In recent posts regarding Jordan Peterson I attempted to voice concerns about the sanctions one faces when voicing disagreement…and only made myself come across as a transphobe.
My sincere apologies to all who were offended.
Sorry, crosses are down the hall. Help yourself, but clean up when you’re finished.
I coulda sworn self-pitting was against the rules, maybe it’s just frowned upon. In any case, I don’t think this thread is going to go any better for you than the previous thread.
I believe this one would be.
Rants should be suitable for the Pit
Cutesy, “I Pit puppies for being sooo cute!” non-Pittings are not welcome here. Put them in MPSIMS. Rants which are genuine but simply too tepid or mundane for the Pit will be moved or closed as we see fit. Lastly, rants about personal trauma that are expected to generate mostly supportive, sympathetic responses will likely be moved to MPSIMS. This is not a commentary on the seriousness of said life events, merely on the best forum for that type of thread.
Specifically the line that says, “Rants which are genuine but simply too tepid or mundane for the Pit will be moved or closed as we see fit.” But this isn’t even a rant, it’s an apology. It’s an anti-rant.
But if people pile on with enough invective (and I suspect that will be forthcoming) then we can make this a thread worthy of the Pit. So, let’s see.
Until you realize it’s not “disagreement”, it’s hate, you’re not going to get better.
Let me re-write your OP for you:
“I’m so sorry for my previous JP posts. I didn’t realize what a hateful transphobe he was. I thought there was some honest disagreement on the subject, but now I realize he’s outside of the science and is actively hurting people. His stupid comments about “re-education” are just spin that is trying to hide his bigotry. I will do better in the future and I will work harder to be an ally to LGBTQ+ folks, and, really, any oppressed minority.”
Did you at least realize that the problem is not that Peterson is voicing disagreement, but that he’s voice hate in the guise of disagreement? Because that at least would be a good outcome.
As someone who has made his fair share of apologies, I’ll buy it. For now. But I’m watching you!
Hey, one thing I wanted to add to that other thread before it was closed is that this controversy is not solely about Peterson’s trans stance. He told someone depressed about the climate crisis to go kill themselves.
He has a long history of saying unhinged things on social media that no psychologist (or person) should be saying. This isn’t a government tribunal, it’s a professional organization with a reputation to protect.
This is a non-apology apology. You didn’t “come across” as transphobic any more than I “come across” as a glutton when I order four fried chickens and a coke.
Try this:
“I said some reprehensible shit in defense of a truly reprehensible person. I will do better in the future.”
And then do better.
Apologies are actions. “I’m sorry to those who were offended” are toilet-paper weasel-words.
I’ll respond to this now. Assuming that you really are being sincere here, and this isn’t part of a larger agenda (your posting history is a record anyone can access after all) the issue is that you are far too willing to embrace absolutes, like a toddler would. “If I can’t eat this food then I guess I can’t eat any food!” You need to understand that context matters and things are not all black and white. You put on a coat when it’s cold outside, but when it’s warm the coat will hurt more than help as it may overheat you. So, sometimes wearing a coat is fine, sometimes it’s not.
Similarly, sometimes a “disagreement” is worthy of sanctions, sometimes it isn’t.
Let’s say that you think you are a decent person, and I disagree. I think you’re a loathsome piece of shit. (Hypothetically speaking, of course.) You go into IMHO and start a thread asking people about flavors of ice cream, and mention that you are a big fan of rocky road. Someone else posts that they like cookie dough flavor. I post that you’re a loathsome piece of shit and that I’m sure any ice cream you eat will taste like shit because your tongue is made of shit just like the rest of you are. Now, I should be sanctioned, warned, hell maybe even suspended for such a thing. But this is simply a disagreement between us, correct? Because you’d assure me that no, you are a human being with normal taste buds, and you swear that rocky road is quite good, especially the little marshmallow pieces. I disagree with you, there is no way that your shit taste buds can tell the difference between marshmallows and the pus coming from a dog’s anal fissures. It’s physically impossible. You can then ask how a pile of shit can even post on a message board, and I respond that it must be one of those great mysteries in life.
Now, clearly in that situation, it is disingenuous to describe my behavior as a “disagreement”, even though you can certainly phrase it that way if you want to be a weasel about it. In reality, I am being a horrible person who is escalating the situation unnecessarily, and being a bad poster, violating serious rules. I deserve to be sanctioned. This is the same way with the doctor you’re defending. You are defending a terrible person who abuses his position to do real harm to people. And being horrible in the process of defending him.
Any link to share?
The thread in question:
Not buying it, not for a second. I won’t be watching you (ES), if I can avoid it, although I might accidentally run across you. I have, however, noted your login ID for evidence of future dishonest debating tactics and hate-mongering.
I will note that Enola, under a previous username, has had an interest in Peterson going back years:
Notice that first link where over 4 years ago there was a gripe about liberals “censoring” Peterson.
Just to provide some context. This isn’t a new interest.
Also, Ben Shapiro, who has had his own controversies regarding bigotry against LGBTQ+ people.
So you’re saying the odds that he’s learnt that Peterson is a hate-monger is low? 
It’s not a hard concept, though apparently it is hard to grasp, that support for fundamental liberties does not necessitate any endorsement of particulars.
That’s too cryptic for me. What fundamental liberties are you talking about, who supported them, and what particulars were not necessarily endorsed?
~Max
I’m going to add too, that since is the Pit and we can talk about people freely, that although of course I am no mind reader that looking over Enola’s past posts related to trans issues, I don’t think that Enola is a transphobe. Which makes the defense of transphobes puzzling, though maybe it’s a misguided attempt to defend free speech.
But there are many posts that seem supportive of the validity of trans issues going back more than 20 years, and no direct criticisms. No overt bigotry. Just my opinion, I may have missed something.
As Max_S noted, it’s not clear from your post what relevance the concept of “fundamental liberties” has to this situation. Jordan Peterson as a Canadian citizen/resident has certain rights of free expression guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. AFAICT, nobody is now or has been in the past seriously proposing any action that would limit Peterson’s exercise of those rights. So his “fundamental liberties” are not in jeopardy in any way.
Of course, being granted a license to practice psychology by a governmental body that officially regulates the practice of psychology is not a fundamental liberty guaranteed by the Charter (or by any other constitutional authority in any jurisdiction, AFAIK). So for the College of Psychologists of Ontario to tell Peterson to stop disgracing his profession by his stupid-ass public maunderings or else they’ll take his license away is not in fact interfering with his “fundamental liberties”.
Sure it is.