http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/raluca-bejan/2016/10/on-jordan-petersons...
This post is swamped with Randian and other rightwing types violating rabble policy and purpose. That is very different from "political disagreements" - this looks like a concerted attack.
Lagatta, why do you engage those scumbags? Our place for discussion is babble. Not the fetid swamps of Disqus comments. Stop talking to them, and they will die. If you hadn't pointed me there, I wouldn't even have guessed that such filth exists.
simply because that fetid swamp is made up of responses to a rabbler.
Yow. My brain hurt reading that.
I heard an interview with that dolt. He has the right to say whatever he wants, but all he does is prove how ignorant he is.
As for that marxism nazism argument, why bother following him down that rabbit hole? Or the rest of his argument, for that matter?
This issue is about exactly what it seems to be about - respect and consideration for people's gender. His bafflegab is, also exactly what it seems to be.
I don't think he's ignorant. He's pretty highly regarded in philosophy circles, and he's extremely highly regarded as a psychology professor.
He has put entire courses worth of lectures on YouTube. Most of it is well worth your time if you are interested in psychology and/or philosophy. The man is clearly brilliant. Certainly a far better lecturer than 95% of the profs I've had.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsoVhKo4UvQG
This man is not a dolt.
His most important point regarding the recent controversy, as I understand it, is that the advocates of so-called political correctness can brook no opposition. Anyone who protests is a threat. And the people he called out proceeded to make his point for him.
Freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, is everything. If we lose that, nothing else matters.
I stand with Jordan Peterson.
you're not really standing up for 2 professions who've historically been all about men are you?
philosophy is maybe the most sexist field around with psychology coming a close second.
Feminist philosophers engaged in a project of re-reading and re-forming the philosophical canon have noticed two significant areas of concern. The first is the problem of historical exclusion. Feminist philosophers are faced with a tradition that believes that there are no women philosophers and, if there are any, they are unimportant. Of course, women are not entirely absent from the history of philosophy, and that brings us to the second challenge we face. Canonical philosophers have had plenty to say about women and what we are like. In general terms, we often find that philosophical norms like reason and objectivity are defined in contrast to matter, the irrational or whatever a given philosopher associates with women and the feminine. Our tradition tells us, either implicitly through images and metaphors, or explicitly in so many words, that philosophy itself, and its norms of reason and objectivity, exclude everything that is feminine or associated with women.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-femhist/
psychology pretends to be the study of behaviour and mind. which is tff. when you start studying psychology you realize the whole body of it is based on the studies done upon middle aged white men.
Thanks for consistently standing up to the invasion of this site by propagandists of all stripes, lagatta.
On Boze's points (and thanks Boze for engaging on the issues, not acting like some of the combatants in that toxic comments section) - if Peterson thinks that things have gone too far in universities, I'm not sure why he is taking his stand on his "right" to call women "he" and to call men "she." I haven't followed closely. He may have a point. But by insisting that he will deliberately call people a gender that isn't their own, he just comes across as a huge asshole.
I would never sign up for a class taught by a man that insists he, and not I, have the right to decide what gender I am!
Wouldn't it be nice if people could maybe, I don't know, talk about these things and work out something that leaves no one feeling their rights are violated? Peterson seems to be insisting he gets to call the shots - and does do from a position where he is the one handing out marks. He's hardly oppressed by the students he wants to assign a gender to. So, my impression to date, subject to persuasion in future: he's acting like an ass.
This man is not a dolt.
So because of his opposition to a law and what he sees as the forces of political correctness he won't do the decent thing and refer to individual people how they wish to be called?
Sorry, but that is pointless and ignorant behaviour. Of course no one can force him to use words he doesn't want to use, so he is proving nothing in that regard. As for his argument that it is not standard english, "they" as a personal pronoun has been around for 600 years. As such, it is actually a bit older than modern English.
Though that is not the final word either, since language is a living thing. No one thinks at all about using adjectives like 'individual' as a noun, because language changes to suit the needs of the people who use it.
I'm not sure why he is taking his stand on his "right" to call women "he" and to call men "she." I haven't followed closely. He may have a point. But by insisting that he will deliberately call people a gender that isn't their own, he just comes across as a huge asshole.
I haven't watched any of his online rants, so I could be wrong here, but I got the sense from what I've read on this that he's more averse to the idea of "they" to refer to those who believe they have no gender.
And I can sort of see his point. I would never refer to (say) a transwoman as "he" just to be a dick, or to defy society, but that transwoman is probably going to help me out a great deal by presenting as a woman. Likewise, a trans man. But it's not really clear how we're all going to keep track of everyone who prefers "they". There aren't going to be a lot of social or visual cues to help with that.
Here's a brief primer on the use of genderless pronouns. I too do not look forward to the first time I'm corrected for using "zie" instead of "xe".
Actually, hearing him rant it is pretty clear there is more to it than just being an old fuddy duddy. (or middle aged fuddy duddy, as it were).
Though I am sure he is counting on that "well in my pappy's day" contingent for support.
I would never sign up for a class taught by a man that insists he, and not I, have the right to decide what gender I am!
Playing devil's advocate, you might want to rethink your word choice here, because if you get to "decide" what gender you are, then it isn't something fundamental to who you are. Something is either fundamental (meaning you discover it about yourself, not choose it) or it is a choice. Now, I am all for respecting people's choices, especially when they are harmless, so don't think that I am saying that this matters all too much, but respecting people's choices certainly doesn't mean they get to ask us to re-write the laws of grammar.
Magoo is correct, this is not about calling trans women "he" or trans men "she." Trans people usually go to lengths to adopt gender signifiers of some kind that let people know what gender they are signalling to us, so that we know which category they want us to put them in. And if we can't tell, they let us know, and it's easy for us to remember. Asking people to discern that you have no gender is a non-starter. It is true that other cultures have had third (and even fourth!) genders, throughout history, but that doesn't mean that the people in those gender categories haven't still been seen as inhabiting a subset of "male" or "female." I could be wrong here. But, how exactly do you signal "none of the above"? I've been having this conversation since Peterson released his first video and it's actually pretty difficult to remember to not trip over the singular they/them when referring to Peterson's colleague, Peet. Go on, give it a try for yourself.
Pronouns are not like nouns or adjectives. There are an infinite number of nouns or adjectives that any languages could absorb, and no limit to the number of new ones that can be added. Of course, we can add new pronouns, but we cannot add an infinite number of them, because we simply can't remember that many. Maybe we should indeed ALL be using gender-neutral third-person singular pronouns. Some languages get along fine doing that. But, that would have to be established by convention over time, not by decree or legislation - and it's unlikely to happen, because categorizing people into male and female is, surprise surprise, very useful to us.
German and French have gendered articles as well as pronouns. I suppose we should be grateful that English only has the one, gender neutral "the."
On quizzical's attack on psychology and philosophy as fields of study: What an utterly absurd argument. Of course there have been women philosophers. Judith Butler and Emma Goldman have been huge influences on my thinking since I first read them as a teenager who was very interested in all this radical gender stuff. My favourite university professors in both fields have been women. Of course, there is plenty of sexism in our history (and by the way, most psychological studies based only men, of which the history of psychology unfortunately does have many, used university students, not "middle aged white men" as subjects, and that's because the university is where most psychologists conduct research, and men are who was inhabiting the universities at the time). Anyone who thinks we should therefore throw the baby out with the bathwater is, sorry to say, a dolt. If you have a better way to do what psychology or philosophy purport to do, let's hear it.
Final point, directed at Bejan's blog post itself, from the last paragraph:
The arguments against identity politics and political correctness can be made on two grounds. From a radical left premise, which takes categorical thinking as passé and aims to surpass categories and renounce difference, since it starts from the basis that representing differences also maintains differences. And from further on the right, whereas binary categories are taken sine qua non, as biologically determined and hence unchangeable, since they existed as such for centuries. Both are ideologically framed. And as much as Peterson seems to hate ideology, his argument is ideologically outlined as well, but on the right of the political spectrum.
A radical left perspective "takes categorical thinking as passé and aims to surpass categories and renounce difference, since it starts from the basis that representing differences also maintains differences"? What a load of utter garbage. Binary categories are totally right-wing, you guys. Let's all dissolve together into an amorphous whole. Notions of "good" and "evil"? Totally passé. Right wing and left wing? Uhhhh...
There is, of course, a third perspective from which to attack the enforcers of so-called political correctness, and that is from an anarchist, non-violent, perspective: that individual freedom is paramount, that people must be free to speak their truth, and that the people who are interested in enforcing new ways of talking (and, by extension, new ways of thinking) while demanding that anything that reeks of old, white men's knowledge, like philosophy and psychology, be burned down, DO NOT have anyone's best interests at heart, and are actually playing a game of "look how progressive I am," and would be among the first to face the firing squad if their Maoist revolution ever actually came to pass.
You know, using all that bombastic nonsense simply to justify behaving like a jerk is a bit contradictory.
Clearly he isn't interested in doing what people suggest is the respectful thing to do, so what is the point in trying to convince anyone that he is right? It is really a dishonest argument, since the whole idea is rejection of what others think he should do.
For the first time ever, I will let the National Post say it for me.
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.
[url=http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/chris-selley-academic-freedom-... Selley: Stop being a jerk over someone’s pronoun preference[/url]
Sure, Peterson has the right to behave like an ass. And I've seen enough letters in bureaucraticese from vaious administrators that I don't doubt his dean or other manager wrote him a ridiculous note. But after reading some more on the case, he still seems to me to be acting like a jerk.
He seems pretty respectful to me. It's not dishonest to say "I understand that I'm being told that I have to speak a certain way to be considered respectful, but I don't agree, and I think many share my position, so let's talk about it." To say that he is acting like a jerk, seems to be to be saying that there is no respectful way to have this conversation. Because, he seems to be going out of his way to be respectful, he's just rejecting the idea that these things - like the question of what we call each other, and how we refer to each other - aren't a negotiation. This is, of course, a popular idea in many leftist circles - "men don't get to determine what is sexist," "white people don't get to determine what is racist," and so on. Peterson is correctly pointing out that these positions are bad, and dangerous. Who you are has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of your positions, and the question of just what is the proper way for us to talk to one another is, fundamentally, a negotiation. The reply to Peterson, of course: "My pronouns are not up for debate." Well, that's just rejecting discourse as a means for resolving differences, and there are only two alternatives to discourse - non-interaction, and violence. Getting people fired is, to my way of thinking, violence. But, to some of the people protesting Peterson, his refusal to use they/them pronouns is an act of violence! So, clearly, DISCOURSE is needed to establish consensus on definitions of things.
One of the main points I have heard Peterson make is that he's a university professor with a PhD, and he's fairly articulate, and he's being raked over the coals for trying to have this conversation - so what chance does the average joe have? They have none. They will be told to shut up, that they're embarrassing themselves, and that they could lose their job if they insist on having a conversation about something that "isn't up for debate." That's authoritarianism, and any genuine leftist should reject it out of hand.
NONE OF US believe that anyone has an unlimited right to determine how they are addressed, and that people who refuse are automatically jerks. I will repeat: NONE OF US believes that people have an unlimited right to determine how they should be addresssed. If I tell people that I want to be addressed as "Captain," because I identify as a captain, most people would dismiss that as ludicrous, even if I do happen to be an actual captain of some sort. So, why are gender pronouns different? Why is gender a special category of identity that MUST be acknowledged and respected or else it's a human rights issue? That's a conversation worth having.
I'm 100% in favour of protections on the basis of gender expression. I'm aware that trans people face violence and discrimination on a massive scale, and I'm in favour of remedying it with legislation. I don't share Dr. Peterson's opinion about bill C-16 specifically. And I would probably always make an effort to refer to somebody by whichever of "he," "she," or "they" they want. But that's easy for me to say because I haven't met anybody who ever asked me refer to them by any set of pronouns other than masculine or feminine. I don't think people who want to have a conversation about this are jerks for saying so.
And Peterson's broader point is about political correctness, not non-binary gender pronouns. His second anti-PC video decries mandatory anti-racist training that U of T is putting its administrators through, apparently at the behest of the Black Liberation Collective, whoever they are. If they are the people who decided to sprinkle glitter on Lauren Southern (who I dislike) at the U of T free speech rally, then they are yahoos who probably aren't to be trusted to advise university administrators. I share Peterson's deep skepticism of the notion that these people speak for the people that they purport to speak for. For this, he has of course been called a racist, even though it's not inherently racist to reject the notion of mandatory anti-racist training. The anti-oppression perspective, even though it's one that I mostly agree with, has plenty of internal contradictions, and more importantly is fundamentally ideological, and employers have no business forcing it on their employees. I'm not talking about "Don't use the N-word." I'm talking about rubbish like "de-colonizing"
It sort of sounds like Petersen wants to be to "political correctness" what Gabor Lukacs is to airlines. Another academic, another windmill.
Again, though, I don't entirely disagree with some of what he's saying. And I'll suggest this: that probably 99.9% of the "gender-fluid, agendered, non-binary, or multi-gendered are millenials. I doubt anyone's ever had this conversation, or ever will:
Billy: I love Nana! She's the best grandmother ever!
Parent: Billy, Nana has decided that ne is gender-fluid, and has asked that we respect nem and nir choices as ne "finds nemself".
who knew striving for de-colonialization was rubbish.
amusing you take my personal perceptual words as an attack aginst psychology and philosophy as fields of study
it's not just me who feels or believes they're mysoginistic by construct.
pretty arrogent to think women are helped by observations on men's behaviour and study results. we're so much like you know.
If you think trying to de-colonize is rubbish, Boze, I don't think we have a lot to talk about.
I was required to do mandatory Indigenous awareness training as a condition of a previous job. I'm glad to have had that chance, and I think the country would be better off if we all had the same chance. Can't see that antiracism training is a bad thing. You're not required to believe what you're taught, but you're required to be exposed to it. I wish I had access to free anti-racism training through work, actually. Peterson is also required to pay union dues, contribute to CPP, etc. Unless we're going to accept Ayn Rand as our personal saviour, we are all required to do some things as a condition of our employment.
But mostly it's an issue of courtesy towards people you've been asked to work with -- your students. I agree with several things Peterson has said, sure, but "I insist on calling you he (or she) when you ask me not to?" He ahs that right, but its behaving like an ass towards other human beings, no matter how articulately and politely the general principle is expressed.
You're entitled to your opinion. But I believe if I don't agree with you,I should be able to kill you. Too many assholes who grow a foot or 2 behind a keyboard. Almost definitely all these people would never have the courage to say what they say to someone face to face. I stay away from comment sections whether it be the NP,CTV ,CBC or even youtube.
Too many times I found myself giving out my address so they can tell me face to face.
I'm still waiting. Nobody's knocked on my door yet.
I don't understand why rabble is a Disqus comment engine. Maybe they just want to piss everyone off. I can't see why else.
If you think trying to de-colonize is rubbish, Boze, I don't think we have a lot to talk about.
I'm not speaking for boze here, but my sense was that he was referring to the word, not the action.
And it does -- to me anyway -- sometimes feel like someone, somewhere makes up a word that implicitly supports their politics and then expects everyone else to rigorously use it.
A good example: "cis-gendered". I doubt I'll ever answer the question "tell us a bit about yourself" with "well, for starters, I'm a cis-gendered CAMAB...".
I think we all get that language is powerful, but you can't just expect to "meme" ridiculous new terms into the common vernacular, like "handi-capable" or "unarrested", or "front hole". Language doesn't really work that way.
who knew striving for de-colonialization was rubbish.
amusing you take my personal perceptual words as an attack aginst psychology and philosophy as fields of study
it's not just me who feels or believes they're mysoginistic by construct.
pretty arrogent to think women are helped by observations on men's behaviour and study results. we're so much like you know.
My post was apparently truncated, that last sentences was supposed to read "de-colonizing the sciences."
You said:
you're not really standing up for 2 professions who've historically been all about men are you?
If this isn't meant to be an attack, then why would I be seen as standing up for them?
I agree, there is a lot of misogyny in the history of academia, and in current academia. We can, and should, do better. But misogynistic by construct? Like Luce Irigaray's bit that "objectivity is male subjectivity"? I can see a kernel of truth in that, but no more than a kernel.
Psychology has been using women as subjects in studies ever since women entered the universities in greater numbers. By now, there are actually more studies done on women, because there are more women undergrads than men. Are there studies done in the past that should be revisited? Yeah, absolutely, but that doesn't say anything about the discipline being "misogynistic by construct." That's rubbish.
alan smithee:
You're entitled to your opinion. But I believe if I don't agree with you,I should be able to kill you. Too many assholes who grow a foot or 2 behind a keyboard. Almost definitely all these people would never have the courage to say what they say to someone face to face. I stay away from comment sections whether it be the NP,CTV ,CBC or even youtube.
Too many times I found myself giving out my address so they can tell me face to face.
I'm still waiting. Nobody's knocked on my door yet.
Maybe it's because of that bolded part.
And yes, people grow a foot or two behind a keyboard, because speaking your mind in person shouldn't require courage, although we all recognize that it does, which is why Peterson is demonstrating courage. Handcuff yourself and I think people will be totally willing to say most of these things to your face.
swallow:
I was required to do mandatory Indigenous awareness training as a condition of a previous job. I'm glad to have had that chance, and I think the country would be better off if we all had the same chance. Can't see that antiracism training is a bad thing. You're not required to believe what you're taught, but you're required to be exposed to it. I wish I had access to free anti-racism training through work, actually.
Yeah, I would probably take up that offer as well. I can see jobs for which it might be required, but I think it's disingenuous to describe something that's mandatory as an opportunity.
I actually have no problem with "cis-gendered." I think it's a neutral descriptor with a clear meaning if you know your latin prefixes.
@ Magoo
Again, from what I have heard him say in interviews and articles there is a bit more to it than him just feeling backed into a corner by word police.
Or that he is expected to use the word "hoo hoo".
I have read people here saying they do not use the word cis-gendered. They don't all go off on rants like this fellow about political correctness and the radical left and nihilism and marxism.
They don't all go off on rants like this fellow about political correctness and the radical left and nihilism and marxism.
Yes, well, as I said above, he does seem to have all the windmills set to "full tilt".
I actually have no problem with "cis-gendered." I think it's a neutral descriptor with a clear meaning if you know your latin prefixes.
The very phrase "neutral descriptor" seems to me to suggest "unnecessary descriptor". If it doesn't say anything, why do we need it?
We have the term -- made common recently by the Zika virus -- "microcephaly" to indicate an infant born with a smaller than average cranium. And we have the term "hydrocephaly" to indicate an infant born with a much larger than average cranium. But does anyone ever describe their new son or daughter as being "orthocephalic" -- born with an average-sized head? Do we need that? Should we say it, so everyone has a label and is that the point? Or what would be our need for a "special" term to describe the vast majority?
We have the term -- made common recently by the Zika virus -- "microcephaly" to indicate an infant born with a smaller than average cranium. And we have the term "hydrocephaly" to indicate an infant born with a much larger than average cranium. But does anyone ever describe their new son or daughter as being "orthocephalic" -- born with an average-sized head? Do we need that? Should we say it, so everyone has a label and is that the point? Or what would be our need for a "special" term to describe the vast majority?
You could say the same thing about "heterosexual," but people find it useful, so it gets used. That's how words catch on.
Like the term "right-handed". It's certainly a useful term, if only as the opposite to "left-handed". If I'm not mistaken, about 17% of people are left-handed.
And according to popular reckoning, about 10% of men and women are homosexual.
But we also have the term "anopthalmic" to refer to an infant born without eyes -- something that affects about 0.003% of the population (3 in 100,000). Should the rest of us identify as "opthalmic" so they don't feel labelled? At what point should I identify as homeothermic?
who knew striving for de-colonialization was rubbish.amusing you take my personal perceptual words as an attack aginst psychology and philosophy as fields of study
it's not just me who feels or believes they're mysoginistic by construct.
pretty arrogent to think women are helped by observations on men's behaviour and study results. we're so much like you know.
My post was apparently truncated, that last sentences was supposed to read "de-colonizing the sciences."
you think de-colonizing the sciences is rubbish? please explain what you are trying to get at??????
You said:you're not really standing up for 2 professions who've historically been all about men are you?If this isn't meant to be an attack, then why would I be seen as standing up for them?
it was a question.
i really perceive there's no question these 2 fields are extremely male dominated in content, acceptance and patriarchy in a institutionalized way.
the way you carry on about the use of cis and trans gendered i was surprised at your comments and support of this professor.
then you go on to say below in your response and i'm even more surprised at your disbelief of patriarchy and misogyny constructs in philosophy and psychology.
I agree, there is a lot of misogyny in the history of academia, and in current academia. We can, and should, do better. But misogynistic by construct? Like Luce Irigaray's bit that "objectivity is male subjectivity"? I can see a kernel of truth in that, but no more than a kernel.
try reading some Dorthy E Smith work you'll see more. i have this fall after years of rejecting my mom's feminism. she's an amazing woman and educator.
Psychology has been using women as subjects in studies ever since women entered the universities in greater numbers. By now, there are actually more studies done on women, because there are more women undergrads than men. Are there studies done in the past that should be revisited? Yeah, absolutely, but that doesn't say anything about the discipline being "misogynistic by construct." That's rubbish.
psychological theory is still based on the "old" studies. trying to insert another component after the fact is a fail. no wonder people spend thousands and 10's of thousand on their alleged therapy or treatment and never get anywhere even after decades.
Like the term "right-handed". It's certainly a useful term, if only as the opposite to "left-handed". If I'm not mistaken, about 17% of people are left-handed.
And according to popular reckoning, about 10% of men and women are homosexual.
But we also have the term "anopthalmic" to refer to an infant born without eyes -- something that affects about 0.003% of the population (3 in 100,000). Should the rest of us identify as "opthalmic" so they don't feel labelled? At what point should I identify as homeothermic?
To my knowledge, nobody is trying to get you to identify as cisgendered. Nobody cares, as far as I know. The term is found to be useful when talking about the non-trans population, because "cis" has been well-established as the opposite of "trans" since long before either was applied to gender identities. For example, cisjordan/transjordan, etc.
you think de-colonizing the sciences is rubbish? please explain what you are trying to get at??????
I think that people who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and start all over again, and particularly people who want to dispense with basic notions of objectivity, truth, and empiricism, because these are hegemonic or dominating ways of looking at the world, are loony tunes and they haven't thought through the implications of what they're saying. Of course, I could well be wrong, but I haven't been convinced yet.
the way you carry on about the use of cis and trans gendered i was surprised at your comments and support of this professor.
Why? I have nothing against trans people. It seems logical that if you accept the term "transgender," you would have no problem with "cisgender," cis being the literal opposite of trans, as cis means "on this side of" and trans means "on the other side of." I support this professor because everything I've heard from him on other topics has shown he's a deep thinker with a lot of intelligent things to say, and because it's high time people on the left started fighting back against intolerance on the left, and by intolerance, I mean the idea that "this is how you have to do things, the discussion's over, and if you try to argue, we're going to revoke your progressive credentials, or even denounce you as a bigot." I like debate. I like playing devil's advocate, especially when people behave as though the stakes are so damn high that even the discussion itself is harmful. That shit is absolutely cancerous. I've always found it absolutely absurd that if I go to the libertarian's club and try to tell them how awesome socialism is, they're happy to argue with me for days, but if I go to the socialist club and try to tell them how awesome libertarianism is, they get angry, because I'm being a headache, and they're trying to get shit done, dammit. That's not how the left is supposed to behave. The ends do not justify the means. You know what else is cancerous? The idea that concepts like truth, logical reasoning, and freedom of speech (and "binary categories", ffs) are for Randians and other right-wingers. If we adopt attitudes like that we're going to lose every contest, and we will deserve to lose.
psychological theory is still based on the "old" studies. trying to insert another component after the fact is a fail. no wonder people spend thousands and 10's of thousand on their alleged therapy or treatment and never get anywhere even after decades.
This really doesn't give me the impression that you know anything at all about psychology.
psychological theory is still based on the "old" studies. trying to insert another component after the fact is a fail. no wonder people spend thousands and 10's of thousand on their alleged therapy or treatment and never get anywhere even after decades.This really doesn't give me the impression that you know anything at all about psychology.
well. i admit it's an extrapolation. maybe a broad one even.
imv when you've a white psychology professor denouncing what should be basic human interpersonal respect for those of us who aren't white hetro sexual males then there's a problem. maybe even a deep seated one..
depicting sensitivity and self control as being nothing but the RADICAL LEFT controlling free speech, thought and expression makes it obvious no aspect of psychological theory has helped him. why? because it's white patriarchial male constructed i suppose.
psychological theory is still based on the "old" studies. trying to insert another component after the fact is a fail. no wonder people spend thousands and 10's of thousand on their alleged therapy or treatment and never get anywhere even after decades.This really doesn't give me the impression that you know anything at all about psychology.
well. i admit it's an extrapolation. maybe a broad one even.
imv when you've a white psychology professor denouncing what should be basic human interpersonal respect for those of us who aren't white hetro sexual males then there's a problem. maybe even a deep seated one..
depicting sensitivity and self control as being nothing but the RADICAL LEFT controlling free speech, thought and expression makes it obvious no aspect of psychological theory has helped him. why? because it's white patriarchial male constructed i suppose.
You really haven't been paying attention. The U of T students union wants him to be disciplined by the University and wants him to take down his videos. Does this demonstrate utter contempt for freedom of speech? Yes, it does. The university itself sent him a strongly worded letter urging him to stop making public statements on the topic. Does this demonstrate utter contempt for freedom of speech? Yes, it does. He attended a rally for freedom of speech at the university - his opponents showed up, blared white noise to prevent him from being heard, and then when their speakers were forcibly turned off, chanted "SHAME!" and "TRANSPHOBE!" to prevent him from being heard. Does this demonstrate utter contempt for freedom of speech? Yes, it does. Anyone who demonstrates contempt for freedom of speech is a piece of shit as far as I'm concerned. That's WAY more important than any conception of "basic human interpersonal respect" that requires people to acknowledge others' identities. Your identity is YOUR business, and I might acknowledge it, and I might not. That probably depends more on what I think of you than on any political belief on my part.
He wants to know WHY it should be "basic human interpersonal respect" to use whatever pronouns somebody asks you to, even if they aren't fucking words. I think there is a real conversation to be had there. But, yeah, keep pretending he's talking about anybody who isn't a white, heterosexual male.
He gets Christie Blatchford's vote of confidence:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-embattled-...
Jesus, what an expanation. One wonders how he manages to remember 31 different people's names in his classroom. I suppose that is untenable too.
You know, it might be. Some people are bad with names. And you're not really saying it's reasonable to expect people to remember 31 sets of pronouns, are you? Names are individual. Pronouns are by their nature anti-individual.
“And for you to come to say, ‘You have to mark me out as singularly special in the manner that I require and you have to remember it,’ no, it’s like, no, you can’t ask that of me, because you’re actually not singularly special.”
I mean, is he wrong? I actually used to identify as a genderfuck too, but I certainly never expected other people to humour me. I understood it to be my business, my personal idiosyncracy.
He gets Christie Blatchford's vote of confidence:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-embattled-...
Jesus, what an expanation. One wonders how he manages to remember 31 different people's names in his classroom. I suppose that is untenable too.
It is also what they make these for, when you have people who either can't remember, or want to pretend that it is too hard. If you are in a place where it is an issue the usual form is to write he/him, she/her, or whatever your preference is.
Hardly the end of the world, or the English language, or whatever untenable this is supposed to be.
Cross posted with you Boze.
Again, that is what nametags are for, whether people need them, or want to pretend they do.
Also, I looked up that "31 different gender pronouns" nonsense, and it is nonsense. It is identities, not pronouns.
Someone might conceivably have to deal with he, she, they, per, sie. Maybe a couple of other ones. Perhaps.
But 31? He is just making that up.Nobody is stretching the language out of shape. And if people were, why isn't he going on about the tyranny of text shorthand?
Or maybe he should start closer to home with people who don't understand what a pronoun is.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/24/new-york-city-lets-you-choose-from-31-...
On the text thing, strangely enough the first time in an automotive blog I read that in order to loosen a brake drum hit it repeatedly with a BFH, I understood immediately what that meant. So people aren't as dim as he pretends we are.
Cross posted with you Boze.
Again, that is what nametags are for, whether people need them, or want to pretend they do.
Also, I looked up that "31 different gender pronouns" nonsense, and it is nonsense. It is identities, not pronouns.
Someone might conceivably have to deal with he, she, they, per, sie. Maybe a couple of other ones. Perhaps.
But 31? He is just making that up.Nobody is stretching the language out of shape. And if people were, why isn't he going on about the tyranny of text shorthand?
Or maybe he should start closer to home with people who don't understand what a pronoun is.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/24/new-york-city-lets-you-choose-from-31-...
On the text thing, strangely enough the first time in an automotive blog I read that in order to loosen a brake drum hit it repeatedly with a BFH, I understood immediately what that meant. So people aren't as dim as he pretends we are.
Nobody would care about 31 gender identities if there wasn't the threat of penalty for disrespecting them. I would hope we can all agree that the idea that 31 gender identities exist is fucking ludicrous - you might as well say that everyone on the planet can have their own unique gender identity. Which, I suspect, is the point. To let people define their own gender identity, pronouns and all.
Which, again, I have no problem with, as long as they aren't expecting anybody else to accord their behaviour with it.
Ladies and gentlemen (ooooops, see what I did there!), we have reached full gender absurdity.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-...
I will never, ever use the pronoun "per," no matter what penalty I am threatened with. That's fucking ludicrous. This is where I disembark. Go ahead, call me a transphobe for it. I can't fucking wait.
Next, kids in schools will be told they can choose their own pronouns too. And, if they want to change their mind, they can do it every day if they like. And if a teacher decides to tell these kids, for the sake of the poor goddamn confused kids, that this is all completely fucking insane and that sex, not gender, is what really matters, and that there are only two of them - well, you can bet that teacher will be fired, or maybe just put in a re-education camp.
And yes, I realize that this makes me sound like some kind of frothing right-winger.
And I don't fucking care anymore.
This is stupid. You people are stupid.
No offense.
And you had better believe that the first time somebody asks me what my preferred pronoun is - so that nobody is singled out for being asked such a question, of course - my preferred pronoun will be "fuck," the accusative form of which is "fork."
Re-education camps? A different pronoun every day?
Of course that is where this is going, because of course that's what these radical nihilist marxist leftists ultimately want, right?
As I mentioned upthread, I have heard someone on here (other than yourself) decline to use the term cis-gendered. What that person did not do is treat it as a chip on the shoulder, go out and make a whole bunch of videos with false assumptions about motive and false assumptions about gender identity, and do it all in a very public and very scornful way.
You're worried about being singled out (and presumably taken away to the camp if you don't comply?).
Well here's a news flash. Compliance isn't actually about forcing people to use those offensive third person pronouns. It is simply about avoiding using the ones which do not apply. So if your real concern is the purity of the English language and not wanting to feel like a goof, or feeling like you are knucking under to the forces of politically correct oppression, you simply have to be smart enough to avoid using those pronouns. I just did it in my third paragraph, above.
It is also worth considering that the pronoun that is most likely to be used in a classroom isn't any of the five (not 31, ffs) I mentioned above. It is "you", which is not gender specific.
So even if whatshisname wants to avoid using words he doesn't like, it is pretty clear that his personal liberty is not really the issue here. You'd think a professor would be smart enough to manage that little dance if he had any interest in satifying both his own freedom and a bit of consideration for others.
Student: "Professor, I'd prefer you not refer to me as he or she. I prefer they."
Professor Option 1: "Sure thing." (Maybe silently wondering, since budget cuts mean the class is way too big for effective learning, "who are you again?")
Professor Option 2: "I'll take that into account." (Probably immediately forgets, and maybe slips up in class, but these things happen.)
Professor Option 3: "No! And I'm launching a public campaign on this issue!" (Plus, if you criticize me for this, you are interfering with my free speech and promoting the existence of 31 genders and taking us into peak gender absurdity!)
Various shades between these.
Again, I think the professor has the perfect right to do all three. I don't think he should be disciplined for any of them. But I don't see why being rude to your students qualifies him as a heroic free-speech campaigner.
Moving to the general issue, "they" is ungrammatical, sure. Language changes, and the use of they plus plural form is probably going to be pretty common, with "they are" replacing "he or she is" in many contexts. No great loss. No journalsit, I think, shoudl be forced to use forms like "they is from Toronto." But it's easy and increasingly common in speech to either (1) use plural forms - "they're from Toronto" or to avoid the pronoun: "Micheline is from Toronto, and is a hairdresser."
There's a growing move on some campusses to reduce debate in favour of "safe spaces" and "trigger ewarnings." This goes way too far in some cases: I've heard of some American schools of students introducing themselves in class with name, preferred pronoun string, eg. Stevie/she/her." This seems silly and is itself oppressive in some cases - what if an individual doesn't want to publicly proclaim a gender identity? I think these things can be worked out by diaologue, and I don't think blocking Peterson from speaking is reasonable at all. Better to debate, especially in universities. That's what gay-rights campaigners did, back in the day when we were marginalized and had no power. But again, I just don't think "I refuse to address you by words you choose, and I insist I get to choose the words" is respectful dialogue.
I agree he has the right to speak his mind and discuss the issues. He has a right to be rude to people too, as I already said.
(I also felt Tom Flanagan had the right to say the not well-though-out things he did some years back)
But when those opinions are in fact an attack, as they are in part in this case, others have every right to criticize and call him on things which are wrong, irrelevant, or make no sense.
The university has asked him to comply with the law. There are plenty of ways he can do that. And if he is determined to test the law and it results in a charge we will see that too. So far that is a lot of "if"s.
As I mentioned upthread, I have heard someone on here (other than yourself) decline to use the term cis-gendered.
Possibly that was me; I objected, and continue to object, to the term cisgendered. In feminist discourse, calling women "cisgendered" endeavours to define an oppressed group, women, as somehow having privilege by virtue of the bodies with which we were born, a logical absurdity that I won't expand on just now in the interest of not derailing this thread.
But the real problem here seems to be an inability to engage in civil discourse. Instead of engaging the professor in an honest debate - and his use of the term "political correctness" betrays a certain lack of sophistication in his discourse - the students are accusing him of a hate crime. They seem to have trouble discerning the difference between dissent, and hate speech. But I don't know how much of a problem that is, because I believe the students who feel that way are a tiny minority.
From a reddit thread:
I dont even know where to begin with how confused these people are. Their education has made them unemployable. Could you imagine any employer putting up with this nonsense?
To be honest.. as someone who is a hiring manager for a particularity big corporation these people get "hired" as outside contractors doing low level social media garbage.
They are pretty good at convincing their "kin" to like, follow, and whatever our company and buy our goods. After their contract is expired we dump them but that doesn't stop them from barging into my office demanding a staff job. Although their work is not bad, their personality and view points are toxic in a office work environment. They hate any dress code that is issued.
The professor might have a point in terms of the disservice the university is doing to these students by validating their confused viewpoints. These students don't seem to realize that being offended does not constitute a valid rhetorical stance.
@ Sineed
Exactly. It wasn't my intention to call anyone out, which why I did not.
It is an opinion and should be respected just as his personal views should be. And that isn't saying that it shouldn't be challenged, but people have a right to hold whatever opinions they want.
My point is that there is a difference between where people here have taken it and where he has. And indeed, where some have taken it in this conversation.
And I have maintained throughout that he has a right to say what he wants. There is a big difference between dissent and hate speech, I agree. But there is also a big difference between heckling, and advising someone to follow the law, and spinning it into allegations of politically correct oppression.
When it comes to "civil discourse" I think he bears the bulk of responsibility here. He could have raised his concerns without the grandstanding, false assumptions and baseless arguments. And he would probably have more people (including me) on his side.
As for how far he takes his argument, here is one example:
Peterson told the National Post that he decided to make the video and go public with his views after receiving a memo from university HR outlining new mandatory anti-racist and anti-bias training. “That disturbs me because if someone asked me to take anti-bias training, I think I am agreeing that I am sufficiently racist or biased to need training,” he said in an interview.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-of-t-professor-attacks-politi...
I don't see how that's a false accusation or a baseless argument. He IS being civil. Why is grandstanding bad? He's trying to make a point and get publicity to raise awareness, because other people feel exactly the same way that he does, but are afraid to speak up for fear of being called racists or whatever, and that is essentially the nature of the problem. Somebody had to speak up and I'm glad that somebody has. And look how people have reacted, despite the fact that he hasn't said anything heinous or hateful.
I'm finding it very interesting that when Peterson says he doesn't wish to refer to anyone by the neutral term "they", he's just another priveleged, entitled, white male shitlord -- and a jerk.
But when Meghan Murphy doesn't wish to see females referred to by the neutral term "people", that's an important discussion that we need to have.
Maybe Peterson needs to frame his opposition in terms of radical feminist praxis, or whatever.
I'll give another example. Look at all the fuss about halloween costumes. Plenty of universities around North America are either banning, or strongly discouraging, halloween costumes that can be seen as "cultural appropriation." Now, I think there is a legitimate conversation to be had about cultural appropriation and offensive costumes, but it just is not the place for any authority, university or otherwise, to regulate this. That's a conversation that people should be having between themselves as equals who can make their points through convincing arguments.
What's the connection between this, and gender neutral pronouns, and mandatory anti-bias training? It's the spread of our beliefs through coercion, which I oppose on principle, and the spread of the idea that opposition to our beliefs is in itself problematic or even hateful. People are right to lump all of these things together under the umbrella of "political correctness."
I've been lurking and at first I didn't get what Boze was talking about.
But having read through the thread,his argument is against this hyper-sensitive PC bullshit.
It's a millstone around the necks of leftists. It's time for the left to abandon PC outrage. The further we go down this road,the more we (even if we have the best intentions) feed into the right wing narrative.
This idea that we all must tow the line as if we ( to be clear,I'm talking about leftists like myself) are tied to an ideology and political dogma. That's not progressive. That's something one would expect from the right.
It has to stop. The only thing we're accomplishing is giving people the feeling that they are being beaten over the head with an agenda that,let's face it, is killing any progress progressives are trying to achieve.
I plead to me left wing brothers and sisters to abandon PC outrage and leave it to the fringe where it belongs. It doesn't help us,it hurts us.
It's funny that most people preoccupied with 'labels' are themselves first and foremost white and straight. It makes me laugh.
This faux outrage culture is a cancer to our Universities,which are supposed to be laboratories of critical thinking and is becoming a cancer to our political interests.
The day the left is not associated with political correctness,is the day that leftist political parties actually become viable and easily digested by those who are not political or really doesn't understand politics which out number evberyone here ten fold.
It's the one issue the right can beat the left over the head with.
We have to disassociate ourselves from this faux outrage about everything.
Bang on, alan smithee.
Do people even realize where the term "political correctness" came from?
It came from the left. It came from socialists, criticising the Communist Party that would tell its members what the "correct" stance to have on any given issue was (and of course punish those who deviated), and CP members who needed to have the "correct" stance given to them by the Party, rather than being able to think for themselves.
I'm finding it very interesting that when Peterson says he doesn't wish to refer to anyone by the neutral term "they", he's just another priveleged, entitled, white male shitlord -- and a jerk.But when Meghan Murphy doesn't wish to see females referred to by the neutral term "people", that's an important discussion that we need to have.
Maybe Peterson needs to frame his opposition in terms of radical feminist praxis, or whatever.
i mentioned Dorothy Smith up a bit. i've been trying to read and comprehend her books this fall. being against feminism all my life it's tough going for me. boy do identify with her theories now though. guess i had to grow up.
fmales can be "people" just not when we are fighting against oppression of a type which relates speifically to all facets contained in the process of procreation.
link????
When someone tries to shut Peterson off youtube, or if there is a serious move to fire him for expressing an opinion, I'll probably defend him too.
Well...
The letter, also signed by representatives from LGBTOUT, and the Black Liberation Collective, calls for a full retraction of Peterson’s comments and the removal of his lectures from YouTube.
Go get 'em, tiger.
But when Meghan Murphy doesn't wish to see females referred to by the neutral term "people", that's an important discussion that we need to have.
I don't agree with Murphy on lots of issues, Magoo. Having her blog unlinked is another matter, as I said.
When someone tries to shut Peterson off youtube, or if there is a serious move to fire him for expressing an opinion, I'll probably defend him to. You may notice I just defended Tom Flanagan.
And you might want to reread what Sineed said.
As for his ideas, they are open to challenge. And there are other issues around this as well, but I am off to supper,
But when Meghan Murphy doesn't wish to see females referred to by the neutral term "people", that's an important discussion that we need to have.
That's a bit of a mischaracterization. It's not so much that she doesn't like women to be called, "people," (tsk tsk, btw), but that her blog was unlinked for "transphobia" and rabble editors said this:
When pressed, I finally received an explanation (though, again, not from any of the editors responsible for the decision) from someone at rabble, who repeated the claim that my argument contained "transphobic language" and added that my piece "erased trans male identity." I was told that to point out that only females have reproductive systems was "essentializing" and reduced "women's identity down to biology."For the record, there is nothing in rabble's journalistic policy that says naming females as the human beings who can get pregnant constitutes "transphobia."
It's not that women aren't people, but that people who get pregnant aren't women.
Maybe Peterson needs to frame his opposition in terms of radical feminist praxis, or whatever.
Yes, I think so. If he'd talked to some radical fems like WOLF, or Deep Green Resistance, their rhetoric on gender would only enhance his case.
Hey rabble editors, if you're reading this, so you posit that "women" and "men" are definitions that exist independent of biology. If that is the case, without reference to biology, please define what is a man? What is a women?
Let me know when they get pulled down. Until then I take it as seriously as I take reactionary crap here on babble. And you'll notice in my first post I said he is free to be as rude as he wants.
Let me know when they get pulled down.
As you wish. But when you said:
When someone tries to shut Peterson off youtube
Did you really mean?:
When someone succeeds in shutting Peterson off youtube
It's not that women aren't people, but that people who get pregnant aren't women.
I think the idea is that transmen can also get pregnant. I asked in the other thread:
Should she be inclusive of transmen who may become pregnant (or menstruate)?
I'm not here to mansplain the answer. But I think that's the question.
Well if we want to wax pedantic, did they actually try, or did they just talk about it? Come on, magoo.
