Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-10-2020, 09:01 PM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
2017 Maps of Meaning 08: Neuropsychology of Symbolic Representation
Biblical Series IV: Adam and Eve: Self-Consciousness, Evil, and DeathInterpreting the depiction of two snakes entwining as an illusion to DNA is pretty crazy, JBP might not know that this is simply how snakes mate, but he should be aware he is talking out of his ass. His ideas are not the product of any sort of scholarly rigour or rational system. They are simply his personal "hot takes" on day-to-day stuff. No more informed then crazy uncle Joe, or radio jockey #47.
When I took organic chemistry the Professor who held many patents and seemed quite intelligent told us the first chemist to imagine a hydrocarbon ring structure got the idea from a most likely a cocaine fueled dream of a snake eating itself. I'm not making anything of it but I did think it was interesting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Kekulé
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"

Last edited by pool; 02-10-2020 at 09:02 PM.
  #52  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:26 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
When I took organic chemistry the Professor who held many patents and seemed quite intelligent told us the first chemist to imagine a hydrocarbon ring structure got the idea from a most likely a cocaine fueled dream of a snake eating itself. I'm not making anything of it but I did think it was interesting.
You do see the difference between someone who was actively working on that aspect of organic chemistry having an insight in the form of a symbolic dream, and Australian aborigines intuitively using the theoretical structure of DNA as a foundation in their art, right?
  #53  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:44 AM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
You do see the difference between someone who was actively working on that aspect of organic chemistry having an insight in the form of a symbolic dream, and Australian aborigines intuitively using the theoretical structure of DNA as a foundation in their art, right?
You did read the last sentence of my post right?
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #54  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:43 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
You did read the last sentence of my post right?
The story about benzene is off topic for this thread then.

Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
  #55  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:17 AM
MrLee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 206
I've read his '12 Rules' book and watched a few talks and interviews. I feel like I've probably read and heard as much about him as by him. I really don't see what the alt-right see in him; he is far from a frothing-at-the-mouth white supremacist. Likewise, many on the left see JP as some kind of monstrous caricature of far-right neo-nazi ideology - there are far more disagreeable (and illogical) people out there in the public sphere than JP. IMHO, he is an occasionally thought-provoking public speaker who is sometimes prone to exaggerating the 'threat' posed by the far-left, venturing too far away from his area(s) of expertise, and over-reliance on mythological and biblical interpretations.

An often-repeated mantra of his is a slightly conspiracy-laden notion that there is a cabal of postmodernist/marxist academics who are - inadvertently or otherwise - advocating for the downfall of western civilization. This is a bit much. Still, his many of his critiques of socialism and feminism are pretty solid. A lot of the social sciences do make assumptions about privilege and inequality which are worth at least questioning.

The parts of his that I struggle with the most are the boring and non-sensical diatribes about biblical passages and other mythologies. These usually combine with weird, unsupported generalisations such as 'Chaos is feminine, order is masculine' (what?).
  #56  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:30 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
You did read the last sentence of my post right?
" I'm not making anything of it but I did think it was interesting."

My point is, it's not. Or relevant, really.
  #57  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:31 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLee View Post
Still, his many of his critiques of socialism and feminism are pretty solid.
Such as...?
  #58  
Old 02-11-2020, 07:02 AM
F. U. Shakespeare is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baltimore or less
Posts: 4,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
I know and respect smart people who are Jordan Peterson fans, but I've never actually heard him say anything I would consider intelligent. At best, he's a less new-agey version of Deepak Chopra or something, just saying feelgood platitudes for his particular audience of young "rational" white dudes. At worst he is a holocaust denier who opines that the Nazis didn't really do anything that bad. I don't understand what people I respect see in him, but I guess we hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see.
WTF?! I was on the fence about the guy until this. One of these things is not like the others. Anywhere I could find more detail about his opinions on the Holocaust?
  #59  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:13 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,176
DrCube, I would also be interested in cites on that matter. Until now the takes I've heard from him have been to the effect that it was not just monsters but also "the 'good' people" who just went along and collaborated in Nazism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
He is so smart and articulate, we need more people with his wisdom and courage
You have just described four qualities that do not necessarily convey each other. He is smart and articulate, but much of what has been reported indicates questionable if not scant wisdom, and I could be very courageous too speaking from a long-standing tenured position to randos on YouTube.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 02-11-2020 at 08:15 AM.
  #60  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:32 AM
Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLee View Post
. Still, his many of his critiques of socialism and feminism are pretty solid.
Like the part where he thinks women have too much choice in finding mates these days, and should be forced into monogamous relationships so that they can't flock to wealthy dudes, leaving unmated men to turn to violence when they're out-competed in the free market dating market?


Quote:
The parts of his that I struggle with the most are the boring and non-sensical diatribes about biblical passages and other mythologies. These usually combine with weird, unsupported generalisations such as 'Chaos is feminine, order is masculine' (what?).
Yeah, well that "chaos is feminine, witches are real and live in swamps, everyone knows men bring order" is central to his ideas about society and relationships. You can't just handwave it off. That's what Peterson uses as the basis for all his ideas.

You're right that it's nonsensical and unsupported. That's why serious thinkers are unimpressed by Peterson's work.

Last edited by Merneith; 02-11-2020 at 08:32 AM.
  #61  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:48 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by sisu View Post
See this is lazy criticism, I barely see any point specific criticism of him and his ideas.

Hey some of his thoughts I think are bit silly but on the whole he makes a lot of sense.
Fine.

- morality comes from deity/divine
- Marxists and Post-Modernist hiding under your beds
- LGBTQ ruining pronouns for everybody
- Weird obsession with traditional gender roles

Just some of the subjects JP enjoys to torture mercilessly with his deep, often wrong, pontification.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #62  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:55 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. U. Shakespeare View Post
WTF?! I was on the fence about the guy until this. One of these things is not like the others. Anywhere I could find more detail about his opinions on the Holocaust?
More details.

Short answer is No, he is not a Holocaust denier.

Regards,
Shodan
  #63  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:19 AM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,750
I'd never heard of this guy before this thread and my life was better for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLee View Post
I really don't see what the alt-right see in him; he is far from a frothing-at-the-mouth white supremacist. Likewise, many on the left see JP as some kind of monstrous caricature of far-right neo-nazi ideology - there are far more disagreeable (and illogical) people out there in the public sphere than JP.
He gives a pseudo-intellectual veneer to ideas held by deeply ignorant people. He sounds smart, and he convinces people on the right that he's smart, and so ignoramuses on the right can convince themselves they are in good intellectual company when they espouse their misogyny and racism. What's not to like about someone who makes your stupid ideas sound better than you ever could?
  #64  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:19 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. U. Shakespeare View Post
WTF?! I was on the fence about the guy until this. One of these things is not like the others. Anywhere I could find more detail about his opinions on the Holocaust?
From the Independent
Quote:
Footage emerged this week, from a podcast recorded last year, of the professor discussing the conditions that led to the Holocaust. There was the normal equating of fascist and Antifa, on account of the latter’s "proclivity to violence" (as if violence were a moral constant); there was discussion of Hitler’s bravery during the First World War, as well as the revelation that "[he] was very sensitive to disgust". According to Peterson (and I’ve no reason to doubt him), Hitler used Zyklon, an easy version of the gas used in the gas chambers at Auschwitz, to clean rats from German factories – and this, along with the economic instability in post-Versailles Germany, to Peterson’s mind, is evidence that the Holocaust was a logical progression.

That the Holocaust followed a series of logical progressions is, in a sense, true: if one were to reverse-engineer the Final Solution, each step would appear to follow rationally from the one before.

But this – as if it even needs saying – is not proof that the Holocaust was logical (and so unavoidable, an objective response to some natural phenomenon, an earthquake or a weather front for example) but that it was the endpoint of a deliberate process that had started many years before; a process that was constantly testing its contributors by moving the conversation further and further towards what would once have been unthinkable.
Here is the video in question, and it's six minutes.

He's not an outright Holocaust denier, but like the Independent reports, it just seems like the Holocaust was a natural progression and if we were there in Germany then we would have done the same thing.

Moving on, I first became aware of him when a member of an online group who is somewhat misogynistic posted a link to one of his videos. I saw enough to see that I wasn't interested in what he had to offer.
  #65  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:19 AM
F. U. Shakespeare is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baltimore or less
Posts: 4,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
More details.

Short answer is No, he is not a Holocaust denier.

Regards,
Shodan
Thanks for this.
  #66  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:59 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,557
There is a famous interview of Jordan Peterson by Cathy Newman demonstrating some of the difficulty that people have nowadays in understanding people with whom they disagree. It applies particularly to Jordan Peterson IMO for various reasons.

No doubt there's any number of examples from the Left as well.

Regards,
Shodan
  #67  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:41 AM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. U. Shakespeare View Post
WTF?! I was on the fence about the guy until this. One of these things is not like the others. Anywhere I could find more detail about his opinions on the Holocaust?
It's been a while since I watched this video (JP Starts at about 6:30), but I think that's where I got the idea he was a holocaust denier, or at least supportive of holocaust deniers.

I'm not a close follower of Jordan Peterson, so I could be way off, but (and I'll need to watch the video again to be sure) he says some pretty awful things, on video here.

Maybe it's all out of context, who knows. But it seems clear to me that this guy at least knows who his biggest fans are, and is playing to their biases, even if he doesn't believe those things himself.
  #68  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:12 PM
F. U. Shakespeare is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baltimore or less
Posts: 4,312
He seems to be trying to dance on both sides of the issue of anti-semitic rhetoric.
  #69  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:31 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Do you think more people should have the wisdom and courage to switch to an ALL BEEF diet like JP?
He is not a nutritionist so I would be as skeptical of his nutritional advice as I would of any layman's.

He is a Jungian, which wasn't taught that much when I was in psych school. My impressions of it, is that Jungians sort of work the line between psychology and religion. They like metaphors, archetypes, and trying to access the unconscious.
It is such a different type of thinking than the behaviorism that dominates modern psychology that it is hard to process.
I think there is a large strain of gnosticism in Jungian psychology and Peterson is a popularizer which means he has a fine line to walk between coming off as simplistic and baffling everyone with just exactly how weird Jungianism really is.
  #70  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:39 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
DrCube,
You have just described four qualities that do not necessarily convey each other. He is smart and articulate, but much of what has been reported indicates questionable if not scant wisdom, and I could be very courageous too speaking from a long-standing tenured position to randos on YouTube.
Courage is much scarcer than you know. There are thousands of tenured professors in the world but how many have the courage to insert themselves into the public debate with such unpopular ideas?

Peterson was a wildly popular psych professor before becoming a public intellectual, they say he used to get standing ovations after his lectures. He decided to give up the safety of the campus to debate ideas and has attracted criticism from some of the most evil people in the world. For someone who suffers from anxiety as he does, that must have been very uncomfortable.
  #71  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:40 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
It's been a while since I watched this video (JP Starts at about 6:30), but I think that's where I got the idea he was a holocaust denier, or at least supportive of holocaust deniers.

I'm not a close follower of Jordan Peterson, so I could be way off, but (and I'll need to watch the video again to be sure) he says some pretty awful things, on video here.

Maybe it's all out of context, who knows. But it seems clear to me that this guy at least knows who his biggest fans are, and is playing to their biases, even if he doesn't believe those things himself.
The person who made that video does not seem to know that much about history. What in particular did Peterson say that you think is awful?
  #72  
Old 02-11-2020, 05:01 PM
F. U. Shakespeare is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baltimore or less
Posts: 4,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Do you think more people should have the wisdom and courage to switch to an ALL BEEF diet like JP?
I thought that sounded interesting, but that may be because I'm a Ron Swanson fan.
  #73  
Old 02-11-2020, 05:36 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
There are thousands of tenured professors in the world but how many have the courage to insert themselves into the public debate with such unpopular ideas?
...with only the offer of huge speaking / appearance fees, how does he find the bravery?

And in a country full of high-profile right-wing demagogues too...where the most popular news network is fox "news". How does he find the courage to not disagree with them?

Quote:
He decided to give up the safety of the campus to debate ideas and has attracted criticism from some of the most evil people in the world.
Earlier I mentioned that a big part of JP's shtick is poisoning the well.
Here you've managed some sort of inverse poisoning; his opponents are bad, bad people therefore JP is...something.

Last edited by Mijin; 02-11-2020 at 05:38 PM.
  #74  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:44 PM
F. U. Shakespeare is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Baltimore or less
Posts: 4,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
There is a famous interview of Jordan Peterson by Cathy Newman demonstrating some of the difficulty that people have nowadays in understanding people with whom they disagree. It applies particularly to Jordan Peterson IMO for various reasons.

No doubt there's any number of examples from the Left as well.

Regards,
Shodan
I agree, that interviewer was rude, and dishonest. Appreciate your noting that both sides do that.

But at least Newman was in the presence of the person she was insulting and twisting the words of. Would that Rush Limbaugh ever granted that courtesy.
  #75  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:47 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
He is not a nutritionist so I would be as skeptical of his nutritional advice as I would of any layman's.

He is a Jungian, which wasn't taught that much when I was in psych school. My impressions of it, is that Jungians sort of work the line between psychology and religion. They like metaphors, archetypes, and trying to access the unconscious.
It is such a different type of thinking than the behaviorism that dominates modern psychology that it is hard to process.
I think there is a large strain of gnosticism in Jungian psychology and Peterson is a popularizer which means he has a fine line to walk between coming off as simplistic and baffling everyone with just exactly how weird Jungianism really is.
Considering all the other ignorant things he's said, it seems more likely to me that he's a whacko.
  #76  
Old 02-11-2020, 07:04 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
It's been a while since I watched this video (JP Starts at about 6:30), but I think that's where I got the idea he was a holocaust denier, or at least supportive of holocaust deniers.
I'm no fan of JP, but how are you seeing holocaust denial there? He literally says that it happened.
  #77  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:39 PM
Razncain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: TX & CO
Posts: 1,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
I still consider him a grifter.

He was always a wealthy tenured professor at UofT but lying about Canada's gender laws gave him a platform to sell his brand of self-help political conservatism to vulnerable youth who, in-turn, made him a pop intellectual rock star and filthy rich. Ever since, his self-help grifting never stopped: NYT best sellers, daily interviews with international media, tens of thousands of dollars of speaking fees, millions in free money as a monthly allowance via patreon by enamored fans.

Like a TV preacher all his failed business adventures and wealth generation enviably involves milking it from his flock. He might believe what he preaches only because grifters are too invested to honestly evaluate their predatory actions.
Perhaps Canada should borrow Jim Jefferies. If you have about 40 seconds to spare, that's how long it took Jim to have Jordan Peterson admit that he maybe he was wrong.

Even better, if you've got 6 minutes to spare, watch the whole video. In order to cope through the Trump era, I prefer comedians these days to catch up on the news and issues.
  #78  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:26 PM
Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
The coma thing reminds me of something I only learned of recently. I'm sure most of you have heard of electroshock therapy.

But it was only recently I heard and read about Insulin shock therapy where depressives and especially schizophrenics were given overdoses of insulin in order to be put in a coma with a goal of helping them, quite fascinating actually.

There were positive results for some, not so much for others, mostly because of a lot of follow-up care but it's amazing how far we have come from a lot of pseudoscience.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_shock_therapy
And, since people didn't know if it was the seizures that were good, or the coma that was good or the memory loss that was good, or why electoshock therapy works at all, and because it's what depressed people think they want anyway, there was also Deep Sleep Therapy, where the patient was just put in a medically induced coma for a while.

Which isn't done now because (a) it didn't work as well as hoped, and (b) being bed-ridden in a coma is bad for you and killed too many people.
  #79  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:25 PM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
And, since people didn't know if it was the seizures that were good, or the coma that was good or the memory loss that was good, or why electoshock therapy works at all, and because it's what depressed people think they want anyway, there was also Deep Sleep Therapy, where the patient was just put in a medically induced coma for a while.

Which isn't done now because (a) it didn't work as well as hoped, and (b) being bed-ridden in a coma is bad for you and killed too many people.
Wow that's actually extremely terrifying.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #80  
Old 02-13-2020, 07:58 AM
PitJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. U. Shakespeare View Post
I agree, that interviewer was rude, and dishonest. Appreciate your noting that both sides do that.

But at least Newman was in the presence of the person she was insulting and twisting the words of. Would that Rush Limbaugh ever granted that courtesy.

This interview was the first thing I heard/saw about Jordan Peterson, and I must admit I was thoroughly impressed about the calm and cool he maintained while Ms Newman tried to put things he didn't say into his mouth, or twisting those he said into different meanings. I found his reaction really masterful as it kept the subject on a straight course, without any PC pandering, gender pronouns submission, or other points that were apparently the interviewer's intention to be pushed onto him.

Then I started to look for other things he said or authored. I am well aware of the danger of enclosing oneself within a confirmation bias bubble and always try to retain a meta level view, but I must say some of the things he said made sense to me. Being born in the 60s I was raised under the "pull-yourself-up" theme mentioned above, meaning "stop whining, don't try to blame others for your own faults, start with yourself, work on it hard and you'll get everything done". Works fine for me, and hearing Peterson telling this to kids the age of my own ones was really encouraging because I still think that the method works.

His criticism of the gender pronoun issue highlights one of my points above. He says "people feel oppressed if they feel they are not addressed with the right pronoun. So what if they are? Everybody is oppressed in some way. Stop whining and get over it! Plus, stop oppressing others with your need for your personal pronoun. There are more important things in life." Pressuring people into some specific language because of someone else's windchill oppression is a sort of language fascism which he detests. I wholeheartedly agree.

Furthermore, the point that he said things (DNA and entwined snakes? Haven't heard that but also didn't look for it tbh) that seem strange doesn't automatically convert everything else he says into BS. We all say things some of which are foolish, and some of which are wise. Does any of the dear readers of this want to be judged solely by the stupid things he did?

I for my part wish him the best and a good recovery because I think that voices like his should be heard as they complete the picture.
  #81  
Old 02-13-2020, 09:37 AM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitJ View Post
His criticism of the gender pronoun issue highlights one of my points above. He says "people feel oppressed if they feel they are not addressed with the right pronoun. So what if they are? Everybody is oppressed in some way. Stop whining and get over it! Plus, stop oppressing others with your need for your personal pronoun. There are more important things in life." Pressuring people into some specific language because of someone else's windchill oppression is a sort of language fascism which he detests. I wholeheartedly agree.
The problem here is where the message is coming from. If I, as someone sympathetic to trans issues and who will use whatever pronouns I'm asked to, because what's the big fricken deal to me anyways, counsel a trans person to stop whining and get over the outside world not always using your preferred pronouns, because as oppression goes it's rather weak tea, that's one thing. If the person who refuses to use the preferred pronouns says that, it means something rather different. In the end, the whole pronoun issue is just one of whether or not to be an asshole. People who insist on addressing others in ways those others would prefer they didn't are assholes, because it's no real burden to address them as they prefer. While it's true that non-preferred forms of address aren't a huge deal compared to, say, imprisonment or lynching or whatever, it's still being an asshole. So if the asshole who refuses to address a person as that person prefers justifies their assholery by saying it's no big deal, stop whining and buck up because the world isn't fair, etc, that's not good advise about how to deal with assholes, it's just saying, "Hey, I'm going to be an asshole to you and there's nothing you can do to stop me."
  #82  
Old 02-13-2020, 10:00 AM
PitJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorsnak View Post
The problem here is where the message is coming from. If I, as someone sympathetic to trans issues and who will use whatever pronouns I'm asked to, because what's the big fricken deal to me anyways, counsel a trans person to stop whining and get over the outside world not always using your preferred pronouns, because as oppression goes it's rather weak tea, that's one thing. If the person who refuses to use the preferred pronouns says that, it means something rather different. In the end, the whole pronoun issue is just one of whether or not to be an asshole. People who insist on addressing others in ways those others would prefer they didn't are assholes, because it's no real burden to address them as they prefer. While it's true that non-preferred forms of address aren't a huge deal compared to, say, imprisonment or lynching or whatever, it's still being an asshole. So if the asshole who refuses to address a person as that person prefers justifies their assholery by saying it's no big deal, stop whining and buck up because the world isn't fair, etc, that's not good advise about how to deal with assholes, it's just saying, "Hey, I'm going to be an asshole to you and there's nothing you can do to stop me."

If you re-read your post, don't you think it is a bit too black and white? According to you, if I refuse to address a gender confused person or however this could be described with a pronoun that is wrong from their side but right for me as from visuals I decide to which of the two existing (!) genders that person belongs, I am automatically an asshole? This is just like too many other persons commenting on the web. "You don't share my opinion so you are an asshole." That stance is so wrong, and it is at the same time proving exactly what I mean. Stop whining, and if you are really convinced about your gender identity, be satisfied - why do you need others to confirm?

I forgive you calling me an asshole, however - maybe you acknowledge with your next comment that the world has more opinions than assholes.
  #83  
Old 02-13-2020, 11:09 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitJ View Post
According to you, if I refuse to address a gender confused person or however this could be described with a pronoun that is wrong from their side but right for me as from visuals I decide to which of the two existing (!) genders that person belongs, I am automatically an asshole?
Jumping in here as it's a little unclear in your hypothetical whether you know how someone wants to be addressed.
It's OK to get it wrong once, we all make mistakes. But once someone has told you, yeah, it's rude to ignore their preference. It doesn't make you an asshole in itself, we'd need more examples, but it's consistent with the behavior of an asshole.

It's like if I call someone "Bill", and they say they prefer "William", and I just say "So anyway, Bill..."
What does that make me?

Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
  #84  
Old 02-13-2020, 11:19 AM
PitJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Jumping in here as it's a little unclear in your hypothetical whether you know how someone wants to be addressed.
It's OK to get it wrong once, we all make mistakes. But once someone has told you, yeah, it's rude to ignore their preference. It doesn't make you an asshole in itself, we'd need more examples, but it's consistent with the behavior of an asshole.

It's like if I call someone "Bill", and they say they prefer "William", and I just say "So anyway, Bill..."
What does that make me?

Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
Thank you for pointing this out. Surely I would be polite enough to use the epiphet someone tells or asks me to use for him. But I refuse to ask everybody first about any pronoun preference, and I also refuse to cover all possible form of gender or not in public speech. For me, "Ladies and Gentlemen" suffices.

Also I refuse to go where I think it is ridiculous. If a fat bearded guy in a lumberjack outfit would ask me to call him Ms, that would be a no-go.
  #85  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:07 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitJ View Post
Thank you for pointing this out. Surely I would be polite enough to use the epiphet someone tells or asks me to use for him. But I refuse to ask everybody first about any pronoun preference, and I also refuse to cover all possible form of gender or not in public speech. For me, "Ladies and Gentlemen" suffices.



Also I refuse to go where I think it is ridiculous. If a fat bearded guy in a lumberjack outfit would ask me to call him Ms, that would be a no-go.
For me, I would try to call them by whatever appellation or pronoun they asked me to use. But if they asked me if I saw them as "woman", I would probably tell them I am not there yet with that. Maybe I would one day. But the beard and lumberjack outfit would make it difficult.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
__________________
What the hell is a signature?
  #86  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:13 PM
RingsOfPylon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 161
I like JP although sometimes he can get preachy. I wish he would stop throwing post-modernism into everything. Yes, it's a sham and we all know it, but it doesn't need to be invoked 10 times per hour and repeated ad nauseum.

In general, Peterson has a very interesting take on things. I've enjoyed some of his non-political lectures.

He has a fascination with how societies seem to collectively go insane (or evil), which results in things like the Holocaust and the Soviet gulags and Mao's forced labor camps. I guess we all wonder about that on some level. He's at a loss to explain it; however, there are plenty of examples of similar phenomena in different ages and in different parts of the world. It seems to be built into human capacity and the question is how to see it early and how to stop it before it becomes sheer madness.

I think Peterson is correct in that we all like to envision ourselves as heroic saints, but very few of us are saints and chances are that we would cave the very minute the storm troopers showed up at the door and hauled our families away to be tortured and starved for our rebelliousness.

It's one thing to sacrifice yourself; it's entirely something else when others are sacrificed as a direct result of your activity. You'd think twice about it to avoid putting even more innocents into the crosshairs.

The whole thing is psychological warfare and, as a psychologist, it must be a fascinating phenomenon to contemplate. There are plenty of historical examples. These things happened in varying degrees throughout history. It is technology, large armies, and global involvement that made it possible to see such previously unseen horrors and their unimaginable scale.

Peterson's self-authoring and self-help books are based on sound behavioral and cognitive principles. If you're a bit of a wreck, then starting out with a small and manageable goal will build your ability to take on bigger things. It's a process, not an event. Every time a success is achieved, no matter how small and simple it appears to be, it builds confidence in the ability to take on more significant tasks. We may know this on an intuitive level, but you sometimes just need a push to get started.
  #87  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:13 PM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,472
Speaking just for myself, when someone with a chainsaw asks me to do something my general policy is to comply.
  #88  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:27 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 871
He's the incel equivalent of Gwyneth Paltrow. His lobster woo and other mythic truth nonsense are like jade eggs.
  #89  
Old 02-13-2020, 01:45 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitJ View Post
His criticism of the gender pronoun issue highlights one of my points above. He says "people feel oppressed if they feel they are not addressed with the right pronoun. So what if they are? Everybody is oppressed in some way. Stop whining and get over it! Plus, stop oppressing others with your need for your personal pronoun. There are more important things in life." Pressuring people into some specific language because of someone else's windchill oppression is a sort of language fascism which he detests. I wholeheartedly agree.
So, a transperson being addressed by the wrong pronoun just needs to "get over it," but a cisperson being required to respect someone's pronouns is experiencing "language fascism?"

Seems a bit of a double standard, there.
  #90  
Old 02-13-2020, 02:33 PM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitJ View Post
His criticism of the gender pronoun issue highlights one of my points above. He says "people feel oppressed if they feel they are not addressed with the right pronoun. So what if they are? Everybody is oppressed in some way. Stop whining and get over it! Plus, stop oppressing others with your need for your personal pronoun. There are more important things in life." Pressuring people into some specific language because of someone else's windchill oppression is a sort of language fascism which he detests. I wholeheartedly agree.

Do you prefer I call you PitJ or is it fine if the entire board just calls you Shithead?
  #91  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:08 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
So, a transperson being addressed by the wrong pronoun just needs to "get over it," but a cisperson being required to respect someone's pronouns is experiencing "language fascism?"

Seems a bit of a double standard, there.
Tragedy is when I stub my toe. Comedy is when you fall down a manhole and break your leg.
  #92  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:18 PM
ZipperJJ's Avatar
ZipperJJ is offline
Just Lovely and Delicious
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 25,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitJ View Post
Thank you for pointing this out. Surely I would be polite enough to use the epiphet someone tells or asks me to use for him. But I refuse to ask everybody first about any pronoun preference, and I also refuse to cover all possible form of gender or not in public speech. For me, "Ladies and Gentlemen" suffices.

Also I refuse to go where I think it is ridiculous. If a fat bearded guy in a lumberjack outfit would ask me to call him Ms, that would be a no-go.
I'm not familiar with Peterson's full opinions of gender pronouns but think of it this way...

The trans/non-binary population is very small. It is very rare that in the course of a day a cis person will find themselves in a situation that requires "uncomfortable" or "odd" use of pronouns. Even if you work or live with a trans person, you spend almost all of your time not having to deal with their names and pronouns.

For the trans/non-binary person themselves, they are always the odd person out. Always. They are always a trans/non-binary person. They are always in situations where people confuse their pronouns or names. Always being reminded that they're "not quite.." whatever, or that people "know their secret" or that people find them uncomfortable to be around. From the gym to work to the gas station to the grocery store to a restaurant, it's all day every day, everywhere.

Who has the path of least resistance to getting over it? For whom might it be easier to change their habits? Who's life is least affected by making a small change?

What most people call "political correctness" is really just basic decency with a dash of empathy.
  #93  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:35 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitJ View Post
If you re-read your post, don't you think it is a bit too black and white? According to you, if I refuse to address a gender confused person or however this could be described with a pronoun that is wrong from their side but right for me as from visuals I decide to which of the two existing (!) genders that person belongs, I am automatically an asshole? This is just like too many other persons commenting on the web. "You don't share my opinion so you are an asshole." That stance is so wrong, and it is at the same time proving exactly what I mean. Stop whining, and if you are really convinced about your gender identity, be satisfied - why do you need others to confirm?

I forgive you calling me an asshole, however - maybe you acknowledge with your next comment that the world has more opinions than assholes.
Awww… without him even asking you to?
  #94  
Old 02-14-2020, 08:13 AM
PitJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
Do you prefer I call you PitJ or is it fine if the entire board just calls you Shithead?
Dear Snarky_Kong,

1. Following the logic prevailing on this board you should stick to my original user name.

2. I don't really care how you call me but let us stay civilized. Insulting others on an anonymous board is not only wrong and impolite, it is also cowardly. I don't call you names in return since I don't know you.

3. By the way: Who made you speaker of this board?

Best regards
PitJ
  #95  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:20 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitJ View Post
Dear Snarky_Kong,

1. Following the logic prevailing on this board you should stick to my original user name.

2. I don't really care how you call me but let us stay civilized. Insulting others on an anonymous board is not only wrong and impolite, it is also cowardly. I don't call you names in return since I don't know you.

3. By the way: Who made you speaker of this board?

Best regards
PitJ
You really put him in his place. Well done you.

Now perhaps you can leverage your position from the moral high ground to address Miller's response just one post above Snarky's?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #96  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:53 AM
PitJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
… Now perhaps you can leverage your position from the moral high ground to address Miller's response just one post above Snarky's?
The moral high ground is not on the top of my priority list but you are right, I have failed to answer Miller. This was perhaps because I thought I had made my point clear a bit further up, where I said:

Thank you for pointing this out. Surely I would be polite enough to use the epiphet someone tells or asks me to use for him. But I refuse to ask everybody first about any pronoun preference, and I also refuse to cover all possible form of gender or not in public speech. For me, "Ladies and Gentlemen" suffices.

Have a nice weekend
PitJ
  #97  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:16 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitJ View Post
Thank you for pointing this out. Surely I would be polite enough to use the epiphet someone tells or asks me to use for him. But I refuse to ask everybody first about any pronoun preference, and I also refuse to cover all possible form of gender or not in public speech. For me, "Ladies and Gentlemen" suffices.

Have a nice weekend
PitJ
So if asked to change the pronoun you would use towards a specific individual, you would comply. But you "refuse" to do so when addressing a larger audience? Why, if I may ask? Is there a specific rule or law with respect to addressing a large congregation that requires you to say, "Ladies and Gentlemen..."? What's wrong with, "Good morning! Thank you all for coming..."

My point isn't that the use of the common address, "Ladies and Gentlemen", should be prohibited. My point is that its conventional usage, if abandoned, would not make society or communication between speaker and audience any worse.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 02-14-2020 at 10:18 AM.
  #98  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:50 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,518
Peterson first came to my attention when he started to criticise amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and to the Criminal Code. The amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act added gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination, while the âmendment to the Criminal Code added gender identity to the grounds protected by the hate speech offences.

As far as I can tell, that’s when Peterson started his “forced pronouns” campaign. The thing is, though, there’s nothing in those amendments that talk about pronouns. The main reason for adding gender identity to the Human Rights Act was to protect trans people’s right to hold down a job without risk of being fired, to get accommodation without discrimination, and to exercise their professions without distinction based on gender identity. Those are pretty substantial protections, to meet a real need: trans people have been denied housing and have run into employment issues, because of their gender identity. Those amendments were to meet a substantive need, not about pronouns.

And yet that’s what Peterson jumped on: not that the amendments were to protect other people’s right to live their lives, hold down jobs and have housing. His beef was that the law affected him! Not because he hires people, or is a landlord, but because of “forced pronoun usage”! “Free speech violation!” “Political correctness gone crazy!”

So there are some problems with his take on the law. For one thing, the pronoun issue, if it really is an issue, is a pretty small part of it. His approach really trivialises an important change in the law, by focusing on such a minor issue, as if the amendments were all about pronouns.

Second, the amendments were to the federal human rights code. Peterson is employed by a provincial university, under provincial law. The amendments to the federal Act therefore do not apply to him, full stop.

Third, he has said that if a student approached him, explained the pronouns that student preferred and why, he would be willing to use those pronouns, as a result of that personal interaction. But that’s exactly how the human rights law is meant to work, if it extends to pronouns at all: reasonable accommodation of individual requests. If Professor Peterson in fact followed that approach, he would be in full compliance with the spirit and purpose of the Act (if it applies to pronouns at all).

These points have been made by defenders of the amendments, many times, publicly. And yet as far as I know, Professor Peterson continues to ride the “pronoun-forced speech” hobby horse.

Why is that?

So I’m afraid i don’t see Professor Peterson as a brave insightful critic. His comments on the law are completely over-blown and ideological, and are not based on the actual law, only his exaggerated, incorrect take on it. If he is that wrong on this area, I assume he is equally wrong in other areas.

(The Peterson criticism of the amendment to the hate speech offences, about how he could go to jail for using the wrong pronouns, is even more strained. The Supreme Court has held that those provisions only apply to the most extreme cases, where speech is used to de-humanise people by their personal characteristics. Things like calling for ethnic genocide, for gays to be killed, for the forced expatriation of people because of their ethnic background. Pronoun usage does not rise to that strict standard.)
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #99  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:33 PM
Derleth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZipperJJ View Post
What most people call "political correctness" is really just basic decency with a dash of empathy.
In this case (pronouns) it certainly is. Once it gets into things like the kinds of stuff FIRE complains about more people begin to have a problem, and rightfully so. Pronouns are a horrible example of the speech codes which need to be fought because they're a great example of how you can be polite to someone in a way which is meaningful to them and not harmful for you. However, when a school punishes you for holding up a sign asking others to talk about their opinions on legalizing weed, I think we can agree that something's gone very wrong in the campaign to reduce the incidence of people acting like dillholes.

The thing to watch out for here is Motte-and-Bailey argumentation:
Quote:
Motte and bailey (MAB) is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches between a "motte" (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as "culture shapes our experiences") and a "bailey" (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as "cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge") in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended.

In short: instead of defending a weak position (the "bailey"), the arguer retreats to a strong position (the "motte"), while acting as though the positions are equivalent. When the motte has been accepted (or found impenetrable) by an opponent, the arguer continues to believe (and perhaps promote) the bailey.

[snip]

A TERF may argue that people who identify as trans women are actually just predatory men trying to infiltrate women's spaces. When criticized or trying to defend themselves, they may state that they merely think gender is based on socialization.
So:

Motte: "I should be able to say potentially offensive things without being legally prosecuted."
Bailey: "I should be able to say transphobic things without any consequences at all."

Motte: "Speech codes are needed to protect minorities from speech which makes them feel unwelcome."
Bailey: "Speech codes are needed to regulate all speech the management dislikes."
  #100  
Old 02-14-2020, 05:00 PM
dorvann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 914
As for whether not Jordan Peterson is "alt-right" I would like to point out that a main proponent of the "alt-right", Vox Day, wrote a whole book criticizing Peterson and his "philosophy".

https://www.amazon.com/Jordanetics-J...1717621&sr=8-7

Last edited by dorvann; 02-14-2020 at 05:02 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017