The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[Buck Swope]

I don't think it's really about that. People will judge, whether right or wrong or anywhere in between. People are free to do that, as they are free to identify with whatever. There is no need to have laws around that sort of thing.

But, there is a difference in expecting someone to go along with your demands, as in the world revolves around your whims (or that of your ideology). And of course, enshrining that concept into law just takes it to the next level.

Yeah, bro, we do need laws to protect minority citizens. Shall I remind you?

 

[IDL]

Yeah, bro, we do need laws to protect minority citizens. Shall I remind you?

I don't see how your post relates to my post.

 

[Buck Swope]

An individual with agency and the capacity for judgement? We judge people all the time for their identity but now suddenly its a problem? Being black or female is not an identity, its a tangible reality. We generally don't have a problem with judging a person for identifying as a Republican or liberal or as a McGregor fan but now the gender identity they came up with last week is off limits?

Being black and female is certainly an identity, don't be dense.

There was a time that neither of those groups could vote or own land.

We are talking about a companies rights, not individuals. An individual can feel however they want.

 

[Buck Swope]

I don't see how your post relates to my post.

In my country there needed to be laws passed to protect minorities. You are saying there doesn't need to be laws. My post relates quite well.

 

[Metusalemi]

Imagine you worked in an office with Joe, and Joe identified as a conservative republican.

Imagine you vehemently opposed the right, considered all those on the right to be disconnected from reality, and, as an extension of your contempt, decided to refer to Joe as "Nazi" - a label Joe personally considered a representation of the opposite of his political identity.

Could your behavior be reasonably construed as workplace harassment?

If you don't consider people as people (as in. He is a person I can have a conversation with.), the problem MIGHT be you...

 

[IDL]

In my country there needed to be laws passed to protect minorities. You are saying there doesn't need to be laws. My post relates quite well.

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.

 

[ultramanhyata]

If you don't consider people as people (as in. He is a person I can have a conversation with.), the problem MIGHT be you...

You missed the point of the analogy, bro.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Isn't the Canadian bill basically saying that if you're in a workplace with a trans female and you continually refer to that person as "sir" or "it", that language can be considered harassment?

Is that your interpretation of it, that that's as far as it will go? What about if I as a fully functioning male decide that I want to go stay at a woman's shelter, for example. I dress and look exactly like what you would consider a man, but how can I be discriminated against if I tell you that my gender identity and expression is that of a female? Or is there a certain amount of fashion items associated with females that I have to wear before my gender expression is considered valid?

What if a serial rapist is arrested and convicted and then informs the system that he identifies as a female? How can they refuse to put him in a woman's prison without directly violating the updated Human Rights Act? I guess they could just put him in the women's prison and keep him in solitary...but do you really think that a good lawyer won't be able to challenge that? That will be explicit discrimination against a female-identifying person on the basis of nothing other than her biological sex. This legislation has actually fully enshrined in law the "fact" that biological sex is meaningless and "gender expression", a completely arbitrary concept that can literally be changed at a moment's notice is something that needs legal protection. If you think that this can't or won't be abused, you're about as ill-informed on Canadian Human Rights Tribunals as you are on Jordan Peterson.

edit: And are you really under the impression that prior to this legislation passing that you could just call someone by a pronoun they don't like at the workplace and not face any consequences? We might all still live in igloos up here but we have HR departments at our work, you know.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Imagine you worked in an office with Joe, and Joe identified as a conservative republican.

Imagine you vehemently opposed the right, considered all those on the right to be disconnected from reality, and, as an extension of your contempt, decided to refer to Joe as "Nazi" - a label Joe personally considered a representation of the opposite of his political identity.

Could your behavior be reasonably construed as workplace harassment?

I suppose so. But what if Joe was actually a Nazi, would it be a case of improper discrimination to want to fire Joe or perhaps not hire him at all? Should I be required to hire Joe even if he insists on identifying and being referred to as an attack helicopter?

Being black and female is certainly an identity, don't be dense.

There was a time that neither of those groups could vote or own land.

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.

We are talking about a companies rights, not individuals. An individual can feel however they want.

The comment I responded to didn't read that way

Who the fuck is anyone to judge a person's identity if that said person is hurting no one. Wrong?

Judge not for one day you will be judged..............

 

[Bald1]

1) As I explained once before, that line was a joke. Because I knew Peterson had become internet famous upsetting some trans kids during a confrontation about gender pronouns on a college campus.

2) That's what I read when I first started listening to the guy. (Posted the link above... I am also almost positive I heard him tell Rogan at some point in that podcast that he considered Jesus Christ to be the ultimate embodiment of truth.)

If I can be shown to be wrong about Peterson's Christianity I will stop calling him a Christian. A quote in which he denies being a Christian or in which he denies belief in the divinity of Christ would qualify.

3) Never questioned his intelligence! He's pretty obviously in possession of a brilliant mind. My issue was very specifically with his ability to both support the teachings of Jesus as the pinnacle of morality and at the same time support rugged individualism and the rejection of positive rights.

Look at me jumping to conclusions while only having partial info. My bad, and I apologize for being off base.

1) I hope you can understand my confusion after our last exchange.

2) This one is tricky. I spent years going to church (Roman Catholic), and more reading religious folks opinions and writings. Petersons ideas and use of language doesn't strike me as particularly Christian. It's obvious he believes in higher ideas than just self, and thinks there's more to our motivations than what an atheist would say. In a way he believes that truth is divine, and that idea could be difficult to digest to many fundamentalists.

I look at it this way - there are two of us in this thread who do not believe in god the way the Church preaches. I'm not even in the camp if believers who think there's a singular creator. Yet I live my life loosely based on Christian ideals. Why? Because I think it's a beneficial doctrine once the Church is divorced from it. I think Peterson is a Christian along those same lines, but with better formulated reasons than it's "beneficial". I could be wrong but there it is nonetheless.

3) I don't think Jesus was against individualism, but can see your point that there could be a disconnect depending on interpretation of doctrine.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Is that your interpretation of it, that that's as far as it will go? What about if I as a fully functioning male decide that I want to go stay at a woman's shelter, for example. I dress and look exactly like what you would consider a man, but how can I be discriminated against if I tell you that my gender identity and expression is that of a female? Or is there a certain amount of fashion items associated with females that I have to wear before my gender expression is considered valid?

What if a serial rapist is arrested and convicted and then informs the system that he identifies as a female? How can they refuse to put him in a woman's prison without directly violating the updated Human Rights Act? I guess they could just put him in the women's prison and keep him in solitary...but do you really think that a good lawyer won't be able to challenge that? That will be explicit discrimination against a female-identifying person on the basis of nothing other than her biological sex. This legislation has actually fully enshrined in law the "fact" that biological sex is meaningless and "gender expression", a completely arbitrary concept that can literally be changed at a moment's notice is something that needs legal protection. If you think that this can't or won't be abused, you're about as ill-informed on Canadian Human Rights Tribunals as you are on Jordan Peterson.

edit: And are you really under the impression that prior to this legislation passing that you could just call someone by a pronoun they don't like at the workplace and not face any consequences? We might all still live in igloos up here but we have HR departments at our work, you know.

Isn't Peterson's central criticism of the bill that it would make certain "politically incorrect" forms of address punishable by law?

I thought the Canadian bill was something entirely different than the US's bathroom bill legislation. Isn't it about what people can or cannot say as opposed to where they can or cannot go?

 

[Metusalemi]

You missed the point of the analogy, bro.

No I didn't. You made a weak analogy.

 

[sangreporsangre]

http://torontoist.com/2017/05/room-jordan-peterson-senators-debated-human-rights/

Found the bow tie

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?

 

[sangreporsangre]

Isn't Peterson's central criticism of the bill that it would make certain "politically incorrect" forms of address punishable by law?

I thought the Canadian bill was something entirely different than the US's bathroom bill legislation. Isn't it about what people can or cannot say as opposed to where they can or cannot go?

That's just one aspect of it, and maybe the aspect that was easiest to grasp for people because the idea of being forced to refer to someone as "zer" under the threat of financial penalty is so utterly surreal. But of course that isn't where it would end. "Gender identity" and "gender expression" have been fully enshrined as categories under the Human Rights Act, which prevents discrimination under such grounds as race, sex, religion, marital status, disability and some others. Transsexuals have been protected under this act since the 90s when the grounds of sex and disability were interpreted to cover them - so it's not legal to deny housing or a job or whatever to a tranny, with or without C-16. But now we have ill-defined and arbitrary concepts covered under this legislation, and even the senators voting on this don't seem to have any idea wtf it means - this doesn't seem like it could be a bad idea to you? Again, you would really have to understand how the HRTs operate here.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I suppose so. But what if Joe was actually a Nazi, would it be a case of improper discrimination to want to fire Joe or perhaps not hire him at all? Should I be required to hire Joe even if he insists on identifying and being referred to as an attack helicopter?

This is where the quagmire comes in. Because, depending on your beliefs, you could make the same argument with blacks, gays, amputees, autistics, those on psychiatric meds, etc.

I really think that one either has to go full libertarian or one has to recognize that the expansion of discrimination laws is inevitable.

 

[Islam Imamate]

This is where the quagmire comes in. Because, depending on your beliefs, you could make the same argument with blacks, gays, amputees, autistics, those on psychiatric meds, etc.

I really think that one either has to go full libertarian or one has to recognize that the expansion of discrimination laws is inevitable.

Being black or autistic is the same as identifying as a Nazi or an attack helicopter?

 

[ultramanhyata]

That's just one aspect of it, and maybe the aspect that was easiest to grasp for people because the idea of being forced to refer to someone as "zer" under the threat of financial penalty is so utterly surreal. But of course that isn't where it would end. "Gender identity" and "gender expression" have been fully enshrined as categories under the Human Rights Act, which prevents discrimination under such grounds as race, sex, religion, marital status, disability and some others. Transsexuals have been protected under this act since the 90s when the grounds of sex and disability were interpreted to cover them - so it's not legal to deny housing or a job or whatever to a tranny, with or without C-16. But now we have ill-defined and arbitrary concepts covered under this legislation, and even the senators voting on this don't seem to have any idea wtf it means - this doesn't seem like it could be a bad idea to you? Again, you would really have to understand how the HRTs operate here.

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/

 

[EndlessCritic]

The lulziest 4 minutes of the Senate hearings for me were these:



I mean, the enemy of my enemy and all that, but I can't help but hope we see Peterson share a stage with her at some point as well.

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

 

[ultramanhyata]

Being black or autistic is the same as identifying as a Nazi or an attack helicopter?

It is from the perspective of a business owner who doesn't want to have any blacks or autists on his payroll. Or living in his apartment complexes.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It is from the perspective of a business owner who doesn't want to have any blacks or autists on his payroll. Or living in his apartment complexes.

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.