Social New Jordan Peterson Book made Penguin's SJWs Burst Into Tears

[eworden78]

The analogy would work if they were generally opposed to all book publishing.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's pretty close. Penguin has been around for years, and they publish all sorts of things.
Being upset that they occasionally publish material by controversial authors, would be nearly equal niavety to finding out that the abortion clinic you work at performs abortions.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's pretty close. Penguin has been around for years, and they publish all sorts of things.
Being upset that they occasionally publish material by controversial authors, would be nearly equal niavety to finding out that the abortion clinic you work at performs abortions.

I think it is completely uninformative (the point of an analogy is to make your argument easier to understand), regardless of the merits of your position. Separately, your position is poorly thought-out. What's the general position here? Workers should have no right to express views about the actions of their employer? People in general should not criticize decisions that companies make? Publishers specifically should not be criticized?

 

[skold]

"Snorting Benzos 101"?

 

[Halifax]

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's pretty close. Penguin has been around for years, and they publish all sorts of things.
Being upset that they occasionally publish material by controversial authors, would be nearly equal niavety to finding out that the abortion clinic you work at performs abortions.

Good old Jim Cornette phrases it better.

 

[hillelslovak87]

George Carlin meant it like he did with most of his comedy.

And most great comedians agreed with it.

And since Carlin is the Grand Emperor of Comics, it was taken as a decree.

I remember that HBO special.....

 

[Natural Order]

I think it is completely uninformative (the point of an analogy is to make your argument easier to understand), regardless of the merits of your position. Separately, your position is poorly thought-out. What's the general position here? Workers should have no right to express views about the actions of their employer? People in general should not criticize decisions that companies make? Publishers specifically should not be criticized?

Should the company have the right to turn around and question or criticize the decisions being made by their employees similarly? In public forum similarly? Why not?



You want a line of critique open in one direction and cower like a pussy when it comes back the other way. Sew your nuts back on and quit instigating useless debate.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

7 pages in...and still only 1 or 2 left leaning posters have had to integrity to condemn this nonsense.

The vast majority still cracking jokes about his substance abuse issues and/or justifying this.

Not surprised

 

[HOLA]

I feel like now is a good time to repost this classic Jordan Peterson article from The Beaverton:

TORONTO – Controversial U of T psychology professor Jordan Peterson once again ignited a public furor last night, refusing to refer to a popular Stephen King-based horror film by the gender-neutral pronoun “IT”, on the grounds that the titular character, Pennywise the clown, is obviously a “HIM.”

According to eyewitnesses, Peterson spent 12 minutes holding up the box office line at Toronto’s Varsity Cinema while he repeatedly requested VIP room tickets for “HIM”, to the confusion of numerous employees.

“I was called over to the box office because this guy wouldn’t stop going like, ‘I’m here for HIM, I want to see HIM,’” recalled assistant manager Toby Duncan. “When I eventually clued in and asked if he meant ‘IT’, he said he most certainly did NOT mean ‘IT’ and called me a radical postmodernist ideologue trying to punish him for not using the clown’s ‘compelled pronoun.’ “

Having gained international attention last year for his outspoken refusal to call students and faculty by gender-neutral pronouns, Peterson made it clear that Pennywise – a demonic embodiment of children’s fears – would also receive no quarter.

“The objective biological reality is, Pennywise is a male monster, who is mostly a clown and sometimes a bug, but always a boy,” he explained to fellow moviegoers in the lobby. “I cannot be coerced into respecting his place in this ever-expanding community of the marginalized by calling the film ‘IT’. I will not use that clown-bug’s words.”

“And if I’m taken to jail for that, which I can only assume I’m about to be, then so be it,” he boldly declared, though by all accounts he was free to go.

In response to the persecution he’s faced at the hands of the movie theatre, Peterson has launched a crowdfunding campaign with a goal of $15,000, in order to buy a copy of the film when it comes out on Blu-ray.

 

[Grenz]

7 pages in...and still only 1 or 2 left leaning posters have had to integrity to condemn this nonsense.

The vast majority still cracking jokes about his substance abuse issues and/or justifying this.

Not surprised

Condemn what exactly? That 4 employees in a town hall meeting that was attended by the whole company had a melt down about Jordan Peterson? So 4 employees out of likely hundreds are woke snowflakes. Oh my, let the condemning begin, I need to make sure I end up on the right side of history on this event which is surely of grave importance.

 

[bufetadanacara]

I feel like now is a good time to repost this classic Jordan Peterson article from The Beaverton:

TORONTO – Controversial U of T psychology professor Jordan Peterson once again ignited a public furor last night, refusing to refer to a popular Stephen King-based horror film by the gender-neutral pronoun “IT”, on the grounds that the titular character, Pennywise the clown, is obviously a “HIM.”

According to eyewitnesses, Peterson spent 12 minutes holding up the box office line at Toronto’s Varsity Cinema while he repeatedly requested VIP room tickets for “HIM”, to the confusion of numerous employees.

“I was called over to the box office because this guy wouldn’t stop going like, ‘I’m here for HIM, I want to see HIM,’” recalled assistant manager Toby Duncan. “When I eventually clued in and asked if he meant ‘IT’, he said he most certainly did NOT mean ‘IT’ and called me a radical postmodernist ideologue trying to punish him for not using the clown’s ‘compelled pronoun.’ “

Having gained international attention last year for his outspoken refusal to call students and faculty by gender-neutral pronouns, Peterson made it clear that Pennywise – a demonic embodiment of children’s fears – would also receive no quarter.

“The objective biological reality is, Pennywise is a male monster, who is mostly a clown and sometimes a bug, but always a boy,” he explained to fellow moviegoers in the lobby. “I cannot be coerced into respecting his place in this ever-expanding community of the marginalized by calling the film ‘IT’. I will not use that clown-bug’s words.”

“And if I’m taken to jail for that, which I can only assume I’m about to be, then so be it,” he boldly declared, though by all accounts he was free to go.

In response to the persecution he’s faced at the hands of the movie theatre, Peterson has launched a crowdfunding campaign with a goal of $15,000, in order to buy a copy of the film when it comes out on Blu-ray.

That's strange, but I do agree with him that a person born with a penis is, and always will be male.

 

[eworden78]

I think it is completely uninformative (the point of an analogy is to make your argument easier to understand), regardless of the merits of your position. Separately, your position is poorly thought-out. What's the general position here? Workers should have no right to express views about the actions of their employer? People in general should not criticize decisions that companies make? Publishers specifically should not be criticized?

I believe I've already clarified everything you are asking here, but let me try again.

Workers should indeed express views about their employer's actions if that employer is acting improperly in relation to the expected standard of the service that the employer provides. In this specific case, Penguin publishing is a general publisher, they are not a niche publisher that publishes a narrow band of materials, they publish a wide range of topics and materials. In this role it is unavoidable that some materials will be deemed controversial to some people. Given the unavoidable consequence of this role, it should be evident to their employees that dissent aimed at the nature of the content published is not particularly helpful or welcome as it undermines their service.

The reason I used my analogy, was to illustrate another employer that provides a specific service that regularly begs controversy, but would also be inappropriate to show internal dissent aimed at services intrinsic to their role.

Let me put it another way. To me, the dissent wouldn't be the reason for justifying their termination, the reason for termination is that their behavior isn't compatible with the values intrinsic to the service the publisher provides. The dissent would be evidence of this incompatibility.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Should the company have the right to turn around and question or criticize the decisions being made by their employees similarly? In public forum similarly? Why not?

You want a line of critique open in one direction and cower like a pussy when it comes back the other way. Sew your nuts back on and quit instigating useless debate.

Sure.

Wrong. In fact the only people doing that ITT are rightists.

Workers should indeed express views about their employer's actions if that employer is acting improperly in relation to the expected standard of the service that the employer provides. In this specific case, Penguin publishing is a general publisher, they are not a niche publisher that publishes a narrow band of materials, they publish a wide range of topics and materials. In this role it is unavoidable that some materials will be deemed controversial to some people. Given the unavoidable consequence of this role, it should be evident to their employees that dissent aimed at the nature of the content published is not particularly helpful or welcome as it undermines their service.

This is a little better, but not much, IMO. We can agree that the workers have a reasonable expectation that some books published by their employer will be deemed controversial to some people, but that doesn't then lead to a blanket principle that they have no right to criticize any particular publication choice.

Let me put it another way. To me, the dissent wouldn't be the reason for justifying their termination, the reason for termination is that their behavior isn't compatible with the values intrinsic to the service the publisher provides. The dissent would be evidence of this incompatibility.

I would hope that the employer is not so intolerant of dissent, and I think it would be morally questionable if they were. It's also interesting that people accuse the workers of illiberalism, when the idea of their employer using its power to silence debate on this is a far more egregious example of that.

 

[jeremyemilio]

I just like how the guy who went on a recent benzo kick and almost died is giving us 12 more rules to live by lol

I dunno. Prescribed drug turned into a dependency when his wife was diagnosed with cancer.

Personally, I find it tough to be critical of anyone in that situation. Especially after going through the work of overcoming it.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Good, racism and bigotry shouldn't be published.

The guy is just soooooo far from being a racist bigot. He's been putting his lectures on YouTube for years. Literally hundreds of hours of content. There's no there there.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

I dunno. Prescribed drug turned into a dependency when his wife was diagnosed with cancer.

Personally, I find it tough to be critical of anyone in that situation. Especially after going through the work of overcoming it.

It's tough to be critical of his behavior but it's easy to ignore his advice.

 

[ultramanhyata]

BTW, to backtrack a little. I don't really think firing is a good option. Was being a little hyperbolic with that.

Glad you see that now. Though it was the prime piece of red meat that the right-wing'ers here really ate up.

I also think you prove yourself naive about the publishing industry given you don't know dialogues and debates are constantly taking place concerning which authors should and which authors should not be published.

 

[jeremyemilio]

It's tough to be critical of his behavior but it's easy to ignore his advice.

Of course it is. It's easy to ignore pretty much anyone's advice.

 

[Makani]

Never have to burn books if they never get printed.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Of course it is. It's easy to ignore pretty much anyone's advice.

That depends on what you value, who's giving the advice and what that advice is about.

We know what we're dealing with here.

 

[jeremyemilio]

I think it is completely uninformative (the point of an analogy is to make your argument easier to understand), regardless of the merits of your position. Separately, your position is poorly thought-out. What's the general position here? Workers should have no right to express views about the actions of their employer? People in general should not criticize decisions that companies make? Publishers specifically should not be criticized?

Well... but workers have a right to say whatever they want about whomever they want. I don't think anyone is disputing that. The subject being debated is whether an employer has the right to fire someone for being critical of company decisions or policy. Rights work both ways.

(Don't get me wrong. In this particular case, I feel like it would be a pretty egregious bait and switch to have a town hall, invite people to speak their mind, and then fire people who actually do so.)

PS: The idea that Jordan Peterson "radicalized" anyone, as one of those employees claimed about their father, is pure fantasy on the face of it.