Jordan Peterson interview on C4

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.

Akrasia

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

This 'rowing back' is something I suspected would happen

The manner of his tweet is typical Jordan Peterson. It doesn't clarify his position in the slightest. (it doesn't even make sense)

Mountainsandh

Akrasia wrote: »

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 .

Sorry posting from poor device for editing quotes. He's not wrong really, in his own words he is "worried" that this language, already used in policy, is what will be used to interpret this new law. I agree with that, although I can see how it can be argued that it's an over reaction.

I think a lot of the hatred here is based on a misunderstanding : he speaks his mind quite forcibly, but he's very aware that his ideas can be challenged, and willing to engage in discussion.

Yeah yeah I know, some youtubers will use the "he won't debate such and such" dramatic gossip. That's really all it is since we have no idea how busy his schedule is, and who's in charge of bookings.the same debate used as incendiary fodder now could be happening next week for all we know.

Akrasia

but he literally contradicts himself. He says he is opposed to legislation forcing people to use certain words, but knows that the legislation doesn't do that, so he tries to pretend that some of the rhetoric surrounding it by a human rights commission is equivalent to legislation, when it simply is not.

There is no 'forced speech' if someone in power is 'forced' by rhetoric to say 'special needs' instead of 'disabled' or 'people with disabilities' or whatever the euphemism du jour happens to be.

By Peterson making a huge deal because of the insertion the grounds of gender expression and identity into an anti discrimination act, he just comes across as prejudiced and petty.

There are a number of activists in this area (and every other area of human discourse) who take things way too far, but bill C-16 is a perfectly reasonable measure to protect a minority who are heavily discriminated against

Mountainsandh

Akrasia wrote: »

but he literally contradicts himself. He says he is opposed to legislation forcing people to use certain words, but knows that the legislation doesn't do that, so he tries to pretend that some of the rhetoric surrounding it by a human rights commission is equivalent to legislation, when it simply is not.

There is no 'forced speech' if someone in power is 'forced' by rhetoric to say 'special needs' instead of 'disabled' or 'people with disabilities' or whatever the euphemism du jour happens to be.

By Peterson making a huge deal because of the insertion the grounds of gender expression and identity into an anti discrimination act, he just comes across as prejudiced and petty.

There are a number of activists in this area (and every other area of human discourse) who take things way too far, but bill C-16 is a perfectly reasonable measure to protect a minority who are heavily discriminated against

I suppose in his view he is not contradicting himself at all, since he does firmly believe the rhetoric of these human rights commissions (et al) is what is going to be used to interpret the law.

He's trying to pre-empt, if you like.

I understand that point of view. It's a lot worse over there, but the PC thing and the whole rhetoric attached is reaching us too.

I teach, and I see it in policy documents. We are very close to having similar training sessions as the one he mentions HR recommending for staff at Toronto University.
This is percolated into education.

There is no problem while it's still open for discussion, an opportunity to encourage healthy diversity, respect, and debate.

But when a stance is that pervasive, and you disagree with it, it does look like a threat to democracy.

What rhetoric are the judges and lawyers of tomorrow going to be trained in ?

CruelCoin

Akrasia wrote: »

but he literally contradicts himself. He says he is opposed to legislation forcing people to use certain words, but knows that the legislation doesn't do that, so he tries to pretend that some of the rhetoric surrounding it by a human rights commission is equivalent to legislation, when it simply is not.

There is no 'forced speech' if someone in power is 'forced' by rhetoric to say 'special needs' instead of 'disabled' or 'people with disabilities' or whatever the euphemism du jour happens to be.

By Peterson making a huge deal because of the insertion the grounds of gender expression and identity into an anti discrimination act, he just comes across as prejudiced and petty.

There are a number of activists in this area (and every other area of human discourse) who take things way too far, but bill C-16 is a perfectly reasonable measure to protect a minority who are heavily discriminated against

You mention bullying earlier as the motivation for bringing in this law.
What constitutes bullying? A single episode that makes a student/faculty member uncomfortable, or repeated instances?

If it's the former with super-hair-trigger sensitive people declaring bullying at a single comment, then it is actually defacto enforced speech.

El_Duderino 09

CruelCoin wrote: »

If it's the former with super-hair-trigger sensitive people declaring bullying at a single comment, then it is actually defacto enforced speech.

There is such desire for enforced speech or PC gone mad so the poor straight white men who feel so oppressed, have something to give out about.

He’s opposing it on the slippery slope fallacy. And his followers will defend that in the hope that it proves how oppressed they are.

I

johnp001

Article refuting Peterson based on a "bold" redefinition of the concept of equality of opportunity...

The Burkean wrote:

Why Jordan Peterson is Wrong
23/10/2018
...
Let’s take two children raised by two different families. Their childhood environments are going to be different, meaning they are inevitably going to be predisposed towards different outcomes in later life.

If we want equality of opportunity, then we would either need to strip these children from their families (assuming no genetic differences, which is an insane premise to begin with), or ensure that the parents raised the children in the exact same way.

However, this is only possible if both pairs of parents are identical, which requires militant practices to ensure Equality of Outcome in the lives of the parents. For Equality to work at all, no deviation must occur. To ensure no deviations occur, you must control for them from the very start of the experiment.

Unless Peterson is suggesting we open state run orphanages for genetically identical children, then I do not believe he is in favour of controlling for these deviations, meaning his support for Equality of Opportunity is nonsensical.
...
More...

Mountainsandh

johnp001 wrote: »

Article refuting Peterson based on a "bold" redefinition of the concept of equality of opportunity...

I think the person above has completely missed the point with all due respect.

Equality of opportunity does not mean you would have to recreate an identical environment and identical parents, and it does not require equality of outcome as the writer posits.

Equality of opportunity can be arrived at via many other channels, which are currently in place, and many other initiatives than just trying to change the parents until set of parents 1 matches set of parents 2.
Homework clubs, evening study for free to children from disadvantaged backgrounds, libraries in Deis schools, a very close (educational et al) support of these children from an early age, allowances and grants for education for these children...

I really don't get how the blogger above can possibly envisage that equality of opportunity is ONLY to strive to mirror the situation of the child elsewhere.

edit : I think I need to be clearer.

In the case of two children whom we want to have equality of opportunity, we are striving to make up the shortfall in Child 1's life so that he/she gets the same opportunity to succeed as Child 2.
This does not HAVE to be achieved by mirroring his parents only. Many other initiatives may help with equality of opportunity. Child 1 should be given the same chances and opportunity to achieve as Child 2.

In the case of equality of outcome, we are now striving for Child 1 to achieve the same as Child 2.
Everything is targeted at the outcome, therefore the most logical way to have Child 1 and 2 achieve the same would be to have exam standards that can be adjusted so that Child 1 and 2 will receive the same grade regardless of their performance.

Equality of outcome would be disastrous because it does not take into account the ability of Child 1 and Child 2, it simply awards the same grade by whatever means are available.
So in the future, Child 1 and 2 could both become neuro surgeons since they both were graded the same regardless of performance.

We need assessment of performance, grading and hierarchy of competence, so we can be safe in the knowledge that professionals (for example) have reached the required level to perform their task.


In a business environment : equality of opportunity would mean that anyone regardless of religion, sexual orientation, sex, ethnic background etc... etc... is welcome to apply for a job, and that they will be equally considered for the job. The decision will be made on qualifications and potential performance.

Equality of outcome would mean that each category above (and sub categories ad infinitum) will get a job, regardless of qualifications, provided they're on the employer's shopping list.
So if there are 5 posts going, with 20 people applying, the employers will have to select who gets a job based on categories that have been equally nominated beforehand. (question : who decides what categories are selected ?)
The employer would just be "doing their shopping" based on how many transgender people they need, how many black men they need, how many black transgender men they need, how many white lesbian females they need, etc... regardless of how qualified or performant these people may be at the job.

JP is right (imo) in saying that this would be disastrous and insane, and that it cannot possibly be achieved anyway, since you would have to keep re-categorizing and sub-categorizing to strive to ensure that everyone has the same outcome.
So say, 2 white lesbian females have been given a job, what about latino lesbian females ? do they not deserve the same outcome ?
How do you decide what categories or groups get a job ?
Equality of outcome means that degrees and qualifications are irrelevant in this case, since you have groups of people who may want the same job, and who are fundamentally different with different histories and qualifications, who must be offered the same outcome ie a job.

At this stage JP often goes on to explain that well, actually, if we are going to sub categorize ad infinitum, what we arrive at is the individual.

And the individual/individuality is what Western society has attempted to legislate and accommodate for for centuries, with a reasonably good outcome.

That's my understanding of his views, anyway, and I think the blogger linked above simply did not get that.

Mountainsandh

The second point of same blogger is also "just not getting it".

The writer reckons that JP is wrong about us needing to define borders, and having our house in order so these borders are self-evidently good and needed. It's better inside, therefore there is a point in having an "inside".

Blogger above says :

...Peterson came to the conclusion that the only way we can justify our borders and our privilege is by “keeping our house in order,” so that we can prove more beneficial to the world with the borders in place than without them.

There’s just one problem though: Peterson has invented a problem that does not exist.


...

What is of note here is that the parents are naturally entitled to pass on their possessions, both physical and metaphysical, to their children. One of these possessions that are often passed on are the natural borders of the family.

These familial borders, over long periods of time, become the borders of kingdoms and eventually; nation-states. We can conclude that the inheriting of the border needs no justifying, because it is merely one more inheritance in a long and ancient line. In return, the inheritor is expected to pass it on once more to his children, as was expected of his ancestors.

Peterson however, doesn’t seem to have realised these fairly self-evident facts. What’s more, he seems not only to have problems with justifying his own borders, but with justifying his ‘privilege’ in general.

I find this utterly baffling.

Ahem. There is a problem, there is tension in the world, always.

If we are to accept the blogger's supposition above that borders are inherited, and a historical entitlement, well... the obvious rebuttal, and the obvious tension that JP is on about, the tension that causes us to have to justify borders, to make them worthwhile, is that the world is small, and there are many such "families".

So while my family grows through the generations, the borders need room to expand, and while my family's borders expand, other families' borders expand too.

There is tension. The other family claim they were there before, that they need that land more. They claim my trees are spreading over their border into their territory. I claim the same for my family's sake. I also mention that well, actually, I was going to expand that way because there's a spring over there that naturally should be part of my territory.
Everything gets mixed up, because then my daughter falls in love with their grandson, who played his music too loud over our border-fence, and next thing you know, we need to either merge our borders, or define a whole new bubble bordered kingdom for the newly weds.

So yeah. There is tension in this world, always. We need to decide if borders are important. If we have a good thing going inside the borders, then chances are, it's a good thing to preserve them, because the other family out there might not have the same opinion of what's good as us, and the border being erased would be a disaster. If we do a good job, and we deserve our borders, chances are another difficulty will be in deciding who we can accept in, because it is likely other people from messier "houses" will want to come into ours. We'll have to find a balance between welcoming other people in, and not welcoming so many that our house in turn gets messy.

johnp001

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I think the person above has completely missed the point with all due respect.

....

That's my understanding of his views, anyway, and I think the blogger linked above simply did not get that.

The author of that Burkean piece clearly failed to understand anything he heard at the lecture he attended. When I said his argument was a "bold" redefinition I was using a euphemism for "fantastical misinterpretation"!

If you enjoyed that article you'll love this recent refutation of Peterson by Marxist professor Richard D. Wolff

For a four minute video it inspired some lengthy comments calling out Wolff's fallacious arguments.

silverharp

If you enjoyed that article you'll love this recent refutation of Peterson by Marxist professor Richard D. Wolff

you had me up to Marxist lol

Junkyard Tom

silverharp wrote: »

you had me up to Marxist lol

Mountainsandh

johnp001 wrote: »

The author of that Burkean piece clearly failed to understand anything he heard at the lecture he attended. When I said his argument was a "bold" redefinition I was using a euphemism for "fantastical misinterpretation"!

If you enjoyed that article you'll love this recent refutation of Peterson by Marxist professor Richard D. Wolff

For a four minute video it inspired some lengthy comments calling out Wolff's fallacious arguments.

Thanks for the clarification, I wasn't sure what you meant in the previous post

edit : to be honest, I'd probably tend to stay away from all the controversial things online, all the "takes on" "annihilates" "destroys" "brings down" types of videos... Whether it's meant to be JP taking down someone else, or someone else "taking him down", I'm less interested in the adversarial thing.
I do like to check out people involved in discussions with him sometimes, if it sounds like they're worth my while.

Zubeneschamali

I just learned on Twitter that Jordan Peterson is on an unusual diet: 100% beef. That's right, he is eating nothing at all except cows.

I take back everything mildly critical I said about him earlier in this thread: he is either an outright fraud or bonkers.

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1060237051164004352

RWCNT

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I just learned on Twitter that Jordan Peterson is on an unusual diet: 100% beef. That's right, he is eating nothing at all except cows.

I take back everything mildly critical I said about him earlier in this thread: he is either an outright fraud or bonkers.

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1060237051164004352

I'm no fan of JBP but I don't think it's fair to judge him on the basis of his unusual diet, which he makes very clear in all interviews that he's not suggesting or advocating for anyone else to try. In that interview you've linked he even talks about how much he dislikes following the diet but he's found it relieves a number of health issues he suffered from previously.

Zubeneschamali

RWCNT wrote: »

In that interview you've linked he even talks about how much he dislikes following the diet but he's found it relieves a number of health issues he suffered from previously.

Yes, this makes me lean to thinking he is nuts rather than a fraud.

B0jangles

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, this makes me lean to thinking he is nuts rather than a fraud.

What'll he do if he gets bitten by that tick that makes you allergic to meat - become a breatharian?

Zubeneschamali

RWCNT wrote: »

I'm no fan of JBP but I don't think it's fair to judge him on the basis of his unusual diet, which he makes very clear in all interviews that he's not suggesting or advocating for anyone else to try.

Oh, and just to address this: of course it is fair!

If he claimed to be talking to aliens, but didn't recommend it to anyone else because it turns out aliens are really dull, would you say that we should not judge him on that?

This is complete kookery.

7aubzxk43m2sni

You're grasping at straws if you're trying to discredit the man based on his diet.

bnt

Personally, I'm more interested in Peterson's views on religion. His latest book, 12 Rules For Life, contains chapters that use Bible stories to illustrate his points. This is how the positive National Review review puts it:

Critical to Peterson’s presentation is how little he asks the reader to trust him. Simple points are supported by combinations of elaborate personal stories, brief digressions into the history of Christianity, and extended discussions of modern psychological theories and interesting psychological experiments. Yes, he talks about simple things such as body posture, but he does so in the context of a far more complex discussion of the psychological effects of victory and defeat throughout the animal kingdom and in human societies.
...
Yet even as he speaks about science and scientific truth, he shuns science fetishism and places even ethics in its proper place, declaring religion “older and deeper,” concerned with “ultimate value.” “That is not the scientific domain,” he says. “It’s not the territory of empirical description.” It is the land of dogma, and Peterson argues (directly defying modern convention) that dogma is necessary. “What good is a value system that does not provide a stable structure?”

So Peterson advocates religious dogma for his readers as something missing from their lives; does he really believe it himself? Does it even matter whether he does, as long as his target audience reads his book? There's a really old saying that may apply here:

Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote:

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Does Peterson position himself a common man, a ruler, or one of the wise?

Zubeneschamali

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

You're grasping at straws if you're trying to discredit the man based on his diet.

He discredits any pretensions at even a slight association with science with this frankly insane diet nonsense.

flexcon

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He discredits any pretensions at even a slight association with science with this frankly insane diet nonsense.

eh, it's not his Diet? It's a well known Diet in some quarters. There is even a Netflix documentary on it.
Personally I am following something close to this and my own Doctor says there is interesting data showing up but he cannot suggest I do it as it's not enough data. My health has honestly never been better. Is that down to the diet?Probably. But I also equally understand it's probably not.

When asked in interviews he gives an answer. He doesn't go and bring the topic up at all.
In fact, he even suggests not to listen to him on this topic.Period.

I suggest seeing this side in a different light. Do you now see myself as a poster NUTS because of this?

Zubeneschamali

flexcon wrote: »

My health has honestly never been better. Is that down to the diet? Probably. But I also equally understand it's probably not.

Not a Maths graduate yourself, so.

Hector Savage

RWCNT wrote: »

I'm no fan of JBP but I don't think it's fair to judge him on the basis of his unusual diet, which he makes very clear in all interviews that he's not suggesting or advocating for anyone else to try. In that interview you've linked he even talks about how much he dislikes following the diet but he's found it relieves a number of health issues he suffered from previously.

Yeah but it's an easy target for the regressive leftist loons to throw at him again and again ...