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

They don't have the power to pull him off YouTube either.

Again, he has been spinning this as politically correct oppression. All the more reason to be clear about what is a concrete step to shut him down, and what is merely complaint and warning.

The harshest the university has gotten is to urge him to not repeat his statements about not respecting students wishes. But what power do they have to enforce that request?

But the university hasn't done so. And I think it is a good thing they warned him to make their position clear. But  No one and no law can force him to use a pronoun if he doesn't want to. He might face censure if he uses an incorrect pronoun, but until then this is all just talk.

What do you base that on? The university has given no indication they want to get rid of him.

It is not clear at this point if they can do anything at all so long as all he is doing is expressing his views.

Quote:

No doubt there will continue to be tricky tensions between that process and free speech, but Peterson’s case largely avoids them. He’s wrong, but so too are many of the protesters who gathered on campus this week. We should be gratified that they reject his views, but worried that so many have also called for his firing.

Take it from A.W. Peet, a tenured professor of physics at U of T who identifies as non-binary. Despite describing Peterson’s opinions as a noxious “tire fire,” Peet argued he should be allowed to keep his professorship. “Academic freedom is something that protects people who we believe to be odious conservatives as much as it protects people we believe to be awesome progressives,” said Peet. They are exactly right.

http://www.ourwindsor.ca/opinion-story/6903557-toronto-star-s-view-u-of-...

Just watched some videos from the a rally he held.

I still think his interpretation of the law, and university regulations are completely crackers, but some of the people opposing him were just there to obstruct, and at some points he clearly came off as the more reasonable.

Breitbart News caught some of the actual assaults on video, but one should bear in mind its right wing slant: 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/10/24/transgender-activists-derail-fr...

Peterson having to resort to yelling when his speech is disrupted by a white noise machine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFcn775CqAg

This exchange moves between moments of clarity, and going completely off the rails.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-nvNAcvUPE

This conversation was actually very good (once you get a few minutes in and can hear it, and until he starts interrupting and making assumptions). But despite some of his bizarre misinterpretation, and his  blindness to matters of privilege, he actually shows some good faith here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gakoqQz6aUc

A whole bunch of crazy stuff if you want to wade through it. On the other hand, I think Chris Selley from the National Post nailed it:

Quote:

And that, I think, is a critical tension in these discussions. I share some of Peterson’s worries — about speech chill on campuses, about the ludicrous prospect of pronoun abusers winding up before the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

But on the other hand, what kind of jerk refuses to refer to someone as he, she or they would like? They’re human beings, not issues.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/chris-selley-academic-freedom-...

(for the most part  got it, actually. I think concerns that pronoun abusers are going to be hauled befoe a tribunal are about as serious as concerns back in the 90s that new child porn laws would result in confiscation of all fountain cherubs. And there were some concerned about that)

No excuse, actually. And as much as I disagree with him some of the questions levelled at him (the Nazi ones)  were really dishonest.

But neither would I want to spin this as evidence of the authoritatian clampdown he is complaining about. Ultimately I think his fears in that regard are completely unfounded.

When they actually started talking, I meant.

And I should also point out that I meant that in relative terms. From the looks of it I honestly think he believes he is in an embattled position, and that this is a critical issue. Doesn't make it so.

And the fact he had some immature and self-righteous boors show up to try and shut him down does not mean he is in any danger of being prevented from making his case, or losing his job.

He is, after all, in international media at this point.

i get the sense most here haven't taken the time to watch a couple videos.  The only bone of contention he has is that it is ILLEGAL for him to not use these various pronouns.  He  is saying he cannot be FORCED BY LAW to use certain words and not others (even if it doesn't really make sense) and that it is very orweillian and sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of speech.  He at length describes how this is different than hate speech laws which aim to "prevent" people from talking publicly about certain topics in certin ways or using certain terms which are generally not accepted by the society.

i''ve yet to hear a reasonable argument against him on that point.

All the response to him sounds very much like that to Noam Chomsky when he's called "anti american" or a "self hating jew".  His dtractors try to skirt the issue, disrupt and censor him.  Not the hallmark of an intellectually sound rebuttal that's for sure.

Quote:

as was pointed out in the examples of misdiagnosis, suicide, and refusal of a place to rent.

That is the whole reason for the legislation he thinks is going to limit his freedom.

Why didn't someone just say this earlier?

If all I have to do to ensure that the non-gendered aren't misdiagnosed, commit suicide or be refused a dwelling is say "they", why couldn't anyone just tell us all this??

Smith, activists aren't losing their shit over this because Peterson said "he", so now "they" can't rent an apartment. 

Also, are they really saying that someone was medically misdiagnosed because the world didn't recognize their genderlessness?  If so, we could fix that toot sweet by demanding that doctors just ask "OK, when you were young, did you have something between your legs?  And did it look more like the hotdog or more like the bun?"  Surely that would help prevent misdiagnosis of cervical cancer among CAMABs, without forcing any genders on anyone.

Quote:

But as you saw in the video someone did bring up those things as examples of why  Bill C-16 is important in protecting transgendered people.

I'm certainly down with any bills that help to protect the marginalized.

But is it important that these bills not just specify protection of the marginalized, but also demand that we all use approved words?

What if they could just be about material things?

C-16 on its own isn't the problem. The problem is human rights tribunals generally, and especially the OHRC, using definitions of "discrimination" that are so broad that they probably do cover situations of "so and so won't use my pronouns." Absent that, I would have no problem wholeheartedly endorsing the bill.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Except that not only did having the rude people show up at his demo not shut him up; it gave him far more exposure.

And although he frames it as a free speech battle (its opposite, actually - the freedom to NOT have to say something) it is really nothing of the sort.

And although the tactics and rhetoric some of them used were really unfortunate, in the wider society their position is actually far more under assault than his campaign, as was pointed out in the examples of misdiagnosis, suicide, and refusal of a place to rent.

That is the whole reason for the legislation he thinks is going to limit his freedom.

It sounds like you are conflating so-called SJWs, like what Peterson is talking about, with trans people, who actually do need protection from the law. There is obviously some overlap, as in the case of the above individuals. But, I would wager, they don't speak for the vast majority of trans people (especially those who actually want to "pass" or even "go stealth" and certainly have no interest in gender-neutral pronouns). 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

When they actually started talking, I meant.

And I should also point out that I meant that in relative terms. From the looks of it I honestly think he believes he is in an embattled position, and that this is a critical issue. Doesn't make it so.

And the fact he had some immature and self-righteous boors show up to try and shut him down does not mean he is in any danger of being prevented from making his case, or losing his job.

He is, after all, in international media at this point.

Those boors are part of the problem he's talking about though. The cultural trend of the attitude: "Dangerous opinion detected! Immediately stop processing and attempt to silence!"

Here's another manifestation of the problem. I'm sometimes wary about what I say here, because back in the day, moderation was a little more strict, and I was once banned (and then unbanned after a second look). I'm abrasive, I like to kick sacred cows in the face, I don't care what group might be offended by what I say, and I deeply having to couch my opinions with pointless virtue signalling along the lines of "just to let you guys know, this opinion isn't in any way meant to be transphobic or to imply in any way that trans people don't face discrimination or aren't deserving of protections in employment or etc etc," just out of fear that some overzealous mod might think that there are dangerous implications to what I'm saying and ban me from commenting further.

*redacted*

This spread of "safe spaces" for discussion is absolute CANCER to the left, and why the cultural right is having such success on the internet at the present moment championing something that should be a fucking no-brainer and championed on all sides: freedom of speech, in all its fetid glory. And it's spilling into "real life," too! Like quizzical stated upthread, these SJWs just don't realize that being offended isn't a valid rhetorical stance!

Exactly.

I want to reiterate - social identity is negotiated, it is not claimed. You can claim to be a captain or a doctor and demand to be addressed accordingly, but you will not have much success unless you have taken some steps to legitimize these claims. Trans people have, historically, understood this. If you want people to know that you expect to be referred to with female pronouns, you should present as female. But, if gender itself is an oppressive social construct to be dismantled, "presenting as a woman" is meaningless...and I somewhat agree with this. But to leap from this to conclude that "therefore, it doesn't matter how you present, your internal identity is what should determine how others see you and refer to you" is kind of a leap in logic, donchathink??

Further, it's entirely legitimate to take the position, philosophically, that internal selves don't even exist and are just an illusion. You ARE your body, you don't "inhabit" your body. You are your body in exactly the same way that a chair IS a chair and a cat IS itself. You are not a spirit inside your body that directs your body to act in a particular fashion. None of this says anything about how people claiming to BE something other than what they appear to be ought to be treated, but it certainly says something about the law stepping in to demand that society accord itself with people's identity demands.

From Brenda Crossman's article, linked above:

Quote:

Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun.   The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”.  In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.  And the remedies?  Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures).  Jail time is not one of them.

Oh, what a relief. You won't go to jail, you just might be subject to monetary penalties, and your employer might be pressured to fire you if you won't change your wicked ways.

It would be better if people on the left were wary of the kind of alienation this could produce. You're going to drive people over to the right - and you might say "good riddance," but that's a very silly way to look at it.

And you know what, in some places I would be called a "concern troll" for saying that.

Quote:

This is legislation to add protection for people who are refused work, refused accomodation, refused service, refused a place to go to the bathroom, battered, and driven to suicide, and it is all about some tenured professor thinking it is all about him is being forced to say the word "they"?

Would you go so far as to assure us that this legislation will never be used to police interpersonal language, and will only be used to settle material matters like housing and employment?

And just for fun, if the protesters who rebutted Peterson COULD use this (or other) legislation to force his dismissal, or impose financial penalties, do you think they would?  Or do you think they'd agree that that's not really what the law is for?  Because I don't think that Peterson's major point is that this bill is poorly written.  I think it's that with or without this bill, this is a direction that we're heading and it's not where we should want to be heading.

Quote:

The guidelines advise teachers to address each student by whatever name — and pronoun — that particular student chooses, based on how the student self-identifies.

"All individuals have the right to be addressed by their chosen name and to choose pronouns that align with their gender identity and/or gender expression," the document states.

It goes on to say: "Some individuals may not feel included in the use of the pronouns 'he' or 'she' and may prefer alternate pronouns, such as 'ze,' 'zir,' 'hir,' 'they' or 'them,' or might wish to express themselves or self-identify in other ways (e.g., Mx. instead or Mr., Mrs., Ms., or Miss, or no prefix at all)."

Will there be some kind of limit or list of approved pronouns? Will you have to submit one for approval? (I doubt it)  I read an article about this, possibly from California where students are doing what you would expect and twisting the intent around.  Students changed their pronouns to Your royal highness, Lord, Your grace, stuff like that.

I can imagine the number of people fucking around with this just to be goofballs would outweight the people who use it legitimately. What if my pronoun offends you? Do I get forced to change it or do you get a criminal record for not using it?

Quote:

when ordered by the radical left authoritarians.

Is this about those same "radical left authoritarians"?  Or is it about an actual government bill?

You think people are just being loopy and pretending to be genuinely concerned about shit like this, but I disagree.  I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that everyone will say "Whew!  We passed that bill guaranteeing equal access to jobs and apartments and a restaurant meal, and finally we're DONE!  Everything else is small potatoes!!".

Honest to Gord, Smith, look at Peterson's critics and tell me you think they're really only worried about renting an apartment.

Quote:

I think they are worried about a good deal more than that, and I can understand why.  But what about them? They are uncouth and rude so they deserve to be discriminated against?

That's not my point at all.  I don't think their primary concern is renting an apartment -- as though people are regularly denied a lease for claiming to be "non-binary gender-fluid".

My point is that they do seem a bit obsessed about the pronoun thing, and that I (personally) belive that if they could twist or bend or stretch a law into a dismissal, or legal penalties for Peterson then they would.

But if you really believe they'd never stoop to that, just tell us that you believe they'd never stoop to that.

It is their identity, Magoo. No it is not as serious as being refused work or killed. But it is an ongoing, everyday bit of denial which is constantly there, and which neither you nor I get.

Grammarians, and fuddy duddies lost their shit over "firepeople" and "fishers" too. But honestly, Peterson is taking this to a whole new level of batshit tinfoil crazy.

You know, I get the freedom of speech thing, and that some of you are honestly concerned, but really, this is completely without foundation.  It is not the most important thing in the room here. It is not important at all, and would not even be thought about if whatshisname hadn't decided to play lightning rod.It is just the most important thing to some who have no idea why this legislation is necessary.

No problem by raising the discussion.

Big problem in making the false accusations he does, and warning about things which simply are not going to happen

Frankly, those who take a position that he is guilty of hate speech are just as hair-on-fire reactionary as he is. They aren't responsible for applying human rights legislation, and they aren't in any position to do anything about his position at the university.

As was mentioned already, a non gender-binary professor at the university takes the position that while Peterson's opinions are toxic, the principle of academic freedom of speech is most important here in dealing with his regrettable behaviour and attacks. And indeed, although the university sent him a letter asking him to stop saying the objectionable things he is saying, they have done nothing to limit that freedom. And it is not even clear that they COULD do anything about it if they wanted to.

Quote:

They aren't responsible for applying human rights legislation, and they aren't in any position to do anything about his position at the university.

That should be reassuring to Peterson.

Conversely, Peterson isn't in charge of the student newspaper, or the Oxford Dictionary, and isn't in any postition to prevent students from calling each other nem and nir to their hearts' content.  Will that be sufficient to satisfy them, do you think?

Quote:

You forgot per.

Indeed.  Per, pers, perself.  Up to 34 now.

Quote:

But that is clearly not what he was refering to in citing an article which was actually about 31 distinct gender identities, and had nothing to do with specific pronouns at all.

OK, but you wrote:

Quote:

31 distinct gender pronouns that don't exist31 distinct gender pronouns that don't exist

Are you sure they don't exist?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The truth is out there, you mean?

So you're quite certain no teacher is ever going to be fired for refusing to call a gender non-conforming kid by their special pronoun, and that it will still be totally legal to say "you get two choices, HE or SHE, and anybody asking for something else is probably suffering from a mental disorder"?

What exactly is so toxic about Peterson's opinions anyway?

Quote:

Here's the thing about wacky conspiracy theories.

It isn't actually on the rest of us to prove that it might not possibly happen ..on mars, or wherever you think this might be going on.

Remember when a bunch of progressives wouldn't complete the Federal Census, because the software used to tabulate the results was authored by Lockheed-Martin, and the fear was that magically, the Department of Homeland Security might order L-M to use some backdoor in that software to divulge information about how many people currently reside in some Canadian's house?

Good times!

Anyway, this whole situation really reminds me of a situation we found ourselves in several years back, when Canada was on the cusp of introducing some much-needed, toothier laws against animal cruelty.  Anyone remember what I'm talking about?

If I recall correctly, the new law was vigorously opposed by farmers, ranchers and (I think) even a few religious groups, on the grounds that the wording of the proposed law was vague enough that it could be twisted and stretched into a criminal charge against a chicken farm, or a Halal slaughterhouse.

Proponents of the new law swore up and down that it could never be used like that, but IIRC they also refused to consider revisiting the wording of the law to make it completely clear that it would not.

I don't side with the sickos who torture cats and dogs for lulz, but I totally supported the farmers and ranchers and kosher butchers.  It should have been totally easy to craft a law that could distinguish between an animal torturer and a chicken farmer, but for inexplicable reasons, animal rights activists wanted none of that.  And (again, IIRC) the bill didn't pass.

While I do think most people are either sensible, fair-minded, or just apathetic enough to not have any interest in using a vaguely-worded law to get what they want, all it takes is a few.  And I honestly and genuinely and in good faith say that I believed that militant animal-rights activists would have had a field day with the law as written.  Because when people get themselves all wrapped around the axle with their own righteousness, ANYTHING can be a weapon -- even a well-meaning law.

Personally, I believe that if the same activists who brought a white-noise generator to Peterson's speech could just file a HRC complaint against him right now, today, then they would.

In post #79 I asked you plainly:

Quote:

And just for fun, if the protesters who rebutted Peterson COULD use this (or other) legislation to force his dismissal, or impose financial penalties, do you think they would?

Do you think they would?  I think the three possible answers are:

1) Never would they ever!

2) They probably would, so OK, I see why this is worrisome.

3) It's unlikely.  White-noise generators, sure, but even zealots have their limits.

And do you really need me to point out why I ignored that question?