Blogpost infested with rightwingers violating rabble policy - hi, mods!

531 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boze

There should be no problem of people bringing up controversial, or even divisive, issues. The problem is the reaction to it. It's high time that we dispensed with the notion that somebody's feelings of offense, or even un-safety, in reaction to somebody's speech, need to be validated by the rest of us in any way.

6079_Smith_W

Sure. And no one is saying he can't. No venue that I am aware of has prevented him from speaking, although some people have asked for that. And on only two occasions I am aware of was he prevented from speaking by protesters (and one other time where there was a disruption).

But I don't want to get sidetracked without being clear on the point that this was not started by anyone making demands on him about pronouns. He brought that issue up by himself, and made claims about the law which have not been substantiated.

Boze

People should be encouraged to tell the truth as they see it, including articulating their concerns, even if their beliefs are considered by others to be offensive or inaccurate. How is one supposed to know if one is wrong if one does not have the freedom to be wrong? Peterson echoes concerns that many of us have. Why is him bringing up the pronoun issue even a problem? It's a perfectly legitimate topic for discussion.

6079_Smith_W

Because his whole trip is that this is about leftist authoritarians forcing their ideas on others and criminalizing speech, which is not true. And because people assume this is about others forcing their pronouns on him, which is also not true. He is the one who made this up.

And no it is not "the truth as he sees it" any more than KellyAnne Conway's "alternative facts" are the facts as she sees them.

Of course he has a right to speak, and if you'll notice he has a far bigger platform than most people do. Calling his fearmongering, and unsubstantiated claims out for what they are is not preventing him from speaking. It is just holding him responsible for his words. Though no, I don't think people should be encouraged to demonize others and say things which are untrue just because they get it in their heads. I think they should be encouraged to think about whether those ideas are grounded in fact, and they should also be encouraged to consider the effect those words have on others.

Boze

Quote:
Because his whole trip is that this is about leftist authoritarians forcing their ideas on others and criminalizing speech, which is not true.

It's your perception that that's "his whole trip." Does it occur to you that the people who his message resonates with don't see it that way? And please do not tell me there are no leftist authoritarians forcing their ideas on others in universities, because I am pretty sure everybody recognizes that by now.

Quote:
And because people assume this is about others forcing their pronouns on him, which is also not true. He is the one who made this up.

It's your perception that people assume that's what this is about, but I don't see any basis for that assumption. People see a professor comment on how PC culture is getting out of control and how SJWs have no respect for free speech, and then see a bunch of PC advocates trying to slander and denounce the professor for it, essentially proving his point. And it's not like there are no people out there demanding that people use gender-neutral pronouns when referring to them.

Quote:
And no it is not "the truth as he sees it" any more than KellyAnne Conway's "alternative facts" are the facts as she sees them.

Gross mischaracterization. We're talking about a law, that has to be interpreted and applied by human beings, and even you won't categorically rule out the possibility that some persons could at some time face censure for refusing to not refer to somebody as "he" or "she."

Quote:
Of course he has a right to speak, and if you'll notice he has a far bigger platform than most people do. Calling his fearmongering, and unsubstantiated claims out for what they are is not preventing him from speaking. It is just holding him responsible for his words. Though no, I don't think people should be encouraged to demonize others and say things which are untrue just because they get it in their heads. I think they should be encouraged to think about whether those ideas are grounded in fact, and they should also be encouraged to consider the effect those words have on others.

The point is that we should encourage people to speak the truth as they see it. Yes, if someone believes things that are considered hurtful or untrue, they should say it anyway, because that's how they will articulate their beliefs, and that's how they will receive the proper corrective feedback. We must cease to tell people who say racist shit things like "stop talking, you're embarrassing yourself, just keep that to yourself, etc." We can't first consider whether what we are going to say is true without actually saying it - it is only by speaking and writing that we can actually articulate our thoughts into coherent arguments! We have to have conversations. And we must have an absolute end to the practices of no-platforming.

The reason Peterson has such a big platform is because the man is a fucking genius, probably one of the smartest people in the country right now, and every word that comes out of his mouth is gold.

quizzical

pfft never been a perect human whose words are worth gold.

Boze

Nobody's perfect, but he's absolutely nailing it right now. He has a platform because people literally cannot get enough of what the man has to say.

6079_Smith_W

Sorry to break it to you Boze, but the same could be said of Donald Trump.

And I know we're going around in circles a bit, but if his claims about the law are true, where is the evidence? A number of legal authorities, and the head of the Ontario commission, has pointed out that his claim is not true. I asked already if you have anyone who says otherwise. So far I have heard nothing.

If this is a case of leftist authoritarians forcing their ideas and criminalizing speech when did they do that to him? People only started challenging him after he made the false claim that he is being forced to say things he doesn't want to, and making wild accusations that people were being authoritarian. If you have evidence to show otherwise, then let's hear it.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
A number of legal authorities, and the head of the Ontario commission, has pointed out that his claim is not true. I asked already if you have anyone who says otherwise. So far I have heard nothing.

"Don't worry, everyone!  This new law will only be used for good, and never for evil!"

Funny how sometimes we're supposed to roll our eyes at this, and sometimes we're supposed to believe it (in the absence of anyone being led off in leg irons).

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

6079_Smith_W

Considering how the authoritarians have already completely purged our society of sexist, racist and homophobic slurs, and sent all the perpetrators off to jail I realize it is only a matter of time before they come for poor Dr. Peterson.

Seriously, even a legal opinion to the contrary.... anything with a bit of substance to it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Considering how the authoritarians have already completely purged our society of sexist, racist and homophobic slurs, and sent all the perpetrators off to jail I realize it is only a matter of time before they come for poor Dr. Peterson.

Are authoritarians really that well prioritized?  Do they go after things in order like that?  Or just swing at any pinata that's in front of them?

Or, to put it another way, shouldn't the "protesters" with the air horns and the white noise generators be off silencing genuinely sexist, or racist, or homophobic speakers before turning their anger against someone who won't say "xir" -- something you insist is a red herring nobody even cares about?  If Peterson is supposed to have bigger fish to fry, why shouldn't his gnats also have bigger fish to fry?  

6079_Smith_W

*sigh*

That is completely unrelated to his false claims about the law.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

And his "false claims about the law" are completely unrelated to why some protesters rilly, rilly need to silence some guy who's making false claims about the law when they could be fighting something real.

Boze

Quote:

And I know we're going around in circles a bit, but if his claims about the law are true, where is the evidence? A number of legal authorities, and the head of the Ontario commission, has pointed out that his claim is not true. I asked already if you have anyone who says otherwise. So far I have heard nothing.

If this is a case of leftist authoritarians forcing their ideas and criminalizing speech when did they do that to him? People only started challenging him after he made the false claim that he is being forced to say things he doesn't want to, and making wild accusations that people were being authoritarian. If you have evidence to show otherwise, then let's hear it.

In his own words, if you have to fight a dragon it's better to go to its lair before it comes to your village. He said he decided to speak up before he was confronted with any absurd demands (it's really not hard to imagine where a professor who says things like "If you think you don't want to get married and have kids, you're a damn fool" might get himself in trouble with the PC warriors). Didn't we talk about the professor at Ryerson who had to step down from his position as head of the social work departfment because of "misogynoir" which turned out to be leaving a meeting when someone was speaking? And then the students acted like thugs and yahoos because the department wasn't taking them seriously enough?

You keep retreating to the "criminal speech" angle, not me. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Peterson's claims about the law are total exaggerations and false (despite Brenda Cossman's assertions that Peterson won't be jailed for his utterances, merely potentially fined - not much comfort). We can all rejoice. How does that in any way substantially alter his message? It doesn't. His main point is about political correctness infecting the universities and the other employers, and the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the PC advocates.

Re: other employer's, such as St. Michael's Hospital:

http://www.stmichaelshospital.com/media/detail.php?source=hospital_news/...

Quote:
“Sometimes people don’t even know they have biases,” said Dr. Smylie, a scientist with the hospital’s Centre for Urban Health Solutions and one of the first Métis physicians in Canada. “But there is strong scientific evidence showing that we all look at people and decide if they look like us or not, and that as health-care providers, we tend to treat those who look like us better.

No there isn't. That's bunk.

Quote:
She plans to develop an Indigenous Race Preference Implicit Association Testing tool for people to assess their own levels of racism

This is garbage. Even if the IAT had sufficient reliability (which it doesn't) to be used as a diagnostic tool, what would give an employer the right to examine and alter their employees' implicit perceptual biases? Nothing.

Or how about Parks Canada denying permission for a major motion picture to be filmed in one of their parks near Banff because the plot sounded too un-PC (specifically, it featured an aboriginal crime boss)? Or how about a man named "Lorne Grabher" being told, after 25 years, that he can't have his customized license plate with his last name ("GRABHER") because of one complaint? 

Young people are tired of this bullshit because it rings disgustingly hollow and self-congratulatory. Feel good about doing your part against oppression because you told somebody saying something offensive to knock it off. Slow clap.

edit: And how could I forget, Niki Ashton deleting her social media posts that contained Beyoncé lyrics because somebody accused her of "appropriating black culture."

Again I say: Spit in the face of that shit. But no - Ooooops, wouldn't want to look like a racist! I promise I'm not racist, I promise, I'll delete it, whatever you say, please tell me I did good!

6079_Smith_W

I'm not retreating to anything; I am pointing out what Peterson has said.

You mean does him not being able to back up his claims substantially alter his message?

Yes it does.

Boze

Boze

How is anybody supposed to back up their claims about their fears pertaining to an unpassed law? It's not like we don't have plenty of examples of Canada's Human Rights Commissions doing wacky things to punish those who callously disregard the ideals of social justice.

6079_Smith_W

It has been the law in Ontario for five years.

Boze

What has, exactly? Misgendering? You are all over the place on this. It's illegal, it's not illegal, it's always been illegal and that proves he's full of shit because it's never enforced, etc. He has an opinion on the law and the worst-case scenario and he should be encouraged to express his fears, because people should be encouraged to tell the truth as they understand it. People should not be told to be quiet about things that concern them that they do not understand. How else are they going to get corrective feedback? Peterson has since clarified his position, that if using proper names and refraining from using pronouns altogether is fine, that's what he will do. Personally I don't think people should ever have to refrain from standard pronoun use or moderate their view that "he" and "she" are adequate to encompass the population, but either way, the substance of Peterson's message is not addressed by this.

Also, go back five years and find me signs saying "my pronouns are not up for debate." One of Peterson's more interesting points it that things will get weirder and weider as people run out of civil rights struggles. Trans people are like half a percent, and non-binary trans people are like one percent of that.  You can say that "they" is sufficient to encompass all non-binary people, and maybe it is today, but there is no guarantee that it will stay that way. There is no reason why this kind of identity politics will not continue to fractionate down to the level of the individual.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
One of Peterson's more interesting points it that things will get weirder and weider as people run out of civil rights struggles.

Perhaps "otherkins" will be next.

If it's important to refer to a non-binary person as "xe" (or even "they") then on what specific grounds would we exclude someone who identifies as a "foxkin"?

Yes, I know.  Standard "slippery slope" argument, right?  But seriously.  On what specific grounds would we say that someone's belief that they have no gender should be protected, but someone's belief that they really and spiritually are a fox should not?  Sadly, we can no longer fall back on "because that's just silly". 

 

6079_Smith_W

Well I don't know about anyone claiming to be a foxkin, but I know we have seen this before with arguments about people being able to marry foxkins being trotted out as why we can't open the floodgates and allow same sex marriage.

Still waiting on that one.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
but I know we have seen this before with arguments about people being able to marry foxkins being trotted out as why we can't open the floodgates and allow same sex marriage.

People are totally allowed to marry a foxkin.  But nobody has to refer to them as "Fox and wife".

And that's "tolerance" in a nutshell.  Run whatever you want up your flagpole, but don't set your hair on fire if I don't salute it.

6079_Smith_W

Sure. Though in this case it is a guy who set his hair on fire while pointing at an imaginary flagpole.

Again, it's not like the pronoun police were scouring the campus before he decided this was a criminal issue. The human rights commission only responded because he was making these unsubstantiated claims.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

For the record, if the HRC made it very clear that never would this ever become an actionable concern, I'm personally OK with that.

But there shall be no "do overs".  No matter how sad xe was at not being called "xe'!

If we could really get to that point, and if we could really all believe it, then I'd agree that Peterson is just being silly.

Boze

Boze

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/judge-oks-petition-for-americas-first-ge...

Quote:

A Portland student has become the first American to gain legal designation as “genderless”, following a ruling by a Multnomah County judge.

The March 10 decision, reported for the first time on Thursday, involved a 27-year-old who was born male but claimed to identify with no gender whatsoever. Judge Amy Holmes, who approved the petition, also last year approved a “non-binary” gender designation for another Portland resident.

The 27-year-old formerly known as Patrick Abbatiello, now legally designated agender, also got legal approval to change names, now going only by “Patch,” no surname. That name also serves as a pronoun, Patch explained to the local NBC affiliate this week.

“Even gender-neutral pronouns don’t feel as if they fit me,” Patch said. “I feel no identity or closeness with any pronouns I’ve come across. What describes me is my name.”

edit: Okay, I cannot for the life of me embed this image.

http://coedmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/170322-no-gender-mn-1340...

Okay. This actually made me madder than it should have. This person clearly has a fucking mental disorder. The thing is, I know people who will not only defend, but encourage this kind of pathological narcissism. No, you cannot just opt out of gender, you fucking yogurt.

BUT A JUDGE JUST SAID HE CAN!

And people will tell me that I'm being hateful (lol!) here, but I don't think that judge or any of that person's "friends" that encourage this shit actually have his best interest at heart here. I will paraphrase Dr. Peterson once again: you need corrective feedback from people around you. If you receive nothing but validation from everyone around you, you're completely fucked, because your worst tendencies will just take you over.

edit: Found the clip! A great one:

Important insights and great quotes from this guy every time he speaks. "If you're fortunate, you're surrounded by people who like you now and wish you'd be a little better, and they'll let you know when you're failing on that."

"You think you're sane. You're not. You're not even close. If I put you alone in a cave for two weeks you'd be done. You can't be sane on your own." Yep!

"You never learn anything without pain. And often when you receive a piece of corrective information from someone, if you could throw that person in jail you would. That doesn't mean they're wrong."

I know why people think this guy is so hateful. He has a realistic view of what human beings are.

6079_Smith_W

Again Boze, you can have whatever opinion you want, but the actual doctors and researchers now realize there is nothing wrong with it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/gender-dysphoria-dsm-5_n_338528...

In fact the only thing that is a disorder is "the distress that accompanies gender dysphoria arises as a result of a culture that stigmatizes people who do not conform to gender norms".

That means small-minded people with no better interests than getting their nose out of joint about others, and passing judgment on them. And those "realistic ideas"? No they aren't.

In this regard, the change resembles the elimination of homosexuality from the manual 40 years ago.

“The concept underlying eliminating homosexuality from the DSM was recognizing that you can be homosexual and psychological healthy or be homosexual and psychologically screwed up. Being homosexual didn’t have to be the issue,” Rosenberg said.

Speaking of which, you said something about getting mad. You seem to be getting awfully distressed about things that don't actually concern you at all.

Paladin1

Quote:

Perhaps "otherkins" will be next.

If it's important to refer to a non-binary person as "xe" (or even "they") then on what specific grounds would we exclude someone who identifies as a "foxkin"?

Yes, I know.  Standard "slippery slope" argument, right?  But seriously.  On what specific grounds would we say that someone's belief that they have no gender should be protected, but someone's belief that they really and spiritually are a fox should not?  Sadly, we can no longer fall back on "because that's just silly".

I agree with you. I've debated and argued this in class.   Why can't I be a wolfkin who was a vampire in a former life?  A wolfkin without a pack though because I identify as a lone wolf so I don't like to be near other wolfkin but I'm okay near deer kin as long as it's not a full moon.

Boze

Quote:

Again Boze, you can have whatever opinion you want, but the actual doctors and researchers now realize there is nothing wrong with it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/gender-dysphoria-dsm-5_n_338528...

In fact the only thing that is a disorder is "the distress that accompanies gender dysphoria arises as a result of a culture that stigmatizes people who do not conform to gender norms".

First, gender dysphoria as most trans people experience it is caused by their bodies not matching their internal representation of what they are supposed to be like. Second, what does this have to do with anything we're talking about? You do know that we AREN'T talking about trans people here, right? The "agender" guy that I referenced above isn't trans in any way.

Quote:

That means small-minded people with no better interests than getting their nose out of joint about others, and passing judgment on them. And those "realistic ideas"? No they aren't.

In this regard, the change resembles the elimination of homosexuality from the manual 40 years ago.

“The concept underlying eliminating homosexuality from the DSM was recognizing that you can be homosexual and psychological healthy or be homosexual and psychologically screwed up. Being homosexual didn’t have to be the issue,” Rosenberg said.

What does this have to do with what we're talking about, or with Peterson's views that I described as realistic? We're clearly not on the same page.

Quote:
Speaking of which, you said something about getting mad. You seem to be getting awfully distressed about things that don't actually concern you at all.

The idea that people have an obligation to validate each others' identities most definitely concerns me, as does the thought that it might be difficult to work in my chosen field if I publicly state opposition to politically correct nonsense.

Pages