Jordan Peterson is bad news!

377 posts / 0 new
Last post
wage zombie

So every time you hear humans referred to as "it", you cringe, and yet you were curious as to what objections there would be to calling non-binary people "it"?

6079_Smith_W

Yes Magoo. In Nazi concentration camps language was changed to refer to murdered people as piles of wood as a means of dehumanizing them. I think that's the point.

Someone just got banned for pursuing a similarly ugly and demeaning line of reasoning. Maybe you should take the hint rather than playing games to see how far you can push it.

Mr. Magoo

Well, I don't speak for everybody.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
I wasn't suggesting we all switch.  I've seen humans referred to as "it" plenty of times on babble, and it always makes me cringe.  But I was curious what the objection would be, especially in the context of the continued assertion that "language can and does change".

Yes but in current language it is dehumanizing. Someday a table might be called a chair but right now it is still a table. It's not like trans people are going think "damn why didn't I think of that!". It's a disingenuous suggestion. It is common knowledge that "it" has been unanimously rejected as an appropriate alternative to human pronouns. 

This is a progressive message board where members have been told they don't need to present progressive 101 arguments. That is what some posters seem to be trying to elicit. The challenge was to explain why "it" is unsuitable. The same has been done by other posters on different topics. 

When the question is asked in good faith because someone is trying to understand an issue I am willing to engage. That isn't the case with experienced posters. They do understand they just don't agree or they are playing a  head game to make themselves feel superior. 

6079_Smith_W

Though you raise a good point Magoo, if it is in a backhanded way.

Racists, homophobes and sexists have never had a problem repurposing words for hate, and to dehumanize and humiliate (like that "it"). So why is it that they point at the dictionary as an excuse they wouldn't dare change meaning when it comes to people who are just asking for respect?

Let me guess; this isn't about grammar. It is about hate.

Paladin1

It's interesting where and when we make exceptions for using hateful words.

I would be banned for calling someone it (and rightly so) but not for calling them a nazi (essentially saying they believe in or support the murder of millions including or especially so for handicap people or homosexuals).

6079_Smith_W

Did you read what Meg said about rope? This isn't about one word, as I am sure you are aware.

As for poor hard done-by Nazis, power factors into this too, as does the difference between political ideology and sex, race, and gender.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
It is common knowledge that "it" has been unanimously rejected as an appropriate alternative to human pronouns.

Not entirely.

"When the dog barked suddenly, the baby dropped its pacifier".

Again, though, not suggesting we all switch.

Quote:
They do understand they just don't agree or they are playing a  head game to make themselves feel superior.

Are those really and honestly the only two reasons you can think of?

Quote:
So why is it that they point at the dictionary as an excuse they wouldn't dare change meaning when it comes to people who are just asking for respect?

Well, TBH, I think they're actually asking for more than just respect.

But for what it's worth, I'd actually be fine with repurposing plural pronouns like "them" and "they", and it kind of looks like we're headed that way anyway.

I just think the problem with that is that it will sometimes be ambiguous, even with context, and that other than everyone having to wear a button or shirt to explain their exception ("I use them/their as pronouns") or the rest of us having to keep a database in our head ("this person and that person and that other person told me that use them/their as pronouns"), it's a bit unclear how it's going to work that well in practice.

And I'm sure I've made it clear that I'm not interested in made-up words.  If we could survive for thousands of years with only two, I can't see how we should need any more than three for the next thousand years.  Sorry to the Xirs and Xims on that.

Quote:
I would be banned for calling someone it (and rightly so)

I don't think anyone's been banned specifically for that.

6079_Smith_W

No Magoo, they are just asking for respect. That creepy jerking off thing really is just in your head.

Mind that is.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Did you read what Meg said about rope? This isn't about one word, as I am sure you are aware.

Of course. I saw him being banned coming. That said if a poster here were to, for whatever reason, refer to trans people as it's then I'm sure that one word may very well be enough for a ban.

Quote:
As for poor hard done-by Nazis

Nazi's and people you want to insult or put down. Or people you don't agree with or anyone who's right wing or conservative. Rinse repeat lol

6079_Smith_W

Look Paladin, speaking as someone who has been called a Nazi in here more than once, let me tell you there is a difference. Not because I think it is okay, but because I know I don't have to worry about that treatment out in the open street, every day. Some people do get it all the time, out in the real world.

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
No Magoo, they are just asking for respect. That creepy jerking off thing really is just in your head.

I think it's an expectation of validation.

I can treat someone who thinks he's Jesus with respect, while not validating the idea that he's actually Jesus.  But if I have to address him as "Jesus" or "my Lord" or "King of Kings" then yes, he's masturbating with my hand.  Sorry if you don't like that analogy, Smith.  I borrow it from my wife.

And it leads back to the same question:  if I'm OK with you believing whatever you wish to believe about yourself, to what degree am I also expected to act in ways that affirm your beliefs?  This is honestly why I keep mentioning "animalkins" or "the chron-gendered".  Because it's not so clear to me why we should not humour them too.

What makes us say "LOL, nobody is a wolf (or vampire, or psychic, or alien-abductee, or the reincarnation of Cleopatra)" and then say "but of course some people are born with no gender, and have been for millenia".

More to the point, why do we add "... and if each of them wants a unique and special pronoun, like some kind of vanity licence plate, we must do that"?

Paladin1

Look Smith, you're wrong.  And you think you're immunue to being called a nazi out in the open street? Like say if you were caught at one of Peterson's speaking engagements?  Even if you're there just to see what it's about or write a scathng story against him?  You obviously haven't been paying attention to the protests at various speaking engagements by right wing personalities. I'll see if I can dig up some videos of white protestors calling black people racist and nazis. It's as ridiculous as it sounds. You'll get called a nazi by the mob right along everyone else.

As I stated we seem to make all kinds of exceptions for the use of mean, hurtful or hateful words and name calling.

Not suggesting that has anything to do with RP being banned. Just an observation.

The lies and unethical behavior from Wilfrid Laurier U shows how far people will go to try and prove Jordan Peterson wrong or disparage him.

He doesn't believe in using new or made up pronouns. It's amazing that such a big deal has been made about it.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Look Paladin, speaking as someone who has been called a Nazi in here more than once

That and $3.25 will get you on a ride on a real Toronto streetcar.

Meanwhile, I'll be honest and say I have a bit of difficulty believe that the "non-gendered" face street harrassment every day.  How on earth could you or I know that some person passing us on the sidewalk identifies as "non-gendered"??

A "woman" with a short haircut?  A "man" wearing makeup?  If it was that easy to tell who's "non-gendered" I'd be down with "they/them" in a New York minute.  But as noted, part of the problem is that unlike "he" and "she", there are simply no cultural signifiers for "they" other than a button or t-shirt.

 

6079_Smith_W

Vanity? Really? That's your take on people who suffer among the most highest suicide and violence rates of anyone because of ignorant jerks who do and say things like you are right here?

As for your comments, I don't like it, in part,  because I have a 12-year-old in my family who wrestles with this ignorant hateful shit on a daily basis, so I am really done with your entitled bullshit. And your whining about it when people point it out as if you are the one who is being imposed upon.

I know you are not a stupid guy; it is probably a year ago now that I showed you flat out that the head of your human rights commission said the word "they" was just fine. So all this shit you are making up and repeating - your ignorant comparisons to wolf people, your complaint about madeup words, and your jerkoff lines - are just hatred and not giving a shit about people.

Your wife didn't post it here; you did. Take responsibility for your own words

(edit)

Cross posted with you Magoo. As for what you think non-binary people face, a good friend of mine was beaten up, sexually assaulted and left for dead because of what someone thought of her. So your guesswork means fuck all. Maybe you should look at some of the violence people really face.

And then you might want to consider if your words are helping make things better or contributing to the problem.

 

 

 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
  Are those really and honestly the only two reasons you can think of? 

For experienced rabble posters yes, for the general population no. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
  ​But for what it's worth, I'd actually be fine with repurposing plural pronouns like "them" and "they", and it kind of looks like we're headed that way anyway. 

Yes and it is evolving quite naturally because it is also in casual use when the gender is unknown rather than just non-binary. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 I just think the problem with that is that it will sometimes be ambiguous, even with context, and that other than everyone having to wear a button or shirt to explain their exception ("I use them/their as pronouns") or the rest of us having to keep a database in our head ("this person and that person and that other person told me that use them/their as pronouns"), it's a bit unclear how it's going to work that well in practice.  

Very easily if you don't know someone's gender you can't use gendered pronouns. That's why "their" and "they" started being applied to the singular. It isn't like you are going to be meeting non-binary gendered people on a frequent basis unless you are part of the queer community. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 And I'm sure I've made it clear that I'm not interested in made-up words.  If we could survive for thousands of years with only two, I can't see how we should need any more than three for the next thousand years.  Sorry to the Xirs and Xims on that.  

I don't think Xir or Xim will catch on. I don't even know how to pronounce them but a person's name can always be used in lieu of a pronoun. 

We are beginning to lose some gendered language as we are transitioning to sales person and flight attendent, etc. It is possible that him and her will eventually follow the same trajectory based on it being a superfluous distinction. 

I think it's more likely that we will end up with mer rather than him and her or something like that over the long term. 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Vanity? Really? That's your take on people who suffer among the most highest suicide and violence rates of anyone because of ignorant jerks who do and say things like you are right here?

Well, two questions:

1.  are you specifically referring to the "non-gendered"?  Or, as so many are wont to do, just lumping in MTF and FTM trans people, who would probably die a little inside if they were referred to as "them"?

2.  Are you sure that their family and friends aren't a larger factor in those suicides than I am?

Quote:
I showed you flat out that the head of your human rights commission said the word "they" was just fine. So all this shit you are making up and repeating - your ignorant comparisons to wolf people, your complaint about madeup words, and your jerkoff lines - are just hatred and not giving a shit about people.

Which specific part of that was supposed to inform us that God just said you're right and I'm wrong and I need to stop now?

Quote:
Your wife didn't post it here; you did. Take responsibility for your own words

I take responsibility for my post of my wife's words, but is this the first time you've seen an attributed quote?

ed'd to add:

Quote:
Cross posted with you Magoo. As for what you think non-binary people face, a good friend of mine was beaten up, sexually assaulted and left for dead because of what someone thought of her.

Uhhh.  Thought of who?? 

Did we stop talking about the non-gendered and I didn't notice?  This being the Peterson thread, let's remember that even the evil professor isn't talking about MTF transpeople, and neither am I.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
For experienced rabble posters yes, for the general population no.

I see.  But if I point out that spiders are not, in fact, insects, how do you tell the difference between me doing it because it's correct, and me doing it because I'm playing a head game?  To make myself feel superior?

Quote:
Very easily if you don't know someone's gender you can't use gendered pronouns. That's why "their" and "they" started being applied to the singular. It isn't like you are going to be meeting non-binary gendered people on a frequent basis

Very well.  But whose gender do I actually know?  About whom can I make an assumption?

Please tell me, Pondering, because whatever you say, I'm going to take to the bank.  Short-haired woman?  Man in makeup?  Help me out here.  And back me up if WE get it wrong.

Quote:
I don't even know how to pronounce them but a person's name can always be used in lieu of a pronoun.

It's even less likely that I'd know some stranger's name than that I'd know (or even have a really good guess) at their gender.  Otherwise, I'd agree.  If I can say "Pat said" that's easier than deciding between "he said", "she said", "they said" "xe said" and so on.

And FWIW, the "x" is just pronounced like a "z".

 

6079_Smith_W

Look Magoo, if your expectation here is that I am going to get angrier and blow a gasket, it isn't going to happen. I sussed out where you were coming from ages ago.

All you are doing here is trolling. I don't see any compassion or consideration for others. People have asked you to please stop and your response is that they should shut up. The only compassion  is for yourself when you ask for a safe space where people won't call you on the discriminatory things you say.

This is just a game for you; my biggest frustration isn't that your words have any meaning - because if you are incapable of compassion clearly they don't - but that it makes it that much harder to have a conversation for those of us who do care about these things.

And it really is a shame, because clearly you are not stupid. So my guess is you have something more intelligent to contribute than just trying to wind people up, if you were so inclined.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

For anyone here who does give a shit about stuff, if you have Netflix and haven't seen this, I recommend you take an hour and do so:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/article-the-transformati...

It relates to a number of Peterson's sophistric arguments. And self-understanding and compassion for others.

In fact, I recommend it to anyone. Who knows?

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
All you are doing here is trolling. I don't see any compassion or consideration for others.

Trolling is saying something you don't really believe just to get a rise out of others.  While what I say might get a rise out of you, that's not the intent.

Quote:
People have asked you to please stop and your response is that they should shut up.

The people asking me to "Please, please... just... stop" are also asking me to shut up.  That's arguments for ya.

Quote:
The only compassion  is for yourself when you ask for a safe space where people won't call you on the discriminatory things you say.

I hereby, formally request -- and please, Smith or anyone else bookmark this post -- that if I ever demand a "safe space" on a political discussion board, just ban me.

Meanwhile, please do not interpret my continued discussion of a topic as my demand for a "safe space".

Quote:
So my guess is you have something more intelligent to contribute than just trying to wind people up, if you were so inclined.

So I'm intelligent, but I only say stupid things -- that just coincidentally are in opposition to your beliefs.

One hand giveth, and the other hand taketh away.

 

wage zombie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

1.  are you specifically referring to the "non-gendered"?  Or, as so many are wont to do, just lumping in MTF and FTM trans people, who would probably die a little inside if they were referred to as "them"?

You keep throwing around this term "non-gendered".  Did you make it up?  What does it mean?  Does it apply to words and terms, or does it apply to people?  I've never heard of a person being "non-gendered".

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I hereby, formally request -- and please, Smith or anyone else bookmark this post -- that if I ever demand a "safe space" on a political discussion board, just ban me.

Not that anyone is going to ban you for that (so no need to pretend ) but is that a promise you'll never ask for it again? If so, I take it as a small accomplishment.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I've never heard of a person being "non-gendered".

You're a bit late to the party.

Quote:
Does it apply to words and terms, or does it apply to people?

People apply it to themselves.

Quote:
I've never heard of a person being "non-gendered".

You're not alone.

6079_Smith_W

I have never heard of non-gendered either. Usually it is refered to as non-binary, or gender fluid. Non-gendered sounds like something out of THX-1138.

Gee. A made-up word. You okay with that?

 

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Not that anyone is going to ban you for that (so no need to pretend ) but is that a promise you'll never ask for it again? If so, I take it as a small accomplishment.

I'm not pretending that I'd be banned for it.  But I'm saying I've never asked for it.

Or else please show me where I demanded a "safe space" or anything like it.

My sense of self isn't tied to everyone else believing everything I think about myself.  But if you have posts to quote, please do.

I won't ask for a "safe space" again because I haven't asked for such a thing already. 

"Safe Space", these days means "Nobody can question my awesome truths".  If "safe spaces" ever meant something meaningful, that's been wrecked by everyone glomming on to demand a new "safe space" of their own.  It's the rhetorical equivalent of "free money".  I need a "safe space" where I can talk at length about my abduction by aliens, without all these pesky haters who say that aliens don't visit earth, and didn't pluck me from my pickup truck on that lonely stretch of highway.

cco

Paladin1 wrote:

He doesn't believe in using new or made up pronouns. It's amazing that such a big deal has been made about it.

The 9/11 conspiracy theorists like to use the phrase "coincidence theorists" to mock those who don't agree that Bush and Sharon masterminded the attacks. In homage, I'll say that, if the deep-state Maoist trans mafia picked this innocent professor to attack for his simple refusal to use new pronouns, it sure is a remarkable coincidence that he's also said so much other reprehensible shit. Can you imagine if the "cultural Marxists" had picked even a slightly better target? We'd rule the world by now.

Pondering

Me wrote:
For experienced rabble posters yes, for the general population no.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 

I see.  But if I point out that spiders are not, in fact, insects, how do you tell the difference between me doing it because it's correct, and me doing it because I'm playing a head game?  To make myself feel superior?  

You are not a stranger to me and we are not discussing insects. We are discussing a topic familiar to progressives and this board is not supposed to be a place where we have to defend the most basic progressive positions.  No long-standing active member can claim that he didn't know suggesting people be referred to as "it" would be offensive and get under people's skin and the same goes for you. 

No similarity whatsoever to discussing whether or not spiders are insects so I suggest you tread carefully in making comparisons. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 Very well.  But whose gender do I actually know?  About whom can I make an assumption?  

You can continue to use the same criteria as you always have until someone tells you they would prefer that you not use gendered pronouns when referring to them. If  someone appears gender neutral you can ask them which pronouns they prefer. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 ​It's even less likely that I'd know some stranger's name than that I'd know (or even have a really good guess) at their gender.  Otherwise, I'd agree.  If I can say "Pat said" that's easier than deciding between "he said", "she said", "they said" "xe said" and so on.  

If you know that they object to gendered pronouns you probably do know their name. If you can't tell their gender you can say "that person" or "the person". 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
No long-standing active member can claim that he didn't know suggesting people be referred to as "it" would be offensive and get under people's skin and the same goes for you.

Fair enough.

But tell me more about "being offensive" or "getting under people's skin".

Some people find your support for Trudeau offensive and it gets under their skin.  What should be done about that?

Quote:
If  someone appears gender neutral you can ask them which pronouns they prefer.

Can you elaborate on how it's my job?

Quote:
If you know that they object to gendered pronouns you probably do know their name. If you can't tell their gender you can say "that person" or "the person".

That this puzzle is on me to solve is literally the problem.

That someone might say "I told you I use Xim and Xe!!" and it's on me to remember that somehow is part of it too.

What if every non-gendered person were to wear some kind of hat?  A very non-gendered hat, but unambiguous all the same?

ed'd to add:  no, I'm not really suggesting we force people to wear a hat.

I don't have any issue referring to Caitlin Jenner as "she" or "her", nor to Chaz Bono as "he" or "him", because they've given me all the clues I need to make the appropriate choice.  What does a non-gendered person do to indicate to the rest of the world that they wish to be seen as non-gendered?

As I've kind of noted, a woman in pants, or a man with eyeliner doesn't really do it these days.  And if you're going to answer "they can ask you/tell you", that's great, but then it's somehow my job to remember.  So we're back to the "non-gender hat", or else what?

 

6079_Smith_W

Oh come on Magoo. I can think of at least two occasions on which you got bent out of shape about not having a space where you could talk without someone bringing up systemic racism. Sorry, but that is a safe space.

And what we're back to? Trolling for trolling's sake, it looks like to me. Comparing calling someone "it" to support for Trudeau? Pretending to not remember stuff? Seriously, how old are you? Because this the level of stuff I was used to dealing with in school. At least before the internet.

Again, honestly does it not concern you that we are talking about people who commit suicide because of the attitudes you are promoting, or who get discriminated against and sometimes killed for it? Or is this really just a joke - or worse, a situation where you honestly think you are the one being put upon here?

 

 

Pondering

I wrote:
No long-standing active member can claim that he didn't know suggesting people be referred to as "it" would be offensive and get under people's skin and the same goes for you.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 Some people find your support for Trudeau offensive and it gets under their skin.  What should be done about that? 

Keep up. I don't like him anymore. I'm a Singh supporter now. I'm fickle. It's a Quebec thing.

As to your question you are being deliberately obtuse. The issue is not simply getting under someone's skin and you know it. You just want to play dumb so I waste my time explaining to you again why suggesting we refer to people as "it" on a progressive message board is unacceptable. 

I wrote:
If  someone appears gender neutral you can ask them which pronouns they prefer.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 Can you elaborate on how it's my job? 

It's not your job. You can flip a coin if it's less effort for you. Just don't be surprised if people decide you're an asshole. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 ​That this puzzle is on me to solve is literally the problem. 

If you don't know if someone is male or female how do you decide which pronoun you will use? Solving this puzzle seems very simple to me. Ask them. If that is too much trouble I'm sure they would be quite satisfied if you don't refer to them at all. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
I don't have any issue referring to Caitlin Jenner as "she" or "her", nor to Chaz Bono as "he" or "him", because they've given me all the clues I need to make the appropriate choice.  What does a non-gendered person do to indicate to the rest of the world that they wish to be seen as non-gendered?  

Either they present as ambiguous which means you must either ask or guess or they will politely tell you if they feel misgendered and let you know what they would be more comfortable with. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
That someone might say "I told you I use Xim and Xe!!" and it's on me to remember that somehow is part of it too.  

If you have to remember longer than two minutes then you know the person and can just use their name. If you slip up you can apologize and move on. It's not like anyone will shoot you for making a mistake. If you happen to come across a gender neutral person in your life you can refrain from talking about them then you won't need any pronouns. If you must refer to them because they are within your circle and you can't avoid it then surely picking up one new vocabulary word is not a great burden. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 What if every non-gendered person ....

Wow. I suggest you edit your post. 

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The issue is not simply getting under someone's skin and you know it.

You phrased it as being offensive and getting under someone's skin.  Feel free to move the goalposts and add other stuff.  But neither of those alone is taboo, evidently.

Quote:
Solving this puzzle seems very simple to me. Ask them.

Well, I can honestly say I've never, ever asked someone "what gender are you?  I can't tell".  You sure this is going to go over well??

Quote:
Wow. I suggest you edit your post.

To make it more clear that I'm not sentencing non-gendered people to the wearing of a hat?  Maybe it's not such a bad idea to make that clear.  Never know who's going to think I'm rounding up the non-gendered and putting a hat on them.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
  You phrased it as being offensive and getting under someone's skin.  Feel free to move the goalposts and add other stuff.  But neither of those alone is taboo, evidently. 

I didn't move any goal posts. My post made it clear I was referring to doing that by challenging basic progressive principles not just in general. You are the one shifting goal posts around by taking my words out of context to change their meaning. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
  Well, I can honestly say I've never, ever asked someone "what gender are you?  I can't tell".  You sure this is going to go over well?? 

I'm curious. If you can't tell what gender someone is which pronouns would you choose to use? I should think it would be more offensive to use the wrong one. I've never met anyone whose gender presentation was too ambiguous for me to figure out whether they would prefer male or female pronouns. If it is genuinely a mystery then they are presenting ambiguously on purpose in which case I doubt they would be offended by being asked their preferred pronouns. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
 To make it more clear that I'm not sentencing non-gendered people to the wearing of a hat?  Maybe it's not such a bad idea to make that clear.  Never know who's going to think I'm rounding up the non-gendered and putting a hat on them.  
 

That your comment was sarcastic did not make it respectful of  people struggling with this issue. This type of forum can't be a "safe" space in the true sense of the word but it can be a place that demands respect for marginalized people whether they are present or not. Not agreement necessarily but respect. 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I've never met anyone whose gender presentation was too ambiguous for me to figure out whether they would prefer male or female pronouns.

Me neither.  But weren't we talking about people who would prefer one of the many new non-gendered pronouns?

Quote:
That your comment was sarcastic did not make it respectful of  people struggling with this issue.

I'm not disrespecting anyone when I point out that Caitlyn Jenner makes it clear to us what she wants to be referred to as, and Chaz Bono makes it clear what he wants us to refer to him as, by their names, by their mannerisms and by their dress, and that other than "just ask, fergoshsakes" or "just wait to be told fergoshsakes", there's not a similar way to tell a "them" from a "xe".  So I facetiously suggested a hat, perhaps.

Do you get what I'm saying here?  For hundreds and hundreds of years, we didn't have to wait for anyone to inform us of their preferred prounoun.  There were two -- one for each sex -- and as you yourself seem to have said, in your whole life you never met anyone for whom that was insufficient.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Not that anyone is going to ban you for that (so no need to pretend ) but is that a promise you'll never ask for it again? If so, I take it as a small accomplishment.

I'm not pretending that I'd be banned for it.  But I'm saying I've never asked for it.

Or else please show me where I demanded a "safe space" or anything like it.

My sense of self isn't tied to everyone else believing everything I think about myself.  But if you have posts to quote, please do.

I won't ask for a "safe space" again because I haven't asked for such a thing already. 

"Safe Space", these days means "Nobody can question my awesome truths".  If "safe spaces" ever meant something meaningful, that's been wrecked by everyone glomming on to demand a new "safe space" of their own.  It's the rhetorical equivalent of "free money".  I need a "safe space" where I can talk at length about my abduction by aliens, without all these pesky haters who say that aliens don't visit earth, and didn't pluck me from my pickup truck on that lonely stretch of highway.

That's not what "safe spaces" mean at all.  In most cases, it's simply about people in a historically(and therefore almost certainly currently) oppressed group simply wanting a small area, usually a room or two in a college campus, where they can be sure they can relax and be themselves without fear of verbal, and as often as verbal PHYSICAL harassment.  It's about having one small area where the dominant group won't be able to mock, batter and beat you into silence.  Nobody asks for safe spaces by ideology or philosophy.  Nobody's looking for a situation where they can be guaranteed that nobody will respectfully disagree with them just for expressing support for some form of Left politics or ideology or anything like that.  And you know that perfectly well.

If we lived in societies where people of all races, genders, ethnicities, creeds, and immigration stati were accepted and treated with equal respect and civility, the idea of "safe spaces" would have no reason to exist.  But since we still don't live in a world remotely like that, such places are needed, if for no other reason than that people who are NOT part of the majority way of life and the majority race and identities need some small zone where they can breathe easy, where they don't have to be "on guard" at every moment.

You can't understand this because you're still under the delusion that everybody has an equal chance of making their voices heard and of having some say in what life is like-that nobody is facing actual oppression, that nobody is in any way at an oppressive disadvantage, that nobody is in physical danger in "liberal democracy" simply for being who they are.  And, as a white male like myself, oppression is not part of your lived experience, injustice is not part of your lived experience, being silenced and disrespected and taken into alleys and beaten and killed for being who you are can't ever BE part of your experience, so your overbearing dismissive smugness is entirely understandable.  You feel the obligation that all people of our identity SHOULD feel...to listen to people experiencing historic and continuing oppression and DAMN WELL TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT when they say they are still being oppressed.  You think you are entitled to sit in detatched judgement, as the intrinsically superior life form you for some reason perceive yourself to be, and demand proof...proof which you are clearly never, ever going to accept.

6079_Smith_W

To follow on what Ken just said, I first used the term "safe space" in this context when you wanted a thread where you could talk about the Stanley trial without anyone pointing out systemic racism. "Just the facts" was they way you put it I think, though it really meant just certain facts (and assumptions) and the shutting out of others, along with any analysis. On a couple of occasions you asked for this.

A "safe space for racism" I called it. It was satirical, but it was also a serious observation that you are turning the real concept of safe space on its head. The real ones are to shield people from racism, sexism and LGBT hatred, and in some cases actual physical threat. Contrast that with your request for a shield from anyone pointing out things which are racist.

It ties back to the actual topic of this thread because it is exactly the thinking Peterson has used. Casting himself as victim, and some very petty concerns as more important than people being discriminated against and in some cases killed. And he is very selective about it;  taking race sensitivity training is unthinkable because he says it would mean admitting being a racist. But he has no concern for the mandatory courses that teach remedial English and paper-writing; does he not think that means an admission of illiteracy?

And he also uses made-up and extreme examples as a means of smearing legitimate and reasonable concerns.

He calls legislation to protect people from discrimination "dangerous" and something which will lead to leftist authoritarianism. Not as creepy as saying they are asking him to jerk them off by requesting that they be referred to in a respectful way, but also deeply insulting and arrogant, and casting himself as victim, and those who are actually suffering systemic discrimination as oppressors.

As for your actions here, the thing which I really don't understand is if you are just playing games, or if you really believe the things you say. If it is the latter a lot of it is outright hatred against transpeople, Indigenous people, and women, and having no problem using sensless arguments (another thing I don't understand). And most importantly, that you seem to have no compassion or thought about how these serious issues hurt people, even when someone points it out to you.

So I don't know what your motive is (or sometimes why you choose to be here) but I do wish you would think about the destructive nature of some of the things you say.

 

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, I can honestly say I've never, ever asked someone "what gender are you?  I can't tell".  You sure this is going to go over well??

 

I've read Canada, like NYC, recognizes 31 genders.  I've read elsewhere there are 63 genders and Tumblr lists an impressive 112 genders.  [ here's a list I found **removed]

 

Forgive me for saying but this seems like it's getting a little out of hand and people are making this up on a whim.  Should I face criminal charges for not using a Temporagender persons prefered pronouns? A temporagender person changes gender with the seasons, so if they have a different pronoun for ever season should I be keeping track of that? And face criminal charges if I refuse to?

6079_Smith_W

No, that is not true Paladin. Not the regulations, and not the misleading characterization of transpeople.

I think I mentioned just a bit upthread that the head of Ontario's Human Rights Commission said "they" is fine. And issues of discrimination are not criminal. They only way in which C-16 changes criminal law is if gender is an aggravating factor in the commission of a crime - someone being assaulted or killed (which does happen, quite a lot).

So no, Jordan is not going to jail for refusing to talk to people respectfully.

Paladin1

That's good to know about the Human Rights Commission. The more it shies away from being a kangaro court the better.

 

Can you explain my misleading characterization of transpeople? Are you lumping everyone not either male or female into "transgender"? My read of all of this is that trans people are just one (or a few) genders in a now very large pool of them.

6079_Smith_W

Implying that people change their gender on a seasonal basis and that is something that we have to keep track of which will be a problem. I know it is a common argument that gets hauled out, so it doesn't surprise me to hear it. But it is a completely unrealistic and inaccurate one.

New York City added a list of 31 genders to their civil rights legislation. On the one hand, that doesn't mean 31 different pronouns; on the other hand it really is just a shortlist, as gender is a spectrum. And the most important thing about it really isn't now much of a problem it poses for people who apparently can't remember things.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Implying that people change their gender on a seasonal basis and that is something that we have to keep track of which will be a problem. I know it is a common argument that gets hauled out, so it doesn't surprise me to hear it. But it is a completely unrealistic and inaccurate one.

I wasn't being facetious Smith, apparently some people DO change their gender according to the seasons. It's called Temporagender.

Are you the deciding factor behind whether Temporagender is legitimate or not? Am I? Who is? 

As for if we need to keep track of it or not then yes I conceed it's probably not something I would have to keep track of but if someone was Temporagendered then their pronouns might change with the season along with their gender. You've brought up suicide rates and I've seen arguments against Peterson that by not calling someone by their prefered gender pronouns you're increasing the risk of them harming themselves so while it may sound like I'm being sarcastic, at the very base it's a logical thing to ask if you're concerned about their well being, isn't it? 

Quote:
New York City added a list of 31 genders to their civil rights legislation. On the one hand, that doesn't mean 31 different pronouns;

Right. It could mean 62 or 93.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Actually you said that it is getting out of hand, and raised concern of whether you might face criminal charges because of it. Not whether we were sufficiently concerned about their well-being.

Like I said, I am not surprised to hear that argument, because it is a common anti-trans line that a lot of people accept without checking how accurate and reflective of reality it is. And as I just pointed out, it is not. "They" is fine. And even in the case of New York's legislation it is only an issue if people persist.

Pondering

If my neighbour Tom gets upset unless he is called Santa I will call him Santa not because I think he is Santa because it costs me nothing not to upset him. 

In my lifetime I have never met someone who has asked that I use a different gender pronoun. It isn't something common that will tax my memory if I meet one or two people that prefer I use different pronouns. 

If it becomes something common and many people want gender neutral pronouns then we will eventually settle on a set and probably just start using gender neutral pronouns for everyone because there is no need for different pronouns based on gender. They don't serve any purpose. 

 

6079_Smith_W

By the same token, some jurisdictions are starting to take sex off of drivers' licenses, in the same way that race is a long-gone notion. The pronouns are a slightly different matter, but again, it is worth reminding people that we managed to adapt to "Ms." and "spokesperson", "fisher" and similar words.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
In most cases, it's simply about people in a historically(and therefore almost certainly currently) oppressed group simply wanting a small area, usually a room or two in a college campus, where they can be sure they can relax and be themselves without fear of verbal, and as often as verbal PHYSICAL harassment.

OK.  But I think Smith and I were talking about an online "safe space".

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually you said that it is getting out of hand, and raised concern of whether you might face criminal charges because of it. Not whether we were sufficiently concerned about their well-being.

Well can I be all of the above? Think things might be getting a bit out of hand AND be worried about peoples well-being?

Quote:
Like I said, I am not surprised to hear that argument, because it is a common anti-trans line that a lot of people accept without checking how accurate and reflective of reality it is.

Anti-trans as in thinking they aren't people or shouldn't have rights? Can you define "anti trans" in the context you're using please?

Quote:

And as I just pointed out, it is not. "They" is fine. And even in the case of New York's legislation it is only an issue if people persist.

The HRC is weird. It can merit out punishments to citizens but they're not an actual court. I hope your opinion on how not using someones prefered pronoun will be a non-issue and not some kind of hate crime will be accurate.

 

Pondering wrote:

If my neighbour Tom gets upset unless he is called Santa I will call him Santa not because I think he is Santa because it costs me nothing not to upset him.

Would you still call him Santa if it went against your personal beliefs and views to call him something you don't think he is?

Quote:
In my lifetime I have never met someone who has asked that I use a different gender pronoun. It isn't something common that will tax my memory if I meet one or two people that prefer I use different pronouns.

Neither have I.  I believe if I was presented with that situation I'd call someone by whatever name they want, or possibly by their name if I thought they were goofying around.  The amount of times I use a pronoun when talking about someone is incredibly small.

Quote:
If it becomes something common and many people want gender neutral pronouns then we will eventually settle on a set and probably just start using gender neutral pronouns for everyone because there is no need for different pronouns based on gender. They don't serve any purpose.

Did I post this already? We could use citizenship as a pronoun eh? How 1984 would that sound, Citizen Pondering? Did you see what Foreigner Paladin was wearing?   Of course we could always call people settler or colonizer as a pronoun too :)

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Well it is a kind of a stretch, but I suppose you could both think they are getting out of hand, and be concerned for them, but you didn't say that.

And as one example, the way C-16 has been twisted into an attack on people determined to not to treat trans people in a respectful way, and the arguments used, are all grossly transphobic. I just pointed this out a few posts ago.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
 Would you still call him Santa if it went against your personal beliefs and views to call him something you don't think he is?  

That's a pretty impossible question to answer. I think probably not but I wouldn't call him anything else either. If I had no choice but to refer to him in some context I would use"the man" or pronouns.

Paladin1 wrote:
 ​ Neither have I.  I believe if I was presented with that situation I'd call someone by whatever name they want, or possibly by their name if I thought they were goofying around.  The amount of times I use a pronoun when talking about someone is incredibly small.  

Paladin1 wrote:
 Did I post this already? We could use citizenship as a pronoun eh? How 1984 would that sound, Citizen Pondering? Did you see what Foreigner Paladin was wearing?   Of course we could always call people settler or colonizer as a pronoun too :)  

We don't even need separate object/subject/adjective or possessive pronouns. All the gendered ones could be one single pronoun, such as hem which would be easy to switch to. 

Pondering

On the topic of the use of it when referring to babies or other humans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(pronoun)

The word and term 'it' can be used for either a subject or an object in a sentence and can describe any physical or psychological subject and/or object. The genitive form its has been used to refer to human babies and animals, although with the passage of time this usage has come to be considered too impersonal in the case of babies,[citation needed] as it may be thought to demean a conscious being to the status of a mere object.[citation needed] This use of "it" is also criticized when used as a rhetorical device to dehumanize their enemies, implying that they were little more than non-human animals.[citation needed] The word remains in common use however, and its use increases with the degree to which the speaker views an object of speech as impersonal. For example, someone else's dog is often referred to as "it", especially if the dog isn't known by the speaker, or if the dog's gender is unknown. A person would rarely say "it" when referring to his/her own cat or dog. Examples:

  • The baby had its first apple.

Correct should be: The baby had their first apple.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
If I had no choice but to refer to him in some context I would use"the man"

Did you just assume his gender??

Quote:
All the gendered ones could be one single pronoun, such as hem which would be easy to switch to.

Easy for us, or easy for hem?

Again, though, I'd be OK with that, assuming everyone else is too.

This is honestly just a curious thought, but is there a debate in Francophone societies over the fact that not only do humans have a gender, but other tangible things too?  They might presumably have at least the same contention over gendered personal pronouns, but what about gendered nouns?

Quote:
On the topic of the use of it when referring to babies or other humans

Perhaps we should revisit this when those needed citations are provided. 

"citation needed" is kind of Wikipedia's way of saying "opinion offered as fact".

Pages