Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Jordan Peterson interview on C4
Options
Comments
-
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.
Bit of an exageration in fairness. Not only does it have to be persistent a judge decides rather than the offended person. It's like saying assault it illegal so if I bump into someone in a crowd I could be jailed. Nonsence.
Defemation and slander laws limit peoples speech.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?0 -
Call Me Jimmy wrote: »Because finding discrimination against someone in a spectrum of gender (which on facebook for example already has 70+ pronouns, with infinitely many possible such is the nature of a spectrum) is necessarily subjective to the person being discriminated against. There are no objective limits to what can be deemed a misgendering/discrimination/harrassment when it comes to dealing with people. Have listed them below. When you accept that these people are usually proponents of the idea of microaggressions you'd have to be naive to think that there isn't a lot of power to be wielded.
Now not only is gender a spectrum but gender fluid is an identity and you understand that that opens another dimension of discourse. As per Human Rights Commission:
"Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education."
Now I hope I don't have to explain how all of this makes for terrible law and you'd be forgiven thinking it's part of an ideological movement as Peterson does when you take it all into account.
For example, the linux community is being ripped apart as we speak in self-professed power games by people advocating very similar jargon. They literally state that meritocracy (in contributions to the linux OS) is a bad thing and needs to be dealt with by implementing a Code Of Conduct for the open source contributors. They want inclusion and diversity for people non-white lgbtqia+ to the point that quality of code is no longer the standard. I don't know if you've heard it about it but it's a **** show and I imagine if you looked into it you'd agree.
When I first heard peterson talking about this stuff I was like 'yea whatever, it's not some nefarious idealogy and at worst its just a local problem you're having and blowing way out of proportion', but in the intervening 2 years I can't help but agree. And everything he stated checks out re: the law as I've shown.
Take a look:
Asexual
Female to male trans man
Female to male transgender man
Female to male transsexual man
F2M
Gender neutral
Hermaphrodite
Intersex man
Intersex person
Intersex woman
Male to female trans woman
Male to female transgender woman
Male to female transsexual woman
Man
M2F
Polygender
T* man
T* woman
Two* person
Two-spirit person
Woman
The list of the 50 previous gender options
Agender
Androgyne
Androgynes
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans Female
Trans Male
Trans Man
Trans Person
Trans*Female
Trans*Male
Trans*Man
Trans*Person
Trans*Woman
Transexual
Transexual Female
Transexual Male
Transexual Man
Transexual Person
Transexual Woman
Transgender Female
Transgender Person
Transmasculine
Two-spirit
I can sum it it in three words .. seek mental help0 -
wildlifeboy wrote: »I can sum it it in three words .. seek mental help
Boom. Silence any opposing view and when the votes come in wonder "how could this have happened"
Seriously, this left and right **** of shutting down the other side is beyond bizarre at this stage.0 -
that bit.
C-16 Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression
Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace
concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human
rights and hate crimes legislation.
That isn't a refutation of what I've said. It goes on to say what I've been saying that workplace discrimination based on gender identity and expression (defined outside of the bill by the relevant bodies) are part of the extension. The same way ever place where discrimination based on sex, or a hate crime based on sex has been updated. The key thing here is that the civil bodies define gender identity and expression themselves, and they all have exactly the same definition as the human rights commission.
The amendment will, however, make explicit the existing requirement for the federal government and
federally regulated providers of goods and services to ensure that personal information, like sex or
gender, is collected only for legitimate purposes and not used to perpetuate discrimination or undermine
privacy rights. In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by
the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates
individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.0 -
Also, you seem to be suggesting that the 'misunderstanding of how human rights and hate crime legislation works' means that there are really high standards for people to be in trouble with the commission / tribunal and I showed you earlier that included a two comedians, one responding to a heckler and the who slagged a disfigured person on stage.
But honestly I'm not sure what the sentence you quoted shows in your mind.0 -
Advertisement
-
Call Me Jimmy wrote: »That isn't a refutation of what I've said. It goes on to say what I've been saying that workplace discrimination based on gender identity and expression (defined outside of the bill by the relevant bodies) are part of the extension. The same way ever place where discrimination based on sex, or a hate crime based on sex has been updated. The key thing here is that the civil bodies define gender identity and expression themselves, and they all have exactly the same definition as the human rights commission.
The amendment will, however, make explicit the existing requirement for the federal government and
federally regulated providers of goods and services to ensure that personal information, like sex or
gender, is collected only for legitimate purposes and not used to perpetuate discrimination or undermine
privacy rights. In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by
the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates
individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.
Im lost now. So you think gender discrimination is ok and should be allowed?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
More from the guys at Zero Books. Peterson not doing his credibility any favours.
0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
-
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.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
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.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.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.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.0 -
20cents i don't think the level of thinking in your posts demonstrates that you may understand what JP's issue is with this.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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
-
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?0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdKRvCht28g
Advertisement