The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

Fucking hilarious. Well, at least we can be somewhat thankful that it isn't these nuts who are winning the culture war?

Pretty hard to follow. It's like she's just trying to shoehorn her ideological hobby-horse into a discussion about gender identity.
 
You are conflating things. I was talking about how people judge other people.

I think you are referring to something well beyond that.

You are telling me that I am saying 'I don't think there needs to
be laws to protect minorities', and that isn't what I said.
.

You said there doesn't need to be laws to protect people who have identities that some people don't agree with. You said such laws need not be in place. I'm not conflating anything.

I think you are wrong.
 
I think that's stretching it. Whether or not a person is black is far more quantifiable then whether or not they're an attack helicopter. The Nazi thing is more analogous since you can explicitly identify as one but identifying as an attack helicopter does not make one an attack helicopter.

You're confusing the basis on which one criticizes or discriminates with the right of an individual to criticize or discriminate.

That distinction is the crux of the issue, IMO.

I know for a fact there are people who sincerely consider blacks and gays to be a threat to this country as great, if not greater, than the threat of Nazism.

Should such people have the right to discriminate in housing and hiring based on their convictions?
 
No I didn't. You made a weak analogy.

So if someone considers a Trump supporter "literally Hitler" you're cool with them calling the supporter a Nazi, even though the Trump supporter considers himself the antithesis of a Nazi?
 
Sure it is an identity, I suppose I misspoke there. But those categories are not protected simply because they are identities as evidenced by the plethora of other identities that are not protected.

Well I think a human being deserves equal rights, no matter who he/she wants to be if they are not harming others.

These people need to be protected. Why do you care if a company can't fire a gay person? Will the world stop spinning?
 
I wonder why this article doesn't include a link to the Youtube video of Peterson's testimony....could it be that the author is hoping that readers will accept the biased and dishonest account in the article rather than sitting through the hour's worth of video themselves?
Couldn't be that
 
.

You said there doesn't need to be laws to protect people who have identities that some people don't agree with. You said such laws need not be in place. I'm not conflating anything.

I think you are wrong.

I think you are deliberately misconstruing and rewording my statement to mean something that you know it doesn't mean.

I was talking about people judging people. Please re-read my original statement.

On second thought, perhaps we should just drop this because it's pointless.
 
What is empiricism? Do we truly understand the way the senses work? Does naked perception exist as Huxley described in the doors of perception? Logical proofs are reductionist as we see when yesterdays scientific canon yields to today's insights. Look at particle theories or the effects of eating fat. Peterson believes that the inner life counts as much as the corporeal quantitative realm. He takes leaps of faith and tests psychological trends because he understands that knowledge has a horizon. There certainly are things which are true which can not currently be proved. There are experiments that prove more than four dimensions exist. The five senses exist in the four dimensions. I think we have more than five but that's my religion. Personally speaking I did talk with both Christ and the adversary when I ate a quarter of shrooms. I pray and get answers.
 
I think you are deliberately misconstruing and rewording my statement to mean something that you know it doesn't mean.

I was talking about people judging people. Please re-read my original statement.

On second thought, perhaps we should just drop this because it's pointless.

Refute your own statement. You said there doesn't need to be laws to protect a certain minority.
 
Do you agree that this is a pretty concise breakdown of the bill?

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

Well it is a breakdown of the bill - with an obvious agenda - but it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. What is in the legislation to avoid scenarios like I laid out in my previous post? What precisely is "gender expression"? How come none of the senators voting on this legislation could offer any comprehensible answers to Peterson's concerns?
 
You're confusing the basis on which one criticizes or discriminates with the right of an individual to criticize or discriminate.

That distinction is the crux of the issue, IMO.
I don't think those are entirely unrelated. Some forms of discrimination are acceptable. In fact, the whole point of a hiring process is to discriminate to choose the best candidate. Over time certain characteristics were deemed unacceptable as a basis of discrimination but that doesn't mean all discrimination is illegitimate. I could discriminate against Red Sox fans, Floridians, or foot fetishists in hiring if I wanted to.
I know for a fact there are people who sincerely consider blacks and gays to be a threat to this country as great, if not greater, than the threat of Nazism.

Should such people have the right to discriminate in housing and hiring based on their convictions?
Maybe the Nazi example isn't a good one I'll concede because technically its illegal to discriminate against a person for their political beliefs under Canadian law.

I think people should have the ability to discriminate in housing and hiring on the basis of their convictions with the exception of discrimination based on sex, nationality, race, religion and age. Political beliefs are a grey area for me since I think its not entirely unreasonable to want to discriminate on that basis. That said I'm not really that against extending the protected status to sexual orientation or even for transgenders but its the category of non-binary that I find more problematic since I think its legitimacy is still in question and its inclusion seems to be for ideological purposes. Or in other words, I would like to be able to refuse housing to someone who insists on being referred to as an attack helicopter or is an open Nazi.
Well I think a human being deserves equal rights, no matter who he/she wants to be if they are not harming others.

These people need to be protected. Why do you care if a company can't fire a gay person? Will the world stop spinning?
We're not talking about gays though so try again.
 
ANY human being who is not hurting others living their lives. @Kafir-kun
But the law doesn't work that way. I can discriminate against persons from another state if I wished to do so even if they're not hurting anyone. Why should I not being able to do the same for someone demanding to be referred to as "xer"?
 
Well I think a human being deserves equal rights, no matter who he/she wants to be if they are not harming others.

These people need to be protected. Why do you care if a company can't fire a gay person? Will the world stop spinning?

You've obviously never listened to Peterson. The bill he was opposing is a bill which gives the government the right to control what you say, it's totalitarian in nature. If a snowflake demands that you address them by a certain pronoun, including any made-up ones, and you refuse or make a mistake in addressing them, you're in breach of Canada's human right code and can be dragged in front of a kangaroo court. If you refuse to bow down to the court order and don't use compelled speech, you'll be found in civil contempt of court and could end up in jail. And you're comparing this to firing a gay person, go home buddy, you're drunk.
 
Well it is a breakdown of the bill - with an obvious agenda - but it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. What is in the legislation to avoid scenarios like I laid out in my previous post? What precisely is "gender expression"? How come none of the senators voting on this legislation could offer any comprehensible answers to Peterson's concerns?

I have no answers to these questions. And I am no fan of the gender identity movement.
 
Not really. Her view is what the British Columbia Court of Appeal agreed with a decade ago, and which the SCC denied leave to appeal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Nixon_Rape_Relief_Case

Not sure how that case connects to her claims about the male patriarchy's supposed role in creating feminine stereotypes.

The fact that a majority of very young girls and boys will gravitate to baby dolls and trucks, respectively, if left alone in a room with both, is observable. It's not the product of some devious, patriarchal, misogynist plot.

In fact, the existence of the male and female exceptions to this majority are the very evidence of its not being a result of indoctrination but, instead, some sort of biological hard-wiring.
 
I have no answers to these questions. And I am no fan of the gender identity movement.

Well then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss that wacky fundamentalist hardcore evangelist Dr Peterson. Maybe check out some of his videos on the subject and listen to what he has to say - or check out the Senate hearing for this crazy legislation. There's a seriously fucked up agenda at play and it has an enormous influence in my country - and also in yours.
 
Well then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss that wacky fundamentalist hardcore evangelist Dr Peterson. Maybe check out some of his videos on the subject and listen to what he has to say - or check out the Senate hearing for this crazy legislation. There's a seriously fucked up agenda at play and it has an enormous influence in my country - and also in yours.

My criticism of Peterson has had zero to do with his position on this issue. I also believe the SJW/PC social agenda is a cancer on society.
 
Not sure how that case connects to her claims about the male patriarchy's supposed role in creating feminine stereotypes.

The fact that a majority of very young girls and boys will gravitate to baby dolls and trucks, respectively, if left alone in a room with both, is observable. It's not the product of some devious, patriarchal, misogynist plot.

In fact, the existence of the male and female exceptions to this majority are the very evidence of its not being a result of indoctrination but, instead, some sort of biological hard-wiring.
The rationale in that case and her argument in her speech are the same -- she takes an entirely socially constructionist view towards gender, and that male --> female trans individuals will never be the same as "real" females.

I strongly, strongly agree with everything else you wrote. The existence of trans individuals should disprove this social constructionist nonsense.
 
Back
Top