Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-14-2020, 04:13 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitJ View Post
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
That doesn't even remotely address my comment.
  #102  
Old 02-14-2020, 05:05 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorvann View Post
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
The alt-right is not a monolithic group. They disagree all the time. It part of their strength, as it allows any part to deny they are connected with any other part. What you have to do is look at their audience, and how well respected they are in the alt-right community.

Peterson has a huge alt-right audience, and is highly respected in the alt-right community. He is part of what is commonly called the "Intellectual Dark Web," which is where people spreading hateful ideologies claim that they are being censored. Any time you encounter someone on the right who talks about how "They don't want you to know this," they're generally part of the IDW.

The IDW and other "alt-lite" setups may not be as explicitly alt-right, but they do have a tunneling effect. The fandom is largely alt-right, and simply watching content that promotes these guys will mean that you will get more alt-right stuff recommended to you, and not the stuff that debunks them. So you get pulled further in.

The above isn't idle speculation. This effect has been studied by sociologists, because the way it is growing is not as expected. Unfortunately, the best summary I know is in the form of a video presentation to academics, and the best layman's summary is by the same guy in a formatted video.

The fact is, Peterson has a high alt-right fanbase who interpret what he says in alt-right ways, and he does not actually disavow them. He'll disavow "white nationalism," but the alt-right did the whole renaming thing so that white nationalism isn't what they claim to be.

And, given how NP has shown that his whole initial rise was predicated on a falsehood, it's pretty easy to believe that he's aware and knowingly doing this. When he pretends that he's being forced to use specific pronouns for trans people or lose his job, he's already lying to find a sympathetic audience.
  #103  
Old 02-14-2020, 05:34 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,276
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.
And this is a perfect encapsulation of why his arguments are bad. First off, it's self-defeating: if the pronoun thing is no big deal, then why does it offend him so much? A rational person says "This is not a big deal to me, but it's a big deal to them, so I will do what they want." The irrational person says "This shouldn't be a big deal to them because it isn't a big deal to me, so I won't do what they want."

Of course, the claim that it's not a big deal is false--that is just what he thinks. But he's not transgender. To a trans person, using the wrong pronoun is misgendering, and causes dysphoria. The whole reason a trans person transitions is because it allows them to stop being misgendered, which helps with their dysphoria.

And, well, if you want to use the wrong pronouns, it's an indication of something deeper. It's not just that you used the wrong pronoun--it's that you reject that trans people even exist. And, if they don't actually exist, then they don't need rights.

I ultimately don't call a trans woman "she" because she wants me to, but because I accept that she is female, as all the science on gender and sex shows. The "basic politeness" is the argument you tell bigots to get them started, because, once they use the right language, they tend to also start being open to new ideas. Get Uncle Bob to stop saying the n-word, and it becomes easier for him to accept black people.

And, finally, any argument based on "There are worse things in the world" is a bad argument. There are always worse things in the world. That doesn't mean that you can't deal with less bad things. The answer is not "don't do anything about it," as that just keeps us stuck where we are.

He clearly believes in fighting oppression, as he styles himself as being oppressed because trans people want him to use the correct pronouns and accept that they are real. And he fights that "oppression." But he doesn't afford that right to others. Others should just shut up and "stop whining."

I may have sympathy over the benzo thing, but none of that means I give a pass for shitty logic that occurred before all that. Bully logic isn't good logic. Good logic ironically results in people caring about the feelings of others. It's rational.
  #104  
Old 02-14-2020, 05:51 PM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
And, given how NP has shown that his whole initial rise was predicated on a falsehood, it's pretty easy to believe that he's aware and knowingly doing this. When he pretends that he's being forced to use specific pronouns for trans people or lose his job, he's already lying to find a sympathetic audience.
I remember the time he wanted to dedicate a website to the curating of lists of courses and professors that he believed contributed to the downfall of society (Black/Gender/Women's studies, English lit., Antro, philosophy, etc.).

U of T prof’s proposed website would target professors teaching women’s and ethnic studies
Quote:
The proposed new site — once under development but currently on hold — is an “information website,” Peterson told the Star on Friday.

In a video from a meeting of U of T’s Students in Support of Free Speech in June, Peterson said the website would enable students to enter university course descriptions, as well as professors’ names, disciplines and places of work, to find out if the course was in what he judges to be a “corrupt” discipline, and then decide for themselves whether they want to take the course and “become a social justice warrior.”
Get it? He's asking his followers to report local "SJW" academics to him so that he can gather and publish their names/info. Free speech Peterson. He ultimately had to nix the idea due to the clear harassing nature of it.

He instead started his own unaccredited "online university" from which he continues to bilk cash from his followers today (one of his many grifting scams).

Last edited by orcenio; 02-14-2020 at 05:55 PM.
  #105  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:13 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,709
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.
Just curious about how far you take this.

Suppose a university professor habitually addresses black students in his class as "n________s", Jewish students as "k_____s", East Asian students as "ch______s", and gay students as "f___s."

And suppose the university starts professional discipline proceedings against the professor.

Would that be the "language fascism" which you detest?

Or is it only when "gender confused" people (your phrase, not mine) ask that certain terms not be used that they should just shut up and deal with it?
  #106  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:32 PM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
He instead started his own unaccredited "online university" from which he continues to bilk cash from his followers today (one of his many grifting scams).
In the linked article they show a screen shot of his Patreon account with $56,000 a month income. Hate speech sells -- or wins you presidencies.
  #107  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:55 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
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.
More curiosity on my part : puddleglum, who are the"most evil people in the world" who are ganging up on Dr Peterson?

By way of comparison, here's one web-site's take on the 10 most evil people in world history: https://wealthygorilla.com/most-evil-people-history/

All but one are dead, but they all racked up scary kill lists. So I'm wondering who is the modern day, living equivalents, the "most evil people" who are threatening Dr Peterson?

Last edited by Northern Piper; 02-14-2020 at 10:55 PM.
  #108  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:06 PM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
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!”
Is it that or because it sells with the angry white men?

I hadn't paid that much attention to him before. One Canadian guy (of a similar age as him) in one of my real life groups had linked a post to a YouTube video of him and I only watched enough to get turned off.

After reading this thread, I looked a bit online and watched a bit more of him, including the clip a linked to previously about Hitler and how the crowd and Hitler feed off of each other, making the progression to gas chambers sound like natural progression.

I don't see Peterson as the next Hitler or as a neo-Nazi, but he is far too much of an expert for him to not be aware of the dynamics at play.
  #109  
Old 02-15-2020, 11:01 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,804
It seems to me that JP has managed to monetize and exploit the white nationalists, misogynists, incels and various other dregs of society. All with a, "Gosh, who me? Don't get me wrong!..." act that gives those who support him the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability.

Given the news of his seriously declining health, I'm guessing his 15 minutes of infamy are coming to an end. May his contributions be relegated to the dustbin of bad ideas throughout history.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #110  
Old 02-15-2020, 11:11 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by PitJ View Post
I think that voices like his should be heard as they complete the picture.
Voices like his that argue dishonestly from false premises complete the picture? I guess they do complete a picture.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #111  
Old 02-15-2020, 11:20 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,122
When I listen to Jordan Peterson, I am strongly reminded of another moralizing grifter who liked to pound the table about the primacy of male personal responsibility, except Peterson has adjusted his pitch for the self-congratulating "facts and logic" crowd. People went nuts over him as a male role model until he ended up convicted of drugging and raping a number of women.

I am of course talking about Bill Cosby here. That's who Jordan Peterson reminds me of. Sit up straight, eat your vegetables, and what is "rape", really?
  #112  
Old 02-15-2020, 01:48 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Peterson has adjusted his pitch for the self-congratulating "facts and logic" crowd.
I resent that framing. Like most Dopers I'm a facts and logic evangelist and I think JP makes trivially debunkable claims when he speaks factually, and just plain old shite the rest of the time (eg fluffy talk about archetypes that's rarely linked to concrete claims).

Its more like the "tell it like it is" crowd; where telling it like it is is of course a good thing in the abstract, but we can all appreciate how that notion now seems to mean "say the offensive, bigoted thing out loud" to a large segment of the population.

Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
  #113  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:12 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
I resent that framing. Like most Dopers I'm a facts and logic evangelist
Are you honestly, earnestly unaware that right-wing pseudo-intellectuals have abused the "facts and logic" trope so severely that it's become a punchline meaning "sophistry and bullshit"? Go forth and resent Ben Shapiro; I didn't do it.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 02-15-2020 at 02:12 PM.
  #114  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:19 PM
iguanas.com is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
From what I've read of his ideas, he's a weird, sexist, pseudo-scientific ignoramus. Not surprising that he's apparently harmed himself with substance dependence and quackery.
you might get that impression if you do not actually watch one of his interviews and lectures and decide for yourself. or check 12 Rules For Life out of the library.
  #115  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:28 PM
iguanas.com is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 35
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.
(bolding added.) provide a source for this statement.

Last edited by iguanas.com; 02-15-2020 at 02:33 PM.
  #116  
Old 02-15-2020, 03:13 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Are you honestly, earnestly unaware that right-wing pseudo-intellectuals have abused the "facts and logic" trope so severely that it's become a punchline meaning "sophistry and bullshit"? Go forth and resent Ben Shapiro; I didn't do it.
Actually, yes. I don't live in the US, and while I am familiar with Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and... <swallows vomit from mouth>...Stephen Crowder, et al, I hadn't heard the expression "facts and logic" used this way before.

On googling, I see several results of the format "Ben Shapiro humiliates liberal with facts and logic!".

This is a terrible development. It's one thing for people unfamiliar with formal logic, skeptical thinking and what a "gish gallop" is, to not appreciate the flaws in Shapiro's arguments. But to have such a warped idea that you think what he does constitutes "facts and logic"...geez.
  #117  
Old 02-17-2020, 09:32 AM
PitJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Just curious about how far you take this.

Suppose a university professor habitually addresses black students in his class as "n________s", Jewish students as "k_____s", East Asian students as "ch______s", and gay students as "f___s."

And suppose the university starts professional discipline proceedings against the professor.

Would that be the "language fascism" which you detest?

Or is it only when "gender confused" people (your phrase, not mine) ask that certain terms not be used that they should just shut up and deal with it?
What? I mean, I do see a difference between a university professor openly insulting black people as n_____s, which is an offense punishable under law (at least where I live, as a derogatory term) and someone refusing to go through he/she/it or whatever prior to even knowing if there is anything the other side is valuing as their favorite form of address.

My point is that people are too eager to fall into preemptive self-censoring in order to be as correct as possible, and my impression is that this is at least partially so because of fear of being immediately shitstormed. That is the problem. And if I say I wouldn't preemptively use the "correct" form of address (note, I wouldn't do so if I learn from a specific person how to be addressed), well, someone further up already called me shithead which proves my point to a certain extent.
  #118  
Old 02-17-2020, 10:10 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by iguanas.com View Post
you might get that impression if you do not actually watch one of his interviews and lectures and decide for yourself. or check 12 Rules For Life out of the library.
His 12 Rules For Life are trite and somewhat dated, but not objectionable. They are also not (typically) what earns JP his criticism. Thus, asking, 'What's wrong with JP telling kids and parents to first clean their room?', is entirely missing the point.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #119  
Old 02-17-2020, 10:22 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
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.
How can you have a double standard when the two situations aren't even remotely the same and only one party is subject to potential legal compulsion? That's not a double standard, those are two very different things. I wouldn't misuse "fascism" here but it certainly is authoritarian. There is no right to not be offended and that is the only inherent harm alleged from a legal standpoint by someone who is misgendered. Also, I've always found the argument that someone has the right to co-opt another person's freedom of action or speech to fulfill some claimed right of their own, whether a general "right" to be addressed as they prefer or a "right" to be sold birth control, to be incredibly narcissistic and unsupportable logically, morally, or legally.
  #120  
Old 02-18-2020, 12:33 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Just curious about how far you take this.

Suppose a university professor habitually addresses black students in his class as "n________s", Jewish students as "k_____s", East Asian students as "ch______s", and gay students as "f___s."

And suppose the university starts professional discipline proceedings against the professor.

Would that be the "language fascism" which you detest?

Or is it only when "gender confused" people (your phrase, not mine) ask that certain terms not be used that they should just shut up and deal with it?
Once again, and I believe it was you that raised a similar argument in the GQ Canada Hate Speech thread, you are trying to compare epithets and slurs which are inherently inappropriate in virtually every social or professional context with terms (gender terms) which are offensive only in the subjective opinion of the listener and perfectly appropriate in other contexts. Those are in no way legally or logically comparable.

And the problem has nothing to do with the particulars of addressing transgender persons and everything to do with Compelled Speech, which is exactly how Peterson characterized it. He made it quite clear in numerous interviews that he had no problem addressing people by their requested gender language but objected to a legal compulsion to do so as well as potentially being obligated to use pronouns beyond the binary.

The fact is, he was correct that because C-16 added gender identity and orientation to the CHRA and because the Ontario Human Rights Commission considers misgendering to be a form of discrimination and harassment, then it was entirely possible that Peterson or someone similarly situated could find themselves bearing the costs of defending themselves in front of the Tribunal and facing a financial penalty for failing to address someone by their preferred gender pronouns. And he was also correct that the University that employed him could also face legal penalties due to vicarious liability.

Peterson's critics not only admit that this is the case regarding the Tribunal but then disingenuously attempt to downplay the implications, and all while accusing Peterson of misunderstanding the legal issues at hand. For instance, they counter that if he was found guilty by that body then his actions would be found to be "illegal" but not "criminal" and thus he would face only financial penalties (and of course the cost of his defense) rather than imprisonment. As if those distinctions, while accurate, in any way render Peterson's claims false or inconsequential.

So he was absolutely correct that this has the potential to become an instance of Compelled Speech and he was correct that such a thing is unheard of in the history of the Common Law (or at least the modern history). And because it could involve an illegal act consisting solely of speech (opinion no less, an important legal distinction) and where the harm alleged consists solely of the offense (in this case, subjective offense) felt by the object of the speech, then it would tick all the boxes and be a Hate Speech Law in everything but name.

So let me ask you some questions which, in all honesty, are much more legally relevant than yours (no offense intended, but c'mon, that was bush league). If someone referred to another person as a "midget" or "dwarf" when they prefer to be referred to as a "little person" should that be legally actionable in your opinion? What if someone was referred to as "black" when they prefer "African-American"? Or what if someone was referred to as "African-American" and they prefer "black" because they are from the Caribbean? If any or all of these should not be legally actionable then what legal principle compels that different outcome?

Lastly, such laws are also worrying because they to some extent replace the objective standard of the reasonable person with the subjective offense of the person who is the object of the speech in question. That is also a significant departure from Common Law norms and principles.
  #121  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:09 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
It always amazes me when some cited expert's credentials (particularly educational) are unassailable when someone agrees with their position and inconsequential when they don't. With that in mind, Peterson's credentials are pretty impressive. So for those who believe Peterson or his opinions are lacking in intelligence, how do you reconcile that with his not only having a PhD in psychology from one elite world university (McGill) but conducting his post-doctoral fellowship there before going on to teach at two more elite world universities (Harvard and University of Toronto)?
  #122  
Old 02-18-2020, 02:09 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
It always amazes me when some cited expert's credentials (particularly educational) are unassailable when someone agrees with their position and inconsequential when they don't. With that in mind, Peterson's credentials are pretty impressive. So for those who believe Peterson or his opinions are lacking in intelligence, how do you reconcile that with his not only having a PhD in psychology from one elite world university (McGill) but conducting his post-doctoral fellowship there before going on to teach at two more elite world universities (Harvard and University of Toronto)?
My bolding.

Is there anyone here who believes his opinions come from a lack of intelligence? Can you find that in this thread? If so, please show me.

Highly intelligent people can people can believe very stupid or even crazy things. That happens all the time.

The ideas need to be debated on their merits. What do you think about them?
  #123  
Old 02-18-2020, 10:20 AM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,404
CANADA’S GENDER IDENTITY RIGHTS BILL C-16 EXPLAINED
Quote:
Bill C-16 added the words “gender identity or expression” to three places.

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

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

Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If there’s evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
For Petersonites Canadian law will be a hyperbolic discussion about SJW authoritarianism so its good to ground everything in reality by simply stating what C-16 is from Canadian legal scholars and leave it at that. Don't let the rhetoric drown out reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
It always amazes me when some cited expert's credentials (particularly educational) are unassailable when someone agrees with their position and inconsequential when they don't. With that in mind, Peterson's credentials are pretty impressive. So for those who believe Peterson or his opinions are lacking in intelligence, how do you reconcile that with his not only having a PhD in psychology from one elite world university (McGill) but conducting his post-doctoral fellowship there before going on to teach at two more elite world universities (Harvard and University of Toronto)?
I think many of his views are bunk and find him to be a dangerous grifter and snake oil salesman who preys on the emotional vulnerabilities of earnestly aimless people. However I'm willing to cede that he is not an idiot. An idiot couldn't become such a successful predator (and Peterson is very successful at eating-well off of his enthralled supporters).

Its not his intellect, but his judgment, that I heavily question. Its sad that neither he (nor his legion of admirers) put a fraction of skeptical challenge in JBP's judgement. If anything, let this latest current event be a damning testimony of JBP's poor poor judgement.

Last edited by orcenio; 02-18-2020 at 10:23 AM.
  #124  
Old 02-18-2020, 11:27 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
My bolding.

Is there anyone here who believes his opinions come from a lack of intelligence? Can you find that in this thread? If so, please show me.

Highly intelligent people can people can believe very stupid or even crazy things. That happens all the time.

The ideas need to be debated on their merits. What do you think about them?
Have you actually read the rest of the thread?

iiandyiiii

From what I've read of his ideas, he's a weird, sexist, pseudo-scientific ignoramus. Not surprising that he's apparently harmed himself with substance dependence and quackery.

nearwildheaven

Jordan Peterson is a nutcase, pure and simple.

Bill Door

Yeah, but his solutions are clear and simple, and that has an undeniable appeal to people who aren't smart enough to see the flaws in them. I don't think he's a nutcase, I think he's a conman who knows how to appeal to suckers and thereby get rich. Like Dr. Phil, or Rush Limbaugh.

So here we have Peterson referred to as "pseudo-scientific ignoramus" while offering no debate on the merits of his ideas and seemingly ignoring his credentials as, you know, an actual scientist. We also have the bare assertions that he is a "nutcase" and a "conman" once again without debating his ideas on their merit. None of those really scream an endorsement of Peterson's intelligence do they?

And highly intelligent people can indeed be wrong or even have crazy ideas. It most often occurs however when such people venture beyond their area of expertise and much of Peterson's work is tied directly to psychology, which is his area of expertise. I would also take issue with it happening "all the time" for most definitions of the phrase. It may happen fairly frequently but certainly not to a degree that it is a likely outcome let alone anything resembling a default presumption.

And Peterson has hundreds of hours of his ideas and opinions available for public consumption. If you actually want to begin discussing his ideas on their merits, as others have failed to do so far, then maybe you could narrow it down a bit.
  #125  
Old 02-18-2020, 11:59 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
CANADA’S GENDER IDENTITY RIGHTS BILL C-16 EXPLAINEDFor Petersonites Canadian law will be a hyperbolic discussion about SJW authoritarianism so its good to ground everything in reality by simply stating what C-16 is from Canadian legal scholars and leave it at that. Don't let the rhetoric drown out reality.
I think many of his views are bunk and find him to be a dangerous grifter and snake oil salesman who preys on the emotional vulnerabilities of earnestly aimless people. However I'm willing to cede that he is not an idiot. An idiot couldn't become such a successful predator (and Peterson is very successful at eating-well off of his enthralled supporters).

Its not his intellect, but his judgment, that I heavily question. Its sad that neither he (nor his legion of admirers) put a fraction of skeptical challenge in JBP's judgement. If anything, let this latest current event be a damning testimony of JBP's poor poor judgement.
I'm basing my legal analysis of Peterson's free speech arguments on my own knowledge and education, not on the opinions of his fans or critics. And you seem to be failing to make the connection between C-16 and the operation of the Ontario Human Rights Commission/Tribunal. See one of the things you learn in law school, whether in the US or Canada or any Common Law country, is that citing just the text of a law is fairly meaningless. That is just the first step in statutory analysis and not even close to the final one.

The language of a law is only meaningful when you see how courts (or other, similar institutions eg. Commissions and Tribunals) have interpreted that language. And when you cite "legal experts" (the three in your linked article) do you for some reason believe that represents the unanimous opinion of all the relevant legal scholars on the issue? And did you miss the part in your linked article where those experts acknowledged that Peterson could face a monetary penalty (and once again, the costs of his defense, even if found to not be liable)? How about where his stance was again disingenuously characterized as based on a misunderstanding of the law and that any financial injury assessed under the law is inconsequential because he wouldn't face imprisonment?

And I'm trained as a lawyer. I'm reflexively skeptical of just about everything. Maybe more of Peterson's critics should be skeptical of their own conclusions, opinions, and ability to comprehend his ideas when his credentials far outweigh the vast majority of human beings on Earth including those critics.

As an example, how is this possibly conclusive evidence of Peterson's poor judgement? Should he have overridden the judgement of his doctor(s)? Anticipated the rare reaction he experienced? Where does Peterson's judgement factor into those and where did it fail? Was it when he suffered from depression when his wife was, I believe, diagnosed with terminal cancer? How classy on your part
  #126  
Old 02-18-2020, 12:07 PM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,548
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
Wrong to call you by a name you don't prefer, but right to call a trans person by a name they don't prefer.

Hmm.
  #127  
Old 02-18-2020, 12:53 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly
How can you have a double standard when the two situations aren't even remotely the same and only one party is subject to potential legal compulsion?
What legal repercussion has Peterson endured as a result of his refusal to refer to someone by their preferred gender?

Quote:
Once again, and I believe it was you that raised a similar argument in the GQ Canada Hate Speech thread, you are trying to compare epithets and slurs which are inherently inappropriate in virtually every social or professional context with terms (gender terms) which are offensive only in the subjective opinion of the listener and perfectly appropriate in other contexts. Those are in no way legally or logically comparable.

And the problem has nothing to do with the particulars of addressing transgender persons and everything to do with Compelled Speech, which is exactly how Peterson characterized it. He made it quite clear in numerous interviews that he had no problem addressing people by their requested gender language but objected to a legal compulsion to do so as well as potentially being obligated to use pronouns beyond the binary.
Slurs and epithets are worse than misgendering, sure... but if someone is punished for using a slur instead of an acceptable, non-slur identifier, is that not still an example of "compelled speech?" There is, as you pointed out, "no right not to be offended," so why are you drawing a distinction between different types of insulting terminology?

Quote:
It always amazes me when some cited expert's credentials (particularly educational) are unassailable when someone agrees with their position and inconsequential when they don't. With that in mind, Peterson's credentials are pretty impressive. So for those who believe Peterson or his opinions are lacking in intelligence, how do you reconcile that with his not only having a PhD in psychology from one elite world university (McGill) but conducting his post-doctoral fellowship there before going on to teach at two more elite world universities (Harvard and University of Toronto)?
This guy is a neurosurgeon. As much as we like to pretend otherwise, advanced degrees are not necessarily indicative of significant intelligence. All the degrees in the world won't make something like this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan Peterson
I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period
...not be completely fucking stupid.
  #128  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:01 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,456
Some of JP's most idiotic statements (gathered from here):

"[H]ere's the problem, I know how to stand up to a man who's, who's, uh, unfairly trespassing against me, and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. Right? Like, if we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is. Okay, that's forbidden in, in discourse with women, and so I don't think that men can control crazy women. I — I really don't believe it. I think that they have to throw their hands up in, in, in, in what?, in, in, it's not even disbelief, it's the cultural — there's no step forward that you can take under those circumstances because if the man is offensive enough and crazy enough, the, the reaction becomes physical right away, or at least the threat is there."

"There was no equality for women before the birth control pill. It's completely insane to assume that anything like that could've possibly occurred. And the feminists think they produced a revolution in the 1960s that freed women. What freed women was the pill, and we'll see how that works out. There's some evidence that women on the pill don't like masculine men because of changes in hormonal balance. You can test a woman's preference in men. You can show them pictures of men and change the jaw width, and what you find is that women who aren't on the pill like wide-jawed men when they're ovulating, and they like narrow-jawed men when they're not, and the narrow-jawed men are less aggressive. Well all women on the pill are as if they're not ovulating, so it's possible that a lot of the antipathy that exists right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill. The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling."

"I don't think there is any evidence that women are systemically held back. Not in the West. I think we're past that by a decade."

On the cartoon film Frozen: "Frozen served a political purpose: to demonstrate that a woman did not need a man to be successful. Anything written to serve a political purpose (rather than to explore and create) is propaganda, not art.

Frozen was propaganda, pure and simple. Beauty and the Beast (the animated version) was not."
  #129  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:01 PM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
And I'm trained as a lawyer. I'm reflexively skeptical of just about everything. Maybe more of Peterson's critics should be skeptical of their own conclusions, opinions, and ability to comprehend his ideas when his credentials far outweigh the vast majority of human beings on Earth including those critics.

As an example, how is this possibly conclusive evidence of Peterson's poor judgement? Should he have overridden the judgement of his doctor(s)? Anticipated the rare reaction he experienced? Where does Peterson's judgement factor into those and where did it fail? Was it when he suffered from depression when his wife was, I believe, diagnosed with terminal cancer? How classy on your part
What can I say to that. Clearly my skepticism of JBP's motivations, actions, personal judgement, direct profiteering, and Canadian legal interpretations were unfounded.

I will also say that his followers are in no way so invested (emotionally and monetarily) in Peterson that it has prevented their ability/willingness to critically evaluate his actions and views in a routine, causal, or objective manner.

Unlike the majority of those other millionaire self-help gurus out there; JBP is no snake oil salesman, but the height of enlightened reason.

Last edited by orcenio; 02-18-2020 at 01:02 PM.
  #130  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:11 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,987
nm

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 02-18-2020 at 01:11 PM.
  #131  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:15 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Lastly, such laws are also worrying because they to some extent replace the objective standard of the reasonable person with the subjective offense of the person who is the object of the speech in question.
The bolded part made me Let's go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!

What a super-huge load of bullshit that is in just 7 words! Did you make that up and shit it out yourself, or did you have help?
  #132  
Old 02-18-2020, 01:26 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,987
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?
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
Wrong to call you by a name you don't prefer, but right to call a trans person by a name they don't prefer.

Hmm.
This is the best exchange in the entire thread.
  #133  
Old 02-18-2020, 02:39 PM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
And highly intelligent people can indeed be wrong or even have crazy ideas. It most often occurs however when such people venture beyond their area of expertise and much of Peterson's work is tied directly to psychology, which is his area of expertise. I would also take issue with it happening "all the time" for most definitions of the phrase. It may happen fairly frequently but certainly not to a degree that it is a likely outcome let alone anything resembling a default presumption.

And Peterson has hundreds of hours of his ideas and opinions available for public consumption. If you actually want to begin discussing his ideas on their merits, as others have failed to do so far, then maybe you could narrow it down a bit.
Since many of us are either ill informed or insufficiently impressed with JP's contributions to intellectual discourse, why don't you share what you believe to be some of his more notable contributions and we'll see if we can find some common areas of agreement.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #134  
Old 02-18-2020, 05:30 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
The bolded part made me Let's go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!

What a super-huge load of bullshit that is in just 7 words! Did you make that up and shit it out yourself, or did you have help?
Maybe you should start googling the term in a legal context so you can see how absolutely right I am and how monumentally stupid your response is.
  #135  
Old 02-18-2020, 05:41 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,987
HAHAHAHAHAHA You're hilarious! Are you actually a comedian, trying out new material here or what?

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch and there ain't no such thing as an objective standard for reasonableness. You can tell because any two people would need to agree on whether something is reasonable; that's not objective by definition. Even the description of the term requires at least one person to subjectively decide if something is reasonable.

So your term is stupid and hilarious, like I said, because it has no basis in reality.

Hey, why not try and convince me that "alternative facts" is a phrase with some meaning next?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 02-18-2020 at 05:42 PM.
  #136  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:37 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
What legal repercussion has Peterson endured as a result of his refusal to refer to someone by their preferred gender?
Did you miss the rather important qualifier "potentially" in that sentence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Slurs and epithets are worse than misgendering, sure... but if someone is punished for using a slur instead of an acceptable, non-slur identifier, is that not still an example of "compelled speech?" There is, as you pointed out, "no right not to be offended," so why are you drawing a distinction between different types of insulting terminology?
Do you really not see the difference between prohibiting a small set of words and compelling the use of only a similarly small set of words? And no, legally punishing someone for using a slur has nothing to do with Compelled Speech whatsoever. Why would you possibly think it would when the gov't did not compel the use of the slur? And once again, do you really not see the difference between a slur that is universally considered offensive and an ordinary word that is offensive only in a very specific, narrow context?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
As much as we like to pretend otherwise, advanced degrees are not necessarily indicative of significant intelligence. All the degrees in the world won't make something like this:



...not be completely fucking stupid.
I've already acknowledged that very intelligent people can hold dumb or even crazy opinions. And I live in a college town and my wife is a professor so you don't have to sell me on the idea that degrees don't necessarily correlate with intelligence. But not all degrees are equal are they? I find a degree from an elite institution to be stronger evidence of intelligence than one from a low-regarded one. I also find something like a doctorate in psychology to be stronger evidence of intelligence than a doctorate in the vast majority of the liberal arts. Finally, I think teaching at elite universities such as Harvard is stronger evidence of intelligence than a typical practice or teaching at a junior college.

There is a reasonable presumption that highly educated people with impressive credentials are going to be rational and even correct the vast majority of the time, especially within their area of expertise. It may be a rebuttable presumption but it's not like highly educated and otherwise intelligent people saying dumb or crazy things is anything more than a limited exception and not even close to the rule. I would think if saying crazy or dumb things was more the rule then it is the characterization of the person as intelligent or highly educated that is flawed.

All you are doing is rebutting the argument that no person who is highly intelligent or had advanced degrees ever says anything wrong, crazy, or stupid. An argument no one was making. If you want to characterize Peterson as someone who says stupid and crazy things then you'll need far more than cites of Ben Carson saying stupid things or just calling it stupid without anything further, especially when the speaker has credentials like Peterson. Have you even entertained the idea that maybe the former Harvard/University of Toronto Psychology Professor and researcher knows some things you don't or that you're just plain wrong?
  #137  
Old 02-18-2020, 07:02 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Did you miss the rather important qualifier "potentially" in that sentence?
So, none, then? How long ago was this law passed? How long does it have to stay on the books with Peterson facing zero repercussions before you can concede that his concerns were unfounded?

Quote:
Do you really not see the difference between prohibiting a small set of words and compelling the use of only a similarly small set of words? And no, legally punishing someone for using a slur has nothing to do with Compelled Speech whatsoever. Why would you possibly think it would when the gov't did not compel the use of the slur? And once again, do you really not see the difference between a slur that is universally considered offensive and an ordinary word that is offensive only in a very specific, narrow context?
There's a trans woman in Peterson's class. He wants to call her "him," but is (allegedly) prevented from doing so by government regulations. He has to call her "her."

There's a black guy in someone else's class - let's say David Duke, if he were a professor. Duke wants to call this guy a nigger, but is prevented from doing so by government regulations. He has to call him black, or African.

Other than "nigger" being more offensive than misgendering, how is the former an example of compelled speech, while the latter is not?

I'm not sure what the "narrow context" has to do with anything, here. Lots of terms are benign in one context, and offensive in another. The majority of uses of the term "fag" in the UK refer to cigarettes. Does that make the use of the term in reference to gay people okay? Would your problem with this issue disappear if we had more synonyms for pronouns?

Quote:
I've already acknowledged that very intelligent people can hold dumb or even crazy opinions. And I live in a college town and my wife is a professor so you don't have to sell me on the idea that degrees don't necessarily correlate with intelligence. But not all degrees are equal are they? I find a degree from an elite institution to be stronger evidence of intelligence than one from a low-regarded one. I also find something like a doctorate in psychology to be stronger evidence of intelligence than a doctorate in the vast majority of the liberal arts. Finally, I think teaching at elite universities such as Harvard is stronger evidence of intelligence than a typical practice or teaching at a junior college.

There is a reasonable presumption that highly educated people with impressive credentials are going to be rational and even correct the vast majority of the time, especially within their area of expertise. It may be a rebuttable presumption but it's not like highly educated and otherwise intelligent people saying dumb or crazy things is anything more than a limited exception and not even close to the rule. I would think if saying crazy or dumb things was more the rule then it is the characterization of the person as intelligent or highly educated that is flawed.

All you are doing is rebutting the argument that no person who is highly intelligent or had advanced degrees ever says anything wrong, crazy, or stupid. An argument no one was making. If you want to characterize Peterson as someone who says stupid and crazy things then you'll need far more than cites of Ben Carson saying stupid things or just calling it stupid without anything further, especially when the speaker has credentials like Peterson. Have you even entertained the idea that maybe the former Harvard/University of Toronto Psychology Professor and researcher knows some things you don't or that you're just plain wrong?
No, what I'm rebutting is your appeal to authority in asserting that, because Peterson has advanced degrees, he must therefore have good ideas. You haven't actually presented any of his good ideas, you've just insisted that, because he's got a PhD, he must therefore be smart. All the actual evidence in this thread - in the form of things hes actually said - indicate the opposite. Is it possible that I'm wrong? Sure. But you're going to have to do a lot more legwork than shouting "HARVARD!" to convince me that there's a direct line between my friend who uses ze/zer pronouns and has trouble coping when the local vegan restaurant is closed for the day, and Soviet Gulags.
  #138  
Old 02-18-2020, 07:34 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,156
In certain legal applications, there is an objective reasonableness standard, but transplanting it to this discussion is akin to quoting from the Uniform Commercial Code when faced with a traffic citation.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #139  
Old 02-18-2020, 07:48 PM
Gorsnak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
In certain legal applications, there is an objective reasonableness standard, but transplanting it to this discussion is akin to quoting from the Uniform Commercial Code when faced with a traffic citation.
I'm not driving, I'm traveling!
  #140  
Old 02-19-2020, 09:09 AM
dorvann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
My bolding.

Is there anyone here who believes his opinions come from a lack of intelligence? Can you find that in this thread? If so, please show me.

Highly intelligent people can people can believe very stupid or even crazy things. That happens all the time.

The ideas need to be debated on their merits. What do you think about them?
"Highly intelligent people can people can believe very stupid or even crazy things." This is correct. Rationalwiki refers to this as an "inverse stopped clock". List of examples here:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Inverse_stopped_clock

Last edited by dorvann; 02-19-2020 at 09:10 AM.
  #141  
Old 02-19-2020, 11:49 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorvann View Post
"Highly intelligent people can people can believe very stupid or even crazy things."
See

The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity [PDF]
by Carlo M. Cipolla

Quote:
THE SECOND BASIC LAW

The probability that a certain person will be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

...

The evidence that education has nothing to do with the probability was provided by experiments carried on in a large number of universities all over the world. One may distinguish the composite population which constitutes a university in five major groups, namely the blue-collar workers, the white-collar employees, the students, the administrators and the professors.

Whenever I analyzed the blue-collar workers I found that the fraction σ of them were stupid. As σ's value was higher than I expected (First Law), paying my tribute to fashion I thought at first that segregation, poverty, lack of education were to be blamed. But moving up the social ladder I found that the same ratio was prevalent among the white-collar employees and among the students. More impressive still were the results among the professors. Whether I considered a large university or a small college, a famous institution or an obscure one, I found that the same fraction σ of the professors are stupid. So bewildered was I by the results, that I made a special point to extend my research to a specially selected group, to a real elite, the Nobel laureates. The result confirmed Nature's supreme powers: σ fraction of the Nobel laureates are stupid.

Last edited by GreenWyvern; 02-19-2020 at 11:54 AM.
  #142  
Old 02-19-2020, 01:29 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post

a direct line between my friend who uses ze/zer pronouns and has trouble coping when the local vegan restaurant is closed for the day, and Soviet Gulags.
I think that's either the quasi-strawman/slippery slope argument or the delusional fear JP has. Either it's genuinely believed that it's the first step to gulags or it's facetiously presented as such. I'm not sure which.
  #143  
Old 02-20-2020, 02:05 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
And Peterson has hundreds of hours of his ideas and opinions available for public consumption. If you actually want to begin discussing his ideas on their merits, as others have failed to do so far, then maybe you could narrow it down a bit.
I had thought about responding more to other points you made, and I may later, but let's look at this part.

Certainly. Here are some of his claims.

This particular quote shows up a lot, but here is one cite:
Quote:
Peterson, who has said that the idea of white privilege is a "Marxist lie" and theorised that "radical feminists" don't speak out about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia because of "their unconscious wish for brutal male domination", is fast becoming a mainstream commentator.
Here is his tweet:
Quote:
# 2 of questions to get crucified for asking: Do feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance?
I think he's fucking nuts. Your thoughts on this? What do you think about feminists and their unconscious wish for brutal male domination?

andy posted a few of his other claims. We can start there.

Other people have posted this
Quote:
First, I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.” These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.
Please connect the missing dots between using "zhe" and then killing at least 100 million people.

You claim everyone is avoiding actual discussion of this thoughts so here is an opportunity to discuss.
  #144  
Old 02-20-2020, 02:23 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
And Peterson has hundreds of hours of his ideas and opinions available for public consumption. If you actually want to begin discussing his ideas on their merits, as others have failed to do so far, then maybe you could narrow it down a bit.
I had thought about responding more to other points you made, and I may later, but let's look at this part.

Certainly. Here are some of his claims.

This particular quote shows up a lot, but here is one cite:
Quote:
Peterson, who has said that the idea of white privilege is a "Marxist lie" and theorised that "radical feminists" don't speak out about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia because of "their unconscious wish for brutal male domination", is fast becoming a mainstream commentator.
Here is his tweet:
Quote:
# 2 of questions to get crucified for asking: Do feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance?
I think he's fucking nuts. Your thoughts on this? What do you think about feminists and their unconscious wish for brutal male domination?

andy posted a few of his other claims. We can start there.

Other people have posted this quote, which is from his OpEd.
Quote:
First, I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.” These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

These words are at the vanguard of a radical leftist ideology that is frighteningly similar to Marxism.

I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period.
Please connect the missing dots between using "zhe" and then killing at least 100 million people.

You claim everyone is avoiding actual discussion of this thoughts so here is an opportunity to discuss.
  #145  
Old 02-20-2020, 03:39 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by RingsOfPylon View Post
post-modernism [...] Yes, it's a sham and we all know it
Do we? All of us?
  #146  
Old 02-20-2020, 08:46 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Do we? All of us?
In the way that JP likes to use it to construct strawmen. Yes. We do. All of us.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #147  
Old 02-20-2020, 06:20 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,649
Marxism killed a hundred million people? Really? I hate communism as much as Joe McCarthy, but that number still seems at least an order of magnitude too high.
  #148  
Old 02-20-2020, 07:37 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,029
That seems pretty close if you include China: certainly well within an order of magnitude.
  #149  
Old 02-20-2020, 08:12 PM
dorvann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Marxism killed a hundred million people? Really? I hate communism as much as Joe McCarthy, but that number still seems at least an order of magnitude too high.
This site give the death toll for the Stalin regime at 20 million and Mao's regime at 40 million for a total of 60 million. So 100 million maybe high but it's not implausible.

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm
  #150  
Old 02-20-2020, 08:19 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,274
Yeah, it does jibe within the range when you talk about global totals and especially if you consider "collateral damage". But that only points out the disparity in saying that it is the sort of thing to where you can slip down the slope just for being required to be consientious about someone's alternative pronoun convention in academic circles. Yes, the pronouning bit can be at times, outright precious ("zher"?). But really, who's getting hurt, just roll your eyes and deal with it, Professor.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 02-20-2020 at 08:20 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 04:53 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