Jordan Peterson interview on C4

backspin.

silverharp wrote: »

that people can lead more fulfilled lived, the bastard

And fair play to him if he makes some money while doing it. I fully believe he is genuine. He was risking his job a year ago with the pronoun stance.

VonZan

Anyone else feel like this pronoun debate is nothing but a load of nonsense? People want to wash away years of evolution and human instinct becuase they become mildly offended by people using language in an attempt to identify someone.

Some people really struggle to integrate into society and instead of trying to adjust they expect everyone else to conform to their beliefs.

weemcd

VonZan wrote: »

Anyone else feel like this pronoun debate is nothing but a load of nonsense? People want to wash away years of evolution and human instinct becuase they become mildly offended by people using language in an attempt to identify someone.

Some people really struggle to integrate into society and instead of trying to adjust they expect everyone else to conform to their beliefs.

Bingo. Couldn't agree more, for all the fuss and blustering Transgender people make up less than 1% of the population. That is rising, and is rising quite exponentially from what I can tell, it's almost a fashion of sorts. I think we've got a long road ahead with this and need to think very carefully about nonsense laws we will or won't have.

Pa ElGrande

Getting more than a Gotcha! out of Jordan Peterson

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

Pa ElGrande

VonZan wrote: »

Anyone else feel like this pronoun debate is nothing but a load of nonsense? People want to wash away years of evolution and human instinct becuase they become mildly offended by people using language in an attempt to identify someone.

Some people really struggle to integrate into society and instead of trying to adjust they expect everyone else to conform to their beliefs.

There is an idea that the advocates for these pronouns are a manifestation of malignant narcissism.

Fr Tod Umptious

Did you know that use of the terms "left" and "right" come from the French Revolution.

At one of the many assemblies formed during the revolutionary period the more radical members sat on the left of the chamber while the conservative ones sat on the right.

20Cent

VonZan wrote: »

Anyone else feel like this pronoun debate is nothing but a load of nonsense? People want to wash away years of evolution and human instinct becuase they become mildly offended by people using language in an attempt to identify someone.

Some people really struggle to integrate into society and instead of trying to adjust they expect everyone else to conform to their beliefs.

Do you think there is such thing as a trans person? .

If no why are they doing it then.
If yes what's the big deal referring to them using the correct pronoun?

Max Prophet

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think there is such thing as a trans person? .

If no why are they doing it then.
If yes what's the big deal referring to them using the correct pronoun?

If yes then no otherwise then maybe?

20Cent

Max Prophet wrote: »

If yes then no otherwise then maybe?

So you're saying sporty was the best Spice Girl?


Controversial choice.

JMNolan

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think there is such thing as a trans person? .

If no why are they doing it then.
If yes what's the big deal referring to them using the correct pronoun?

My understanding (and of course it is only mine) is that Professor Peterson has no issue with calling a transgender person who identifies as a man he and as a woman she. I think his issue was with the law - you must do x under penalty of y. His speech was dictated by the state rather than himself.

I know the state already has laws around hate speech or whatever, but I think you shouldn't use this fact to extend arbitrarily constraints on free speech.

Pa ElGrande

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Did you know that use of the terms "left" and "right" come from the French Revolution.

At one of the many assemblies formed during the revolutionary period the more radical members sat on the left of the chamber while the conservative ones sat on the right.

It was not the left as we know them today, basically anyone who opposed the establishment sat on the left. The far left then were laissez-faire free-marketeers (Frédéric Bastiat) the centrists were anarchists (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon) and on the right side of the left were the State socialists.

VonZan

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think there is such thing as a trans person? .

If no why are they doing it then.
If yes what's the big deal referring to them using the correct pronoun?

There are trans people but they are still biological males or females.

Why should I change the way I use language becuase of they way someone identifies themselves?

Why do a minority of people get to decide what terminology I use becuase they are offended by normal language? I have never met or talked to a trans person in my life. Why should I call people ‘they’ just in case I offended someone?

What happens when people start to idenfify as animals, objects...

Why don’t we just stop talking so these people won’t get offended?

20Cent

JMNolan wrote: »

My understanding (and of course it is only mine) is that Professor Peterson has no issue with calling a transgender person who identifies as a man he and as a woman she. I think his issue was with the law - you must do x under penalty of y. His speech was dictated by the state rather than himself.

I know the state already has laws around hate speech or whatever, but I think you shouldn't use this fact to extend arbitrarily constraints on free speech.

Agree with your assessment of Petersons viewpoint. Agee with him for the most part except that this is some marxist conspiracy to destroy civilisation.
C16 is an amendment to human rights legislation,wonder does he object to the rest of human rights legislation or why this bit troubles him.

johnp001

20Cent wrote: »

Agree with your assessment of Petersons viewpoint. Agee with him for the most part except that this is some marxist conspiracy to destroy civilisation.
C16 is an amendment to human rights legislation,wonder does he object to the rest of human rights legislation or why this bit troubles him.

You can watch Jordan Peterson's testimony to the Canadian senate on bill C-16 here:
YouTube

20Cent

johnp001 wrote: »

You can watch Jordan Peterson's testimony to the Canadian senate on bill C-16 here:
YouTube

An hour!!!
Can't you just give us a summary.

20Cent

VonZan wrote: »

There are trans people but they are still biological males or females.

Why should I change the way I use language becuase of they way someone identifies themselves?

Why do a minority of people get to decide what terminology I use becuase they are offended by normal language? I have never met or talked to a trans person in my life. Why should I call people ‘they’ just in case I offended someone?

What happens when people start to idenfify as animals, objects...

Why don’t we just stop talking so these people won’t get offended?

The law sees them as their preferred gender. Calling females he is not normal language and is seen as insulting, belittling or bullying. It is only in reference to Canada anyway so unlikely it will be an issue for you.

SeanW

20Cent wrote: »

It's a summary if Peterson's main points. Do you disagree?

"Stupid", "Racist", "Nazi", "Neo-Nazi" a whole load of childish name twists, followed by Cathy Newmanesque mischaracterisations. Come to think of it, that article perfectly describes your position.

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think there is such thing as a trans person? .

You're obviously a Postmodern Leftist, so you tell me.

Only one of two things can be true:
1) There is no such thing as a male brain and a female brain. Thusly the fact that there are more men than women in STEM can only be ascribed to misogyny and social conditioning, and it require "diversity" policies in universities and companies like Google (Hello James Damore) to "correct" all of the above injustices of imposing un-natural social constructs of gender on people. It also justifies Postmodern Feminism, because women have been disadvantaged by their imaginary gender.

The problem with this is that if true, it makes transgenderism impossible. Because to claim that a male can transition to female or vice versa, then gender must be real and inherent.
2) There are two sexes/genders are there is no/limited difference between biological sex and gender. This explanation permits trans-genenderism (because it is possible to have a woman's brain in a man's body if gender is real and based in physiology), but it also explains why there are more men than women in STEM work, more men than women in positions of power, because gender affects things like cognitive capabilities, work choices, life choices and so on.

So which is it? Is gender real and rooted in biology? Or is transgender-ism impossible because gender is nothing but a social construct, thus "man" and "woman" are figments of our social conditioning?

If no why are they doing it then.

1) Maybe you should call someone by their made up pronoun, but it raises questions:
* What about people who claim to be neither? Do you have to use terms like ze, xe, xym, xyr?

For my part, I will admit I am torn. I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who does not feel like they fit in their own skin, but at the same time wonder how far I should go in enabling or acknowledging claims that contradict physical reality, whether that is actually the best thing for the individuals concerned or society as a whole. And where does it end?
Calling someone who claims to be the other sex their preferred pronoun? Maybe, even if I don't believe it, I might call a man "she" or "her" just to be polite. Or more likely "them" "you" "they".
Calling someone xe, ze, xym or zyr? No way.
Calling Rachael Doelzal black or White man Ja Du a Filipina woman? Emm ...
Is "Nano" a human being or a cat? Seriously, get help.

(To be clear, I feel really sorry for Ja Du, but no matter how much time he spends listening to Philippine music and driving that ridiculous pink Tuk-tuk around Florida, he's still a white man. Ditto for Nano. No matter how much she meows, hisses at dogs or sleeps on window-sills, she's still not a cat.)

If yes what's the big deal referring to them using the correct pronoun?

I object to any "forced speech" laws that require me to recognise anything that is not true. Bill C16 will criminalise people who do not go along with (one suspects) ever increasing absurdity. That's the problem. It's criminalising a perfectly legitimate point of view that stems from reality.

20Cent wrote: »

Carlson rants against multiculturalism says it's better to have races living seperatly. Hardly a rejection of identity politics or belief in the individual not grouping people together.

Just one example.

https://youtu.be/_brXEFpemTM

No. That's a lie. People don't set off suicide bombs in teenage concerts because of their RACE. there is nothing inherent to brown skinned people that makes them want to kill Jews, Christians, apostates, blasphemers, homosexuals and other filthy kuffars. For those that do, they do so because of the CULTURE. There is a difference between race and culture.

TC does not claim that white, black, brown and yellow man who share a culture should not live side-by-side, he claims (at least in this video) that multi-culturalism does not work. Multi-culturalism is distinct from race because race =/= culture. You claim that TC is racist is a scurrilous lie.

silverharp

this is Peterson on Joe Rogan , the skinny seems to be he would object to being obliged to use up to 32 gender pronouns, so would I frankly

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

20Cent

SeanW wrote: »

"Stupid", "Racist", "Nazi", "Neo-Nazi" a whole load of childish name twists, followed by Cathy Newmanesque mischaracterisations. Come to think of it, that article perfectly describes your position.

The article calls him none of those things.

SeanW wrote: »

You're obviously a Postmodern Leftist, so you tell me.

Don't even know what that means.

SeanW wrote: »

<incoherent rant>

The legal experts in Canada don't think that C16 would mean that using an incorrect pronoun would meet the legal threshold of a hate crime and certainly wouldn't lead to someone being arrested or jailed.

silverharp

20Cent wrote: »

The legal experts in Canada don't think that C16 would mean that using an incorrect pronoun would meet the legal threshold of a hate crime and certainly wouldn't lead to someone being arrested or jailed.

why did the lawyers for Peterson's university warn him from even discussing it? they seemed to think he was breaking the law

Professor Moriarty

tritium wrote: »

I already defined the left for you, in the generally accepted fashion -you accused me of a sweeping generalization. Which is a pretty daft claim given it’s one of just three terms that between them encompass the spectrum of political ideology, I.e its meant to be broad

There’s actually an, admittedly slightly loose at times explanation here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Since you struggle with search engines I’ll even give you a compare and contrast for free
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

And for broad completeness

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism

Maybe you should learn to do your own research like the rest of us- just a thought

Now I’m through pulling this off topic at your behest ....

But that is a very broad and vague generalisation. 'Loose' as you say yourself. When you say 'the left' this and 'the left' that, how many people are you talking about? Who are these people? Must they all think the same way? What are the identifying beliefs?Are whole nations 'left'. Maybe you don't know?

tritium

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But that is a very broad and vague generalisation. 'Loose' as you say yourself. When you say 'the left' this and 'the left' that, how many people are you talking about? Who are these people? Must they all think the same way? What are the identifying beliefs?Are whole nations 'left'. Maybe you don't know?

Nope, not playing. If you want to debate the actual topic go right ahead. If you just want to keep trying to drag it off topic for whatever reason go find someone else to play your silly games with

Professor Moriarty

tritium wrote: »

Nope, not playing. If you want to debate the actual topic go right ahead. If you just want to keep trying to drag it off topic for whatever reason go find someone else to play your silly games with

Saying 'the left' thinks this or does that has no meaning for me. I'm not a fan of lazy generalisations.

Arne_Saknussem

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Saying 'the left' thinks this or does that has no meaning for me. I'm not a fan of lazy generalisations.

You should start a thread about things that have no meaning for you, where you ask people to define what they are.

People would find that engrossing i'd bet.

Saruhashi

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think there is such thing as a trans person? .

If no why are they doing it then.
If yes what's the big deal referring to them using the correct pronoun?

I think you might be missing the point here.

Most people probably have no issue with calling someone by their preferred pronoun (within reason, if someone says their pronoun is "mr poopy hoop" then maybe thats not reasonable).

It would be polite to do so.

Is it right that the government should have the power to enforce proper pronoun usage?

Is there a danger that such power could be abused?

tritium

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Saying 'the left' thinks this or does that has no meaning for me. I'm not a fan of lazy generalisations.

No not at all, you’d never post something like this on a thread for example....,

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah, cos it isn't like the GOP are puppets of big business or anything, dontcha know. They're all God-fearing, principled politicians just like their boss, The Donald.

Because that’s full of lazy generalizations

That thing you can see disappearing in the distance is your credibility by the way

Professor Moriarty

tritium wrote: »

No not at all, you’d never post something like this on a thread for example....,




Because that’s full of lazy generalizations

That thing you can see disappearing in the distance is your credibility by the way

You pluck a post of mine from another thread, completely out of context, and present it as proof of something while simultaneously missing the irony in the post. Never mind, have a good weekend.

20Cent

Saruhashi wrote: »

I think you might be missing the point here.

Most people probably have no issue with calling someone by their preferred pronoun (within reason, if someone says their pronoun is "mr poopy hoop" then maybe thats not reasonable).

It would be polite to do so.

Is it right that the government should have the power to enforce proper pronoun usage?

Is there a danger that such power could be abused?

C 16 doesn't do that. It added the words “gender identity and expression” to the section that defines groups for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred”

No one is being forced to use any pronouns.

Seems reasonable. Not many people object to the other protections which are for colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.


Peterson took this to mean if you refuse to call someone ze or whatever you'd be carted off to jail.

Saruhashi

20Cent wrote: »

C 16 doesn't do that. It added the words “gender identity and expression” to the section that defines groups for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred”

No one is being forced to use any pronouns.

Peterson took this to mean if you refuse to call someone ze or whatever you'd be carted off to jail.

OK. So he was wrong. Not transphobic. Wrong.

I'm trying not to enter a Left vs Right thing here but isn't there a large component of the problem that essentially boils down to people on the Left assuming the absolute worst ("Nazi" etc) in people when their views aren't all that controversial and could be easily debated?

If the extent of Jordan Peterson's "transphobia" is that he simply misunderstood bill C-16 then a lot of people are overreacting to some pretty tame views and opinions.

People misrepresenting Peterson should therefore be the ones charged with inciting hatred and violence.

20Cent

Saruhashi wrote: »

OK. So he was wrong. Not transphobic. Wrong.

I'm trying not to enter a Left vs Right thing here but isn't there a large component of the problem that essentially boils down to people on the Left assuming the absolute worst ("Nazi" etc) in people when their views aren't all that controversial and could be easily debated.

Think he was wrong and isn't transphobic. Can see why trans people and their supporters were angry with him though.

Don't see anyone calling him a nazi.