Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Call Me Jimmy

20Cent wrote: »

Im lost now. So you think gender discrimination is ok and should be allowed?

No. I think that what defines gender discrimination now as per the bill (which defers to the relevant bodies for the definitions) is subjective to the point of absurdity. Gender discrimination is not accepting someones personal, interior feelings of their position on the gender spectrum, including things like gender fluidity, so it can change at any moment. I think the extremes of it are bull**** but now they are given the weight of law.

I wouldn't even have an issue if it was well defined protection for the 90% of trans people who feel they are the opposite sex to how they were born. But in order to be 'inclusive' they went full retard and now have very precarious (I would say clearly ideological) claims intertwined with the law through these civil bodies.

We aren't going to get anywhere I don't think. It's clear to me that if you don't treat the hypothetical gender fluid two-spirit employee in a way that is subjectively fair to them relating to their ideas about their gender, they will have grounds for a case. You think it's impossible, fair enough.

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

No. I think that what defines gender discrimination now as per the bill (which defers to the relevant bodies for the definitions) is subjective to the point of absurdity. Gender discrimination is not accepting someones personal, interior feelings of their position on the gender spectrum, including things like gender fluidity, so it can change at any moment. I think the extremes of it are bull**** but now they are given the weight of law.

I wouldn't even have an issue if it was well defined protection for the 90% of trans people who feel they are the opposite sex to how they were born. But in order to be 'inclusive' they went full retard and now have very precarious (I would say clearly ideological) claims intertwined with the law through these civil bodies.

We aren't going to get anywhere I don't think. It's clear to me that if you don't treat the hypothetical gender fluid two-spirit employee in a way that is subjectively fair to them relating to their ideas about their gender, they will have grounds for a case. You think it's impossible, fair enough.

It's a fraction of one percrnt of the population. The chances of working with someone like that are tiny and if you are just treat them with some respect. Gender has very little to do with work anyway. If a colleague says they would like to be called ze or whatever so what it has zero effect on you.
The fuss Peterson kicked up about it. He then has the gall to call people who have actual complaints, whose speech is being silenced snowflakes and tells them to clean their rooms and leave politics to the older people in suits.

Junkyard Tom

More from the guys at Zero Books. Peterson not doing his credibility any favours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdKRvCht28g

RandomName2

20Cent wrote: »

The president of the United States constantly attacks the press, threatens to take away broadcasting licenses and attacking protesters expressing themselves. Where is JPs 10 hour lecture and book about that?

JP doesn't live in the US. Canada is a separate country. None of Trump's actions (to date) have threatened JP's capacity to give lectures.

Talking of which, it's strange that the thread is getting neck deep in discussions concerning Canadian courts. You're saying that JP's interpretation of the law is erroneous, but all you have to do is look at the Senate hearing on the matter to see that there is great confusion in relation to it (by lay and politician alike). You may ultimately be right that JP was wrong, but that is not definitive at the moment.

I also really fail to see that it's relevant either. Whether he is wrong is separate from whether his charge was spurious. If you believe that his attacks on C-16 was to further a different agenda, then that might be grounds to criticize him. Certainly the press coverage he received in relation to it was ultimately beneficial to him. However I also do believe that he had grounds to be concerned of his capacity to speak within the environment of academia. There is ample evidence to show that that's the case. Strictly speaking C-16 isn't to blame for that, but not only is it being quoted (by certain university authorities) as justifiable cause to limit speakers, it does seem to be representative of a general chilling effect in the area of academic discussion.

I doubt you see that as important, but I very much do. If diversity of opinion is not upheld within the founding place of rational thought and scientific endeavor then that's quite a serious issue. To that end the situation in Canada is significant for us, and not the Canadian bar's debates on the small print of an appendage of the Ontario Human Rights Convention's vague definitions of discrimination in certain circumstances surrounding non-binary gender linguistics.

Akrasia

Mountainsandh wrote: »

This bit is the dodgy bit imo


Verbal behaviour is exactly that, speech.

"that offends or humiliate" is exactly what is open to interpretation.

This gives students (in JP's case for example) the go ahead to choose what speech may be offensive or humiliating to them, and supports them in declaring that that speech is offensive or humiliating.

Previously innocuous pronouns, or phrases such as "young man" for example, might be declared "offensive and/or humiliating", thereby forcing whoever was using these phrases to use whatever else the offended or humiliated person decides.

That's precisely restricting free speech, and imposing new, subjectively decided vocabulary onto someone else.

We already have anti bullying regulations. It is decided on a case by case basis, the accuser needs to demonstrate a consistent pattern of abusive behaviour targeted at an individual or group of individuals

This is why we have courts and labour relations committees, to make judgements on cases with complex interactions where fault may lie on one or both sides.

Mountainsandh

Akrasia wrote: »

We already have anti bullying regulations. It is decided on a case by case basis, the accuser needs to demonstrate a consistent pattern of abusive behaviour targeted at an individual or group of individuals

This is why we have courts and labour relations committees, to make judgements on cases with complex interactions where fault may lie on one or both sides.

Absolutely.
But what makes this different, is that in the case of gender, the use of pronouns is not something that can be avoided in certain contexts, so this particular instance and the laws built around this will require the use of alternatives.

The alternatives are few and far between when the "forbidden" pronoun is decided by the potential "victim" (and the "adequate" one).

So you do end up with a certain form of speech being imposed, by an individual supported by said law, onto people who will want to address other people.

That's where his problem lays.

It's not like someone is going to gratuitously and deliberately insult someone else with a word.

The law is basically stating that an individual may impose a certain figure of speech onto others.

JP argues that this is not democratic, and he clearly states that his focus on this is purely ideological, in that he believes democracy as it is at this point in time in Canada is adequate. He also states clearly that he will call individuals who approach him by their requested pronouns without any issues. What he takes issue with, is the law being involved with policing speech (other than hate speech which already well established and agreed).

Like you say, other laws are already in place to protect individuals from harm.

20Cent

RandomName2 wrote: »

JP doesn't live in the US. Canada is a separate country. None of Trump's actions (to date) have threatened JP's capacity to give lectures.

Talking of which, it's strange that the thread is getting neck deep in discussions concerning Canadian courts. You're saying that JP's interpretation of the law is erroneous, but all you have to do is look at the Senate hearing on the matter to see that there is great confusion in relation to it (by lay and politician alike). You may ultimately be right that JP was wrong, but that is not definitive at the moment.

I also really fail to see that it's relevant either. Whether he is wrong is separate from whether his charge was spurious. If you believe that his attacks on C-16 was to further a different agenda, then that might be grounds to criticize him. Certainly the press coverage he received in relation to it was ultimately beneficial to him. However I also do believe that he had grounds to be concerned of his capacity to speak within the environment of academia. There is ample evidence to show that that's the case. Strictly speaking C-16 isn't to blame for that, but not only is it being quoted (by certain university authorities) as justifiable cause to limit speakers, it does seem to be representative of a general chilling effect in the area of academic discussion.

I doubt you see that as important, but I very much do. If diversity of opinion is not upheld within the founding place of rational thought and scientific endeavor then that's quite a serious issue. To that end the situation in Canada is significant for us, and not the Canadian bar's debates on the small print of an appendage of the Ontario Human Rights Convention's vague definitions of discrimination in certain circumstances surrounding non-binary gender linguistics.

If ze wants to be referred to as ze thats hardly an academic discussion is it.

Mountainsandh

20Cent wrote: »

If ze wants to be referred to as ze thats hardly an academic discussion is it.

The academic discussion is on whether ze should have the power to amend the constitution to suit ze's particular preference at that moment in time.

Brian?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The academic discussion is on whether ze should have the power to amend the constitution to suit ze's particular preference at that moment in time.

They don’t, should not and aren’t looking for that power. Simple enough.

Mountainsandh

Brian? wrote: »

They don’t, should not and aren’t looking for that power. Simple enough.

In your assessment of the situation.

JP's assessment is that they do.

I think he is right to raise it as a point to be discussed. It's not to say that he's 100% right on this position, maybe he is in fact over-reacting, I'm not in the legal field so to argue that it's an over-reaction is perhaps valid, but at least as he says, he's putting it out in the open, rather than letting it be slipped in unnoticed.

It's good. It's how democracy works. Discuss things.

He's not shy of saying that it is his objective to have people think about things for themselves, and discuss them with others.

20Cent

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The academic discussion is on whether ze should have the power to amend the constitution to suit ze's particular preference at that moment in time.

Doubt there is a trans conspiracy to change the constitution in order to trap poor professors and have them jailed. The professors are part of the cultural marxism conspiracy anyway. Peterson is like scientology. Starts off reasonable enough but a few levels in it gets crazy.

Brian?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

In your assessment of the situation.

JP's assessment is that they do.

No, not my “assessment”. The reality of the situation. As 20c has repeatedly point out, Jordan Peterson was wrong, I won’t rehash his points.

I think he is right to raise it as a point to be discussed. It's not to say that he's 100% right on this position, maybe he is in fact over-reacting, I'm not in the legal field so to argue that it's an over-reaction is perhaps valid, but at least as he says, he's putting it out in the open, rather than letting it be slipped in unnoticed.

It's good. It's how democracy works. Discuss things.

He's not shy of saying that it is his objective to have people think about things for themselves, and discuss them with others.

He’s not right to raise the issue if he’s wrong about what it means. All he’s doing is stirring up false outrage. At best he’s simply wrong at worse he’s lying to gain attention.

You think it serves democracy to have someone sit up outrage when they’re wrong to be outraged in the first place? There are far better ways to stimulate debate than that. You could try being right in the first place, for a start.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

No, not my “assessment”. The reality of the situation. As 20c has repeatedly point out, Jordan Peterson was wrong, I won’t rehash his points.

Vague opinion and the opinion of the Canadian Bar association.

I mean I don't blame either of you not actually looking at the substance of the law. As I said, even the Canadian Senate seemed a bit bamboozled.

Brian? wrote: »

He’s not right to raise the issue if he’s wrong about what it means.

Not necessarily, as I pointed out. If there's malign motive that's one thing, but you haven't proven that to be the case.

20Cent wrote: »

If ze wants to be referred to as ze thats hardly an academic discussion is it.

The logic of this statement is divorced from the context that it is quoting.

20Cent wrote: »

Doubt there is a trans conspiracy to change the constitution in order to trap poor professors and have them jailed.

Your arguments are consistently poor and border on meritless.

1. This wasn't a constitutional change
2. The conspiracy was never said to be one related to the trans community
3. Your hyperbole of 'poor' is unhelpful
4. Numerous academics have had their careers threatened or been impeded due to recent political correctness in North America. That's a fact. The law in question does not even stipulate jail and you hanging like a drowning man to your statistic that no academic has been jailed due to an act that is barely 2 years old is not what any sane person would consider to be proof of your statement that the law, and its interpretations, has no negative ramifications in relation to free speech.

That's not to say that the law does have any substantive impact on the issue of free speech, it's just that this sort of posturing doesn't prove such.

Mountainsandh

20cents i don't think the level of thinking in your posts demonstrates that you may understand what JP's issue is with this.

Brian? wrote: »

No, not my “assessment”. The reality of the situation. As 20c has repeatedly point out, Jordan Peterson was wrong, I won’t rehash his points.



He’s not right to raise the issue if he’s wrong about what it means. All he’s doing is stirring up false outrage. At best he’s simply wrong at worse he’s lying to gain attention.

You think it serves democracy to have someone sit up outrage when they’re wrong to be outraged in the first place? There are far better ways to stimulate debate than that. You could try being right in the first place, for a start.

All 20 cents has done is refer to an organisation's assessment of the law, an opinion, as randomname points out.

So the assumption that he is wrong is just that, and the point that discussion is good and needed stands.

jace_da_face

Are we in the midst of a “call-out culture” that goes too far? Where identity politics results in trial by social media and a herd mentality that looks for offense?

Checkout Sam Harris ‘Waking up’ podcast series #137 Safe Space

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Jonathan Haidt about his new book The Coddling of the American Mind. They discuss the hostility to free speech that has grown more common among young adults, recent moral panics on campus, the role of intentions in ethical life, the economy of prestige in “call out” culture, how we should define bigotry, systemic racism, the paradox of progress, and other topics.

20Cent

Mountainsandh wrote: »

20cents i don't think the level of thinking in your posts demonstrates that you may understand what JP's issue is with this.



All 20 cents has done is refer to an organisation's assessment of the law, an opinion, as randomname points out.

So the assumption that he is wrong is just that, and the point that discussion is good and needed stands.

The Canadian Bar association are wrong, the Canadian Civil rights association is also wrong but JP is right and he's the only one to see the issue with this law. I'd go with the experts in the field rather then JP on that one.

20Cent

jace_da_face wrote: »

Are we in the midst of a “call-out culture” that goes too far? Where identity politics results in trial by social media and a herd mentality that looks for offense?

Checkout Sam Harris ‘Waking up’ podcast series #137 Safe Space

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Jonathan Haidt about his new book The Coddling of the American Mind. They discuss the hostility to free speech that has grown more common among young adults, recent moral panics on campus, the role of intentions in ethical life, the economy of prestige in “call out” culture, how we should define bigotry, systemic racism, the paradox of progress, and other topics.

My take on this is that freedom of speech is not the issue. Groups which have been used to saying whatever they want are now being challenged. Marginalised groups have found their voice and can express it via social media etc. To the privilaged having their ideas challenged is seen as an attack and they can't take it. You wonder if they experienced real discrimination how they would react.

Mountainsandh

20Cent wrote: »

The Canadian Bar association are wrong, the Canadian Civil rights association is also wrong but JP is right and he's the only one to see the issue with this law. I'd go with the experts in the field rather then JP on that one.

straw manning here

jace_da_face

20Cent wrote: »

My take on this is that freedom of speech is not the issue. Groups which have been used to saying whatever they want are now being challenged. Marginalised groups have found their voice and can express it via social media etc. To the privilaged having their ideas challenged is seen as an attack and they can't take it. You wonder if they experienced real discrimination how they would react.

Well with respect, if you do get around to listening to that podcast, the author investigates scenarios in which say a college professor is called out on racism for example, and loses her job. This is not merely being challenged. This is an example of a mob of snowflakes, who wrongly attribute a single word in an email written by a professor, and then posted on social media by the intended recipient and judged to be somehow immoral ( at quite a stretch I would have to say ). And it is the story where her peers and superiors look the other way, rather than defend her, for fear that they be judged in the same way. This author’s research has examined dozens and dozens of these anecdotes and concludes there is a clear trend for mob like outrage resulting in which hunts that destroys people’s lives. Have a listen.

20Cent

jace_da_face wrote: »

Well with respect, if you do get around to listening to that podcast, the author investigates scenarios in which say a college professor is called out on racism for example, and loses her job. This is not merely being challenged. This is an example of a mob of snowflakes, who wrongly attribute a single word in an email written by a professor, and then posted on social media by the intended recipient and judged to be somehow immoral ( at quite a stretch I would have to say ). And it is the story where her peers and superiors look the other way, rather than defend her, for fear that they be judged in the same way. This author’s research has examined dozens and dozens of these anecdotes and concludes there is a clear trend for mob like outrage resulting in which hunts that destroys people’s lives. Have a listen.

A professor should lose their job if they are racist. Sam Harris's voice irritates me.

jace_da_face

20Cent wrote: »

A professor should lose their job if they are racist. Sam Harris's voice irritates me.

So you have concluded she’s a racist without even knowing the story behind it. Then you are part of that mob!

20Cent

jace_da_face wrote: »

So you have concluded she’s a racist without even knowing the story behind it. Then you are part of that mob!

Said if.
Your post makes it sound like a hypothetical situation. "Say a professor did...."

It's an hour and a half long could you say which bit your talking about.
Is it a real case or a hypothetical one?

jace_da_face

20Cent wrote: »

Said if.
Your post makes it sound like a hypothetical situation. "Say a professor did...."

It's an hour and a half long could you say which bit your talking about.
Is it a real case or a hypothetical one?

It is a real case. I had to listen again to refresh my memory. It refers to a college dean, not professor as I had originally said. But jump to around to 24:30 and let run for about 10 minutes.

20Cent

jace_da_face wrote: »

It is a real case. I had to listen again to refresh my memory. It refers to a college dean, not professor as I had originally said. But jump to around to 24:30 and let run for about 10 minutes.

Whats this to do with Peterson?
If someone is arrested for using the wrong pronoun get back to me but posting up every argumemt that happens in a college isn't very helpful.

jace_da_face

It has nothing to do with Peterson in particular. It has a lot to do with free speech and a call-out culture which I think ties in somewhat with Peterson's case.

Akrasia

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Absolutely.
But what makes this different, is that in the case of gender, the use of pronouns is not something that can be avoided in certain contexts, so this particular instance and the laws built around this will require the use of alternatives.

The alternatives are few and far between when the "forbidden" pronoun is decided by the potential "victim" (and the "adequate" one).

So you do end up with a certain form of speech being imposed, by an individual supported by said law, onto people who will want to address other people.

That's where his problem lays.

It's not like someone is going to gratuitously and deliberately insult someone else with a word.

The law is basically stating that an individual may impose a certain figure of speech onto others.

JP argues that this is not democratic, and he clearly states that his focus on this is purely ideological, in that he believes democracy as it is at this point in time in Canada is adequate. He also states clearly that he will call individuals who approach him by their requested pronouns without any issues. What he takes issue with, is the law being involved with policing speech (other than hate speech which already well established and agreed).

Like you say, other laws are already in place to protect individuals from harm.

The law is there to prevent deliberate bullying. In the cases where a teacher might have a transexual student and deliberately goes out of their way to consistently call that student He instead of She (for example)

It's not there to punish people for making a genuine mistake or forcing people to bend over backwards to unreasonable demands. For example the often imagined gender fluid person who insists on being called a different pronoun on a whim and gets offended if others don't get it right would have a hard time getting a judgement in their favour as their demands are unreasonable

Mountainsandh

Akrasia wrote: »

The law is there to prevent deliberate bullying. In the cases where a teacher might have a transexual student and deliberately goes out of their way to consistently call that student He instead of She (for example)

It's not there to punish people for making a genuine mistake or forcing people to bend over backwards to unreasonable demands. For example the often imagined gender fluid person who insists on being called a different pronoun on a whim and gets offended if others don't get it right would have a hard time getting a judgement in their favour as their demands are unreasonable

JP refines his argument as he speaks, so if he were to explain this now it would be clearer, but he still explains his viewpoint at that early stage of the debates better than I would, so I tried to find a condensed version, that is hopefully better than me paraphrasing incessantly :
from 20:19 to 22:51. (I know a lot of people are reluctant or do not have the time to listen to entire videos)
https://youtu.be/Bpim_n0r0z0

Akrasia

Mountainsandh wrote: »

JP refines his argument as he speaks, so if he were to explain this now it would be clearer, but he still explains his viewpoint at that early stage of the debates better than I would, so I tried to find a condensed version, that is hopefully better than me paraphrasing incessantly :
from 20:19 to 22:51. (I know a lot of people are reluctant or do not have the time to listen to entire videos)
https://youtu.be/Bpim_n0r0z0

Ok, I watched it, and he's wrong. He basically admits that the bill C16 isn't as bad on it's own as he and his supporters have implied that it is, he says it needs to be taken within the context of the 'cloud of policy rhetoric' like that used by the Ontario human rights commission.

He's conflating rhetoric and law. The law does not legislate what 'people have to say'. It simply does not. He defeats his own argument at the end of that clip. He starts by saying he supports some restrictions on what people can't say . He uses the example of 'you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre', but that's a stupid example in this context, a more relevant example would be that you can't also call people offensive names if you are their employer or an agent of the state or some other authority figure. (eg, if you were gay and your employer referred to you as 'hey Fag' that would clearly constitute discrimination and workplace bullying)

So he accepts restrictions preventing people from saying certain forms of speech, he says he is opposed to laws that force people to speak a certain way. But bill C-16 doesn't force anyone to say anything. It just prevents people from discriminating against people.

It is an anti workplace bullying and anti discrimination measure. It is there to prevent people who are in positions of power from using their own prejudice to bully or deny services to people on the basis of their gender identity or expression.

All C-16 does is add in gender identity or expression to the existing grounds for discrimination. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that people with mental illness, disability, race, religion, age, family status etc are also included on the list have exactly as much of an impact on freedom of speech as people with different gender identity or expression.

Akrasia

Credit to Jordan Peterson when it's due. He has taken the correct stance on the Kavanaugh Supreme court nomination by calling for him to step down.

He is already getting a big backlash from his more women hating supporters, but he is on the right side of this controversy as far as I'm concerned.

The replies to his tweet are interesting reading.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1048320826376740865

alaimacerc

Akrasia wrote: »

Credit to Jordan Peterson when it's due. He has taken the correct stance on the Kavanaugh Supreme court nomination by calling for him to step down.

He is already getting a big backlash from his more women hating supporters, but he is on the right side of this controversy as far as I'm concerned.

The replies to his tweet are interesting reading.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1048320826376740865

Interesting. Another tweet expanding on this. "I believed if confirmed then Kavanaugh would be vindicated and could preserve his reputation (I understand the damage that has been done to him. perhaps better than most) but by withdrawing he could effectively deprive his more radical opponents of their selfrighteous moralism." Another rather rowing back. "As I said, this could be wrong."

Jury's out on whether any significant credit indeed due. Imagine, if you will... series of 30m vids follow explaining that "should" means "shouldn't", because Humpty says so thrice; usual suspects say they knew this all along, and only ill-informed liberal marxist post-modernists ever thought different.

The comments are indeed the expected rage-filled meninist sewer. "Christine Ballsey Fraud", etc.