that bright. Intellectual - yes; academic - yes; but not particularly intelligent. Which was disappointing, since I wouldn't have minded a smart and sensitive representative for the male gender since I think it needs one. Looks like it'll have to keep searching.

trunkage:

Gorfias:

JP: very interesting mind. Classical liberal (or as Sargon of Akkad would say, Liberalist). The goal should be a difficult to define fairness rather than, as Pol Pot might have wanted, equality of outcome. We will all be equal in the grave.

Yeah, I'm becoming convinced that Peterson would go full Pol Pot if he ever got power. Or at least Wilson or McCarthy. It's a great sentiment but his other ideas don't match that at all. He's more about "people need to act the way I like and only that." You know, the complete opposite of a Liberalist/ Classical Liberal.

I mean, Classical Liberals are the Victorian era politicians of the "why have charity when you have poorhouses?" variety.

Being a Dickens villain isn't really on the left of the political spectrum.

altnameJag:
I mean, Classical Liberals are the Victorian era politicians of the "why have charity when you have poorhouses?" variety.

Being a Dickens villain isn't really on the left of the political spectrum.

This is rather unfair.

19th century British classical liberals were facing a very different world situation, where the country was still dominated by laws that hugely privileged land ownership (and thus the aristocracy), and a small fraction of the population could vote. Their concentration was thus mostly focused on removing political and economic privilege from the aristocracy. They believed these economic restrictions were the main driver of poverty, and if they could create economic freedom, poor and rich alike would thrive. Whilst undoubtedly the caricature of a selfish industrialist exploiting his workers has a basis in reality, classical liberalism of that age was a lot more concerned with improving the lot of the poor than your post suggests.

Towards the end of the 19th century classical liberalism was foundering. Economic liberalisation had failed to solve the problem of poverty, and there became greater realisation that many problems of the poor stemmed from circumstances outside their control. Consequently many liberals turned to policies of government support for the poor; this developed into what is now called social liberalism. Some liberals, obviously, continued with classical liberalism.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked