Jordan Peterson talks SJWs, ideologies, free speech, religion, and more

[drunkenshoe]

She doesn't disagree with the point. From what I understand, she agrees that the compelled pronoun thing is a bad law. She misses the rest. And she tangents on to something completely different, ignoring it. There are many points that she missed. Many topics. Many, many things. Why? because she arrogantly decided she knows what the video is about by only watching 1/3 of it.

Steve, stop talking about what I understand, think, miss or ignore...etc. Stop talking about me. 90 % what you wrote here is about me, what I think about, what people think about me. What Shoe thinks what Shoe ignores, What Shoe does...blah blah. I do not have to get a pass from you to present an opinion.

[PickelledEggs]

You're right shoe. I'll move on from the discussion about your inability to communicate. Lets get back on topic, or rather for you, get on topic in the first place.

[TomFoolery]

I haven't watched the video but I know about Jordan Peterson, having read an interview with him just yesterday:
http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-teaching-university-students-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/
I think he makes a lot of valid points about government pushing language on people, but he also goes way the fuck out of his lane into things I don't think he's qualified to talk about. For instance, in that article he blames the rise of feminism on the birth control pill, and not in the way you would think. He blames the HORMONES, saying:

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 understand just how much hatred there is for feminism and anything that even has a "fem" root. But this guy is serious trying to claim that at no point in history have women been discriminated against? Really?

That being said, I also hadn't even heard of C-16 but I don't exactly keep up with Canadian government.

I definitely see where this guy is coming from, but when I did some research, a lot of what he's preaching is a slippery slope, reductio ad absurdum argument. Most of Canada's provinces already have this law on the books and no one has been arrested for misusing pronouns. That isn't the intent of the law any more than the intent of libel laws are to arrest OpEd writers for calling someone ignorant or mean.

[drunkenshoe]

You're right shoe. I'll move on from the discussion about your inability to communicate. Lets get back on topic, or rather for you, get on topic in the first place.

I will write whatever I think on the topic, Steve. It's not up to you.

[PickelledEggs]

I will write whatever I think on the topic, Steve. It's not up to you.

I know. I never said it was up to me. But just know that you were not on topic.

[PickelledEggs]

I haven't watched the video but I know about Jordan Peterson, having read an interview with him just yesterday:
http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-teaching-university-students-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/
I think he makes a lot of valid points about government pushing language on people, but he also goes way the fuck out of his lane into things I don't think he's qualified to talk about. For instance, in that article he blames the rise of feminism on the birth control pill, and not in the way you would think. He blames the HORMONES, saying:


I understand just how much hatred there is for feminism and anything that even has a "fem" root. But this guy is serious trying to claim that at no point in history have women been discriminated against? Really?

That being said, I also hadn't even heard of C-16 but I don't exactly keep up with Canadian government.

I definitely see where this guy is coming from, but when I did some research, a lot of what he's preaching is a slippery slope, reductio ad absurdum argument. Most of Canada's provinces already have this law on the books and no one has been arrested for misusing pronouns. That isn't the intent of the law any more than the intent of libel laws are to arrest OpEd writers for calling someone ignorant or mean.

I never heard an accusation on the pill/hormones... that sounds pretty off.

That said. The compelled pronouns law is a massive attack on freedom of speech. It's already creeping up on the US, and it seems to me that it was a huge message that he was trying to tell us. Right now in Canada, it is more illegal to refuse to say "xe" or "xir", some made up pronoun. I'm not sure what the punishment is, I'd have to look it up, but at the same time, saying the N word isn't illegal. Not saying something is more illegal that saying something. That is absurd and a massive attack on free speech. It is a fascism.

[Nonsensei]

Forgive me for diverting us off topic, but i wanted to point out that every time DS talks about something like this the focus of the discussion instantly changes to whats wrong with her.

[PickelledEggs]

Forgive me for diverting us off topic, but i wanted to point out that every time DS talks about something like this the focus of the discussion instantly changes to whats wrong with her.

I'm sorry. Next time she replies in a completely off topic, argumentative rant, I'll ignore it. The main reason I address it, is because I know she's capable of having great points, but whenever I address her distant off-topic tangents, it turns in to a tangent of it's own.

My mistake.

[Poison Tree]

Right now in Canada, it is more illegal to refuse to say "xe" or "xir", some made up pronoun. I'm not sure what the punishment is, I'd have to look it up,

You aren't referring to Bill C-16, are you? If not, would you mind saying what law this is when you look up the punishment?

[Nonsensei]

I'm sorry. Next time she replies in a completely off topic, argumentative rant, I'll ignore it. The main reason I address it, is because I know she's capable of having great points, but whenever I address her distant off-topic tangents, it turns in to a tangent of it's own.

My mistake.

You're confusing her being off topic with her thinking different things about the video than you did. You posted this video because it made you think certain things and you wanted to share that. She saw it and her reaction was completely different because her context is completely different. She only seems off topic to you because it spoke to her in a completely different way than it spoke to you.

[TomFoolery]

I never heard an accusation on the pill/hormones... that sounds pretty off.

That sounds off as in he didn't say it, or that sounds off because it is? He very much said it, not in the video in the original post, but in the link I posted. This is his full explanation to the question, Are you denying the existence of discrimination based on sexuality or race?

I don’t think women were discriminated against, I think that’s an appalling argument. First of all, do you know how much money people lived on in 1885 in 2010 dollars? One dollar a day. The first thing we’ll establish is that life sucked for everyone. You didn’t live very long. If you were female you were pregnant almost all the time, and you were worn out and half dead by the time you were 45. Men worked under abysmal conditions that we can’t even imagine. When George Orwell wrote The Road to Wigan Pier, the coal miners he studied walked to work for two miles underground hunched over before they started their shift. Then they walked back. [Orwell] said he couldn’t walk 200 yards in one of those tunnels without cramping up so bad he couldn’t even stand up. Those guys were toothless by 25, and done by 45. Life before the 20th century for most people was brutal beyond comparison. The idea that women were an oppressed minority under those conditions is insane. People worked 16 hours a day hand to mouth. My grandmother was a farmer’s wife in Saskatchewan. She showed me a picture of the firewood she chopped before winter. They lived in a log cabin that was not quite as big as the first floor of this house. And the woodpile that she chopped was three times as long, and just as high. And that’s what she did in her spare time because she was also cooking for a threshing crew, taking care of her four kids, working on other people’s farms as a maid, and taking care of the animals. Then in the 20th century, people got rich enough that some women were able to work outside the home. That started in the 1920s, and really accelerated up through World War II because women were pulled into factories while the men went off to war. The men fought, and died, and that’s pretty much the history of humanity. And then in the 50s, when Betty Friedan started to whine about the plight of women, it’s like, the soldiers came home from the war, everyone started a family, the women pulled in from the factories because they wanted to have kids, and that’s when they got all oppressed. 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.

His claim is that life was hard for everyone, so women should stop whining. It's like he forgot that women weren't allowed to vote or could be legally beaten or raped by their husbands. No matter how much anyone hates modern feminism, I really can't understand how anyone could make the claim that women have never been discriminated against in the whole of recorded human history.

But again, you say it's a massive attack on free speech. In a way, I agree. I think hate speech laws try to be well-intentioned but miss the mark. But have you done research into what C-16 is about? I'm not sure Jordan Peterson has. He keeps coming back to the idea of compelled pronouns like people are being arrested for accidentally calling someone "Ma'am" if they self identify as male. No. One of his colleagues puts forth a compelling counterargument here:

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

[PickelledEggs]

You aren't referring to Bill C-16, are you? If not, would you mind saying what law this is when you look up the punishment?

I'm assuming it is? I don't remember if they cited the actual bill, but this is bill c-16. https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

You're confusing her being off topic with her thinking different things about the video than you did. You posted this video because it made you think certain things and you wanted to share that. She saw it and her reaction was completely different because her context is completely different. She only seems off topic to you because it spoke to her in a completely different way than it spoke to you.

She saw 1/3 of it. So of course her reaction is going to be different when you base it on 1/3 of what is said.
And yes, her context is completely different. And she agrees on the main point, that forcing someone to say something is bad. She even said that. I just don't see how she got to arguing about something that isn't even on topic, or that anyone even is talking about.

That sounds off as in he didn't say it, or that sounds off because it is?

No, I mean it sounds off as a claim. It's a very off claim. I believe you, if you saw that he said it.

[Baruch]

Shoe is coming from Dialectical Materialism or at least Hegelian Dialectics .. she is saying that there is a thesis (pronoun police) and an antithesis (pronoun anti-police) ... a true reaction to the thesis, isn't anti-thesis, but a synthesis that transcends either.  Don't tell me what you are for or what you are against ... just tell me how you are engaged as the omnipotent narrator ... who excretes wisdom from the agonistic digestion of it all.  But alas, she is able to criticize the menu, but unable to digest the entree.

Some people process internally, others do it externally.  Her posts are external musings ... that have no conclusions.

[Poison Tree]

I'm assuming it is? I don't remember if they cited the actual bill, but this is bill c-16. https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

I must admit that I'm not an expert in Canadian law (it appears from his bio that Jordan Peterson isn't, either), but I don't see where this bill would criminalize "refus[ing] to say "xe" or "xir"[. . .] but at the same time, saying the N word isn't illegal." The law appears to simply add "gender identity or expression" to "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability or [pardoned crime]" for protection against discrimination, hate speech/advocating genocide. I don't see anything about pronoun use. Peterson has claimed that the law   risks criminalizing discussion about aspects of human sexual behaviour and identity yet, even if we imagine that discussing human sexual identity rose to the grounds of hate speech as defined in Canadian legal theory, it appears that the law already has an exemption for statements in public interest/public benefit which, any lawyer would argue, such discussions would be.

[PickelledEggs]

Well, here it is in NYC...

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/politically-correct-transgender-pronoun-mandates-violate-first-amendment

Praise be the death of the first amendment.

In Oregon, a school district has settled a transgender bias claim, paying $60,000 to a transgender employee who demanded to be called “they” rather than “he” or “she.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/?utm_term=.72e5f29d6569

This is the government as sovereign, threatening “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct” if people don’t speak the way the government tells them to speak.

56 genders? You've gotta be fucking kidding me. Tumblr has hijacked the government and we need them out.