so, question: smith and others have been asserting that the law doesn't actually require pronoun use since it's not specifically stated in the legislation...
what are your thoughts on that? do you think that should be added to the bill?
No. The bill is fine.
Actually, you are behaving like a troll. What on earth gives you the right to speak for "the vast majority of trans people"? Nothing does. Your pseudo pschyo-babble is dangerously arrogant and ignorant. Your understanding of narcissism is shallow indeed. Where do you get off playing the expert in an area that is complex and nuanced?First perversion. Now you are saying you consider transgenderism narcissism as well?
I'm starting to consider you a troll. We've been over this, this has nothing to do with transgenderism. The vast majority of trans people identify very strongly with the gender binary and have a very strong preference for either "he" or "she" pronouns.
So no, I don't, and I don't consider non-binary gender identities narcissistic either. What I consider narcissistic is the idea that people are entitled to, as Peterson put it, "linguistic preferential treatment." That's narcissistic. You can identify as gender "purple" all you want, but when you start demanding that people put "purple" on forms next to "male" and "female," I'm going to tell you to fuck off. Loudly. That's not only stupid, it's dangerous, and it's dangerous to humour people like that. They need to be challenged and I'm eternally grateful to Prof. Peterson for doing it.
well it does seem as though the majority of trans people seem to prefer the standard pronouns, so i'd hardly say it's ignorant.
and he's certainly not acting like a troll (that would be drifting into a conversation that has been going for some time to scold/target/insult someone, as opposed to participating in the discussion)
As Last Tango in Paris had come up earlier, I found this noteworthy.
Yes, that is part of what I was referring to.
U of Toronto historian: Biological sex a ‘very popular misconception’
A lecturer at the University of Toronto says the notion of "biological sex" - that humans are born either male or female - is a "very popular misconception."Nick Matte, an historian who teaches a class on transgender studies as a part of the university's Sexual Diversity Studies program, said the science has long been settled on the matter, reported Red Alert Politics.
"Basically, it's not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex," Mr. Matte said last month on "The Agenda," a Canadian talk show, adding that "for over 50 years scientists have shown that that's not true."
Surely denying biological reality to this degree is equivalent to creationism. I question this person's fitness to be teaching.
He adds:
Mr. Matte also said gender pronouns - a contentious topic within the transgender community - only reinforce the false idea that humans exist as sexually compatible organisms with distinct chromosomes, hormones and genitalia.
"I don't focus on pronouns, because pronouns are actually part of a cisnormative culture," he said.
He defined "cisnormativity" as "basically the very popular idea and assumption that most people probably have, and definitely that our structures convey, that there is such a thing as male or female, that they connect to being a girl or a boy, a man or a woman."
The historian also condemned his colleague, University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, whose unwillingness to call transgender students by their preferred gender pronouns sparked massive protests on campus earlier this year.
Mr. Matte said Mr. Peterson "abuses" students by refusing to address them by preferred terms including "zie," "zim" and "zir." He said it's "tantamount to violence" and "hate speech."
I suppose we'll see whether the authorities agree that misgendering is "tantamount to violence" and "hate speech."
and that is the problem. How can you have a sensible conversation with someone who doesn't believe there is even a biological sex, that words are the same as violence and that disagreeing with them is hate speech?
sounds like when chomsky debated buckley...
i'm curious to read some of this iron clad scientific research this prof is referring to.
Hm.
After watching that video, I think it is too bad Matte didn't take the time to unpack his argument, because I am curious. And I agree, unless he has got his terms wrong, or is using an argument that really begs the question, he is wrong about biological sex. From the snippet there, I suspect the latter, and in any case, by any reasonable definition, he is wrong.
Depending on the answer I expect I would also be concerned about Matte teaching something like medicine or genetics. But he is a historian. So not only is he not trained in the field, his opinion on it is probably not relevant.
And him equating something with violence and hate speech? Well he isn't a legislator either, or a lawyer, or a human rights commissioner. So his opinion is just that.
Neither of these things has any bearing on his opinion about respecting the rights of trans people.
And the authority? She has already explained how far the law goes.
and that is the problem. How can you have a sensible conversation with someone who doesn't believe there is even a biological sex, that words are the same as violence and that disagreeing with them is hate speech?
sounds like when chomsky debated buckley...
i'm curious to read some of this iron clad scientific research this prof is referring to.
It's based on biological studies going back to the 1960s, apparently.
Sounds like Matte and the others know what they're talking about, and that it's scientically respectable if expressed in longer than sound bite form.
A recent article in Nature suggests that biologists ‘now think’ the idea of two sexes is inaccurate; in fact, says Vanessa Heggie, for decades biologists have been at the forefront of campaigns against this simplistic understanding of sex
[url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2015/feb/19/nature-sex-re... and sex redefined – we have never been binary[/url]
Actually, you are behaving like a troll. What on earth gives you the right to speak for "the vast majority of trans people"? Nothing does. Your pseudo pschyo-babble is dangerously arrogant and ignorant. Your understanding of narcissism is shallow indeed. Where do you get off playing the expert in an area that is complex and nuanced?First perversion. Now you are saying you consider transgenderism narcissism as well?
I'm starting to consider you a troll. We've been over this, this has nothing to do with transgenderism. The vast majority of trans people identify very strongly with the gender binary and have a very strong preference for either "he" or "she" pronouns.
So no, I don't, and I don't consider non-binary gender identities narcissistic either. What I consider narcissistic is the idea that people are entitled to, as Peterson put it, "linguistic preferential treatment." That's narcissistic. You can identify as gender "purple" all you want, but when you start demanding that people put "purple" on forms next to "male" and "female," I'm going to tell you to fuck off. Loudly. That's not only stupid, it's dangerous, and it's dangerous to humour people like that. They need to be challenged and I'm eternally grateful to Prof. Peterson for doing it.
Do you have an actual argument?
Didn't think so.
BUH-BYE.
Of course Matte didn't unpack his argument, and of course he says that the matter is long settled. These people always appeal to "the consensus," "the evidence," "the science" in a vacuous manner to support their position. Of course, if the science is long settled, then it doesn't matter if they personally can't win the argument - they shouldn't have to, they can just hand-wave dismissively in the direction of "the science" to make their point. And, I hate to say it, but we on the left do the same thing with climate change far too often. Now we see how shameless these tactics are.
and that is the problem. How can you have a sensible conversation with someone who doesn't believe there is even a biological sex, that words are the same as violence and that disagreeing with them is hate speech?
sounds like when chomsky debated buckley...
i'm curious to read some of this iron clad scientific research this prof is referring to.
It's based on biological studies going back to the 1960s, apparently.
Sounds like Matte and the others know what they're talking about, and that it's scientically respectable if expressed in longer than sound bite form.
A recent article in Nature suggests that biologists ‘now think’ the idea of two sexes is inaccurate; in fact, says Vanessa Heggie, for decades biologists have been at the forefront of campaigns against this simplistic understanding of sex[url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2015/feb/19/nature-sex-re... and sex redefined – we have never been binary[/url]
That article is a bunch of garbage. It is true that there is no one definition of male or female that includes all the members that we would like to use it to include. That doesn't change the reality of the world. How did we all get here, you guys? How is babby formed? Answer: ONE MALE and ONE FEMALE were involved in the process, and that is true for every human being on this planet.
The female member of the species is one that produces female gametes, and the female gamete is the larger of the two. That's the definition we use. Pointing out how we would normally think of the category "female" as including many individuals that don't necessarily produce female gametes doesn't change anything as far as I, and Darwin, are concerned.
Good to know that you know biology better than biologists.
And that you know how to moderate the board better than the board moderator, who you've just insulted.
Well, I'd be very curious to see some biologists breed two dogs (or cats, or guppies, or sheep, or whatever) who were "CAMAB" (Coercively Assigned Male At Birth) and get another dog, cat, guppy or sheep.
I think that suggesting there's no such thing as two sexes in the animal kingdom at large is kind of like suggesting that most mammals aren't really warm-blooded after all, or that either parent can nurse offspring or whatever.
Frankly, I'm just happy to be one of the very few "men" who doesn't menstruate.
Careful Magoo, it sounds like you're saying that you know biology better than biologists!
And that you know how to moderate the board better than the board moderator, who you've just insulted.
I made no comment on moderating the board. I was just responding to a vacuous post attacking my "dangerous" arrogance and ignorance without actually saying what exactly I'm supposed to be ignorant about. I think it's funny that you read my post, rather than the one I was responding to, as insulting. Must be my tone.
Doesn't seem like you have much to contribute either.
:D
Careful Magoo, it sounds like you're saying that you know biology better than biologists!
Before there was ever "biology" as we understand it now, there was "animal husbandry". Kind of like biology, but without any theoretical underpinnings, and only material underpinnings. It's how shepherds could breed sheep before even the ponciest of scientists knew of genetics.
And even then, they seemed to know that if both of the cattle had a penis -- or appeared to have a penis, regardless of whether those cattle "identified" as having a penis -- it didn't result in a calf. :(
Again, it might have been better if he had unpacked it, because the article doesn't say there is no such thing as biological sex, only that it is more complex than it seems, and there are exceptions to the binary majority.
As it is, Matte's oversimplification is easy pickings for those who want to be outraged and make hay with it.
Still doesn't make it relevant to the question at hand.
So in the spirit of non binaries...whats the graceful compromise?
Threatening an individual's world view usually doesn't go down smoothly.
Again, it might have been better if he had unpacked it, because the article doesn't say there is no such thing as biological sex, only that it is more complex than it seems, and there are exceptions to the binary majority.
As it is, Matte's oversimplification is easy pickings for those who want to be outraged and make hay with it.
Still doesn't make it relevant to the question at hand.
Agreed entirely.
Of course, but that was because humans were already imposing their own gender norms on those animals, no doubt.
Again, it might have been better if he had unpacked it, because the article doesn't say there is no such thing as biological sex, only that it is more complex than it seems, and there are exceptions to the binary majority.
As it is, Matte's oversimplification is easy pickings for those who want to be outraged and make hay with it.
Still doesn't make it relevant to the question at hand.
Watch that episode again and see if anything that comes out of Matte's mouth isn't horseshit. What's outrageous is that that's the first thing he says, and then he says "I'm a historian of medicine, I could unpack that for you, but in the interest of time, I won't." And then about cisnormativity: "Well, it's all these assumptions people make, that are wrong for reasons that I could explain, but I won't." And then about Peterson's words being tantamount to abuse ""Many global documents, many organizations..." none of which are named of course. And then, with a big smile on his face when Peterson asks if it's hate speech: "Absolutely, of course it's hate speech to tell someone that you won't refer to them as a, in a way that recognizes their humanity and dignity." Absolute weaseling. Disgraceful that this man is employed as a professor at a university teaching this crap. Disgraceful that anybody would defend such a contemptible performance.
Should Matte be dismissed then, since he is so disgraceful?
So in the spirit of non binaries...whats the graceful compromise?
Threatening an individual's world view usually doesn't go down smoothly.
Peterson is prepared to die on this particular hill. He's made it clear. I am inclined to agree that this line should not be crossed. I will not, under any circumstances, use any gender-neutral pronouns. You're a he or a she. Or you can be a robot or an apache attack helicopter for all I care, but that doesn't entitle you to have me recognize it. Now, some of the gender activists have also implied that they are willing to die on this hill - that's what "this is not up for debate" means, essentially. I guess we will see where this goes.
But, we can keep talking about it. It's only one side that seems revolted by the conversation itself.
Should Matte be dismissed then, since he is so disgraceful?
I wouldn't fire him for such a performance, because it technically has no bearing on his ability to teach. But, I am willing to bet that he doesn't teach anything useful. My position is that many such courses and departments are not performing a useful service, and are in fact doing students a disservice, and that as time goes on, the folly in so much money being spent on gender studies (or really any "studies") degrees and the like will become clear.
Who is revolted? And which conversation?
You just finished talking about one you think was "contemptible".
Who is revolted? And which conversation?
You just finished talking about one you think was "contemptible".
Yes, I am revolted by ideologues with no shame or self-awareness, but not by the conversation itself.
For the sake of argument . ..how should one refer to their transgendered parent...to the police 
For the sake of argument . ..how should one refer to their transgendered parent...to the police
How about "however one wants?"
If my father told me he was getting a sex change I'd tell him hey...more power to you old man, but I'm not gonna stop calling you dad.
A rose is a rose
what should be concerning is that these are the people that are informing the debate about this, speaking to politicians...they are the "experts" that get consulted about laws and probably the human rights tribunals. And they are clearly (at least every prof i've seen) ideologically driven, not prone to reason, and think disagreement on issues like pronoun use and "left wing authoritarianism" makes you guilty of a hate crime.
Matte's comments were similar in tone to prof brysons attacks in the debate, and pretty much anyone who's spoken against peterson in the media or online. And when they talk about his points, it's like they sort of dismiss it the way a parent would to a kid. Then he's called a bunch of names (again, much like chomsky being called "anti-american" or a "communist").
it's like if you took chomskys rules of "intellectual self defense" and applied them here, it doesn't pass the sniff test. And he was also a huge critic of post modernism as well...
Speaking of name-calling: [url=http://www.ubyssey.ca/news/ubc-prmary-bryson-threats-debate-pronouns-pet... prof Mary Bryson receives “violent threats” after debate on gender-neutral pronouns[/url]
I'm the moderator. I don't need to have an argument when a babbler steps out of line. Which you have. Repeatedly. If you cannot find a more respectful way to engage people you will be banned.Actually, you are behaving like a troll. What on earth gives you the right to speak for "the vast majority of trans people"? Nothing does. Your pseudo pschyo-babble is dangerously arrogant and ignorant. Your understanding of narcissism is shallow indeed. Where do you get off playing the expert in an area that is complex and nuanced?First perversion. Now you are saying you consider transgenderism narcissism as well?
I'm starting to consider you a troll. We've been over this, this has nothing to do with transgenderism. The vast majority of trans people identify very strongly with the gender binary and have a very strong preference for either "he" or "she" pronouns.
So no, I don't, and I don't consider non-binary gender identities narcissistic either. What I consider narcissistic is the idea that people are entitled to, as Peterson put it, "linguistic preferential treatment." That's narcissistic. You can identify as gender "purple" all you want, but when you start demanding that people put "purple" on forms next to "male" and "female," I'm going to tell you to fuck off. Loudly. That's not only stupid, it's dangerous, and it's dangerous to humour people like that. They need to be challenged and I'm eternally grateful to Prof. Peterson for doing it.
Do you have an actual argument?
Didn't think so.
BUH-BYE.
meg, that definitely sounded less like moderation and more like you giving your two cents in the thread. You also ended with a question, so there was an inviation for an argument as opposed to pointing out if he was outside of babble guidelines.
not even sure why any moderation is necessary here, we're all getting along just fine.
first off, the messages are disgusting, don't wish that on anyone. the sentiments in the article are interesting though...
“UBC is proud to have faculty members who engage on complex societal issues and it is deeply troubling to me that one of UBC’s faculty members should be singled out because of their participation in a debate on a controversial topic.”
isn't this exactly what peterson is arguing for?
“Being attacked for professional opinions that Dr. Bryson was offering at what I take to be an academic forum would certainly be an infringement of Dr. Bryson’s freedom in the sense of individuals trying to repress Dr. Bryson’s ability to speak clearly and strongly on important issues,”
so random internet comments is a violation of that freedom, but several stern warnings to shut up from the actual employer is not?
wrote Bryson. “I have seen no evidence of public violent reprisals against Jordan Peterson. That’s interesting in its own right. It’s also interesting that the same people who are such ardent supporters of ‘free speech’ do not support my right to speak freely.”
ummmm, what about the actual physical assaults by anti-peterson protestors? you don't think there are people writing him horrible internet comments?? there is no one (other than internet wackos) who has said bryson should not "be able " to speak, they just vehemently disagree with "what" bryson is saying. Bryson is the one claiming hate speech and trying to censor.
"She notes that the university aims to vigorously defend academic freedom and the right of its faculty members to engage in discourse, especially without being attacked for doing so."
Maybe peterson should apply at UBC?
Because more than one babbler has requested moderation.meg, that definitely sounded less like moderation and more like you giving your two cents in the thread. You also ended with a question, so there was an inviation for an argument as opposed to pointing out if he was outside of babble guidelines.
not even sure why any moderation is necessary here, we're all getting along just fine.
first off, the messages are disgusting, don't wish that on anyone. the sentiments in the article are interesting though...
“UBC is proud to have faculty members who engage on complex societal issues and it is deeply troubling to me that one of UBC’s faculty members should be singled out because of their participation in a debate on a controversial topic.”
isn't this exactly what peterson is arguing for?
Peterson is arguing for a number of things.
On his right to free speech, I think 100% of participants on this thread agree.
On his other points, there seems to be some disagreement.
I'm the moderator. I don't need to have an argument when a babbler steps out of line. Which you have. Repeatedly. If you cannot find a more respectful way to engage people you will be banned.Actually, you are behaving like a troll. What on earth gives you the right to speak for "the vast majority of trans people"? Nothing does. Your pseudo pschyo-babble is dangerously arrogant and ignorant. Your understanding of narcissism is shallow indeed. Where do you get off playing the expert in an area that is complex and nuanced?First perversion. Now you are saying you consider transgenderism narcissism as well?
I'm starting to consider you a troll. We've been over this, this has nothing to do with transgenderism. The vast majority of trans people identify very strongly with the gender binary and have a very strong preference for either "he" or "she" pronouns.
So no, I don't, and I don't consider non-binary gender identities narcissistic either. What I consider narcissistic is the idea that people are entitled to, as Peterson put it, "linguistic preferential treatment." That's narcissistic. You can identify as gender "purple" all you want, but when you start demanding that people put "purple" on forms next to "male" and "female," I'm going to tell you to fuck off. Loudly. That's not only stupid, it's dangerous, and it's dangerous to humour people like that. They need to be challenged and I'm eternally grateful to Prof. Peterson for doing it.
Do you have an actual argument?
Didn't think so.
BUH-BYE.
Who have I disrespected? You? If I have stepped out of line repeatedly, this is the first I am hearing of it. I cannot possibly know that people have a problem with my conduct if they won't speak up about it. You being the moderator doesn't mean that when you come into a thread asking questions and demanding I justify something I've said that I treat you any differently than I would treat anybody else, especially when your comments don't make it clear you're speaking in your role as moderator, accuse me of "dangerous arrogance and incompetence," and are asking me to justify a completely uncontroversial statement like "the vast majority of trans people use he or she pronouns." From my perspective the only one engaging people disrespectfully is you.
"babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and essential values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism, and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Members that join babble who indicate intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum."
Great edutainment...Thanks Rabble Babble
Who have I disrespected? You? If I have stepped out of line repeatedly, this is the first I am hearing of it. I cannot possibly know that people have a problem with my conduct if they won't speak up about it.
Please don't play dumb because I know you are not that dumb. I told you several weeks ago you had crossed a line.
And yes, I alerted the mods at that point because I thought using words like "perversion" and talking about spitting in people's faces was something that they should be aware of.
On his right to free speech, I think 100% of participants on this thread agree.
In principle, yes. In practice, that freedom is always tempered.
Does that extend to him being absolved of the responsibility for the things he says?
No, it doesn't, and I think more than anything this has to do with his tone, and the way in which he has demonized people. It isn't that these potential intersections of rights can't be talked about, but him wildly misinterpreting the law and stating his intention to break it, and making accusations of left wing authoritarianism, and a backlash all run counter to his responsibilities as a teacher.
... for those who interpret the letters from the university as nothing but persecution, and stamping on his free speech.
I've followed this fairly closely, watched the debate, some of Peterson's videos, the Agenda episode on the controversy, and lots on YouTube. The conversation here has been very interesting and educational for me (and others that I've shown this thread to). I hope the conversation can continue, and if there are concerns with the tone or other issues with people participating here, perhaps they could be made explicit so we all know what the expectations are?
I don't think there is consensus here or in society at large on free speech issues. Personally I am uncomfortable with hate crime and hate speech legislation - I think there should be limits to speech, especially around advocating violence, but when I say violence I mean physical violence. I agree with Peterson's critics that he should expect criticism and reaction to what he says, and that reaction isn't a threat to his free speech rights. When the reaction comes in the form of calling his speech "hate" or "violence", I disagree. And I wonder if the people saying that his speech is hate or violence think that he should be charged.
I think his alarm and apparent fright when he talks about the threats to his career are sincere. I found his opening remarks in the "forum" at U of T powerful. I think he fell flat on his face in the rest of the debate, and looked a bit unprepared and a lot angry. But I think it comes from fear and his fear is real.
I think his opponents could undercut a lot of his argument by simply saying his speech is hateful but clarify if they think it is currently legal (and perhaps say if they think it should remain legal). Yet they don't say this, and instead use the exact terms "violence" and "hate", which have specific meanings and consequences in the law. This feeds his argument, that the "PC police" are going to restrict legitimate debate, and legitimate scientific inquiry. I'd rather his critics said clearly if they think his speech should remain legal or not.
The above is coming off as more sympathetic to Peterson that I intended. I don't follow or agree with him on much else. He has an agenda, and he is apprently very chummy with Rebel Media now and is all up in my youtube feed. Which is scary in and of itself. He and his supporters are putting out a LOT of content.
There has been fervent critique of those who happen to think that what Petersen is saying "hate speech". He, and his supporters, continually play "gotcha" anytime anyone (who, almost invariably, is not a lawyer) does so.
People can think that other people have violated the law. That does not mean that they are right, or that the law is bad. It may mean that people are misinformed. Which, in this case, they are. The chances that an Attorney General would personally prefer an indictment (which happens to be the legal standard) against Petersen for his comments are less than zero. But, that is never mentioned, so that people can be aghast, anew, that some people think what Petersen is doing is heinous enough to warrant criminal punishment.
It isn't. Anyone who says it is is simply ignorant of the law.
I've followed this fairly closely, watched the debate, some of Peterson's videos, the Agenda episode on the controversy, and lots on YouTube. The conversation here has been very interesting and educational for me (and others that I've shown this thread to). I hope the conversation can continue, and if there are concerns with the tone or other issues with people participating here, perhaps they could be made explicit so we all know what the expectations are?
I don't think there is consensus here or in society at large on free speech issues. Personally I am uncomfortable with hate crime and hate speech legislation - I think there should be limits to speech, especially around advocating violence, but when I say violence I mean physical violence. I agree with Peterson's critics that he should expect criticism and reaction to what he says, and that reaction isn't a threat to his free speech rights. When the reaction comes in the form of calling his speech "hate" or "violence", I disagree. And I wonder if the people saying that his speech is hate or violence think that he should be charged.
I think his alarm and apparent fright when he talks about the threats to his career are sincere. I found his opening remarks in the "forum" at U of T powerful. I think he fell flat on his face in the rest of the debate, and looked a bit unprepared and a lot angry. But I think it comes from fear and his fear is real.
I think his opponents could undercut a lot of his argument by simply saying his speech is hateful but clarify if they think it is currently legal (and perhaps say if they think it should remain legal). Yet they don't say this, and instead use the exact terms "violence" and "hate", which have specific meanings and consequences in the law. This feeds his argument, that the "PC police" are going to restrict legitimate debate, and legitimate scientific inquiry. I'd rather his critics said clearly if they think his speech should remain legal or not.
The above is coming off as more sympathetic to Peterson that I intended. I don't follow or agree with him on much else. He has an agenda, and he is apprently very chummy with Rebel Media now and is all up in my youtube feed. Which is scary in and of itself. He and his supporters are putting out a LOT of content.
Though it will be evident from my previous post that I think the "hate speech" angle is overblown (in that I don't think Petersen comes anywhere close to the criminal standard of behaviour; and people are generally stupid about criminal law), I agree with much of this.
The above is coming off as more sympathetic to Peterson that I intended. I don't follow or agree with him on much else. He has an agenda, and he is apprently very chummy with Rebel Media now and is all up in my youtube feed. Which is scary in and of itself. He and his supporters are putting out a LOT of content.
Yes, his twitter feed is a real eye-opener.
Thank you pookie. Appreciate your comment quoted below, clarifies things for me greatly.
"People can think that other people have violated the law. That does not mean that they are right, or that the law is bad. It may mean that people are misinformed. Which, in this case, they are. The chances that an Attorney General would personally prefer an indictment (which happens to be the legal standard) against Petersen for his comments are less than zero. But, that is never mentioned, so that people can be aghast, anew, that some people think what Petersen is doing is heinous enough to warrant criminal punishment."
Who have I disrespected? You? If I have stepped out of line repeatedly, this is the first I am hearing of it. I cannot possibly know that people have a problem with my conduct if they won't speak up about it.
Please don't play dumb because I know you are not that dumb. I told you several weeks ago you had crossed a line.
And yes, I alerted the mods at that point because I thought using words like "perversion" and talking about spitting in people's faces was something that they should be aware of.
Yeah, alright, you did say that, but I thought I made it pretty clear to you that I wasn't talking about spitting in Mary Bryson's face. I was talking about spitting in the face of the idea of using the singular they by explicitly refusing to do so. We use the singular they in English when somebody's identity, and their gender, is unknown. Using it because somebody wants you to is jumping through cognitive gymnastics. It's a perversion of an existing linguistic device for an absurd purpose - and then labelling people who refuse to play these games as hateful is almost beneath my contempt. And my contempt for language police is considerable. So yes. Spit in the face of this perverse horshit.
The above is coming off as more sympathetic to Peterson that I intended. I don't follow or agree with him on much else. He has an agenda, and he is apprently very chummy with Rebel Media now and is all up in my youtube feed. Which is scary in and of itself. He and his supporters are putting out a LOT of content.
Yes, his twitter feed is a real eye-opener.
Everyone has an agenda. Peterson has an anti-PC agenda. His twitter feed is currently full of mentions of how European countries are starting to finally challenge Islam. Peterson despises the radical left. But that doesn't make him a right-winger. I don't really like Ezra Levant at all, but I can recognize an ally on free speech when I see one. You have to be willing to work with people you don't like in order to defeat people you can't stand. Socialists ought to understand that.
i don't think that "fervent critique" though is coming from anyone who doesn't already side with peterson. Certainly not his collegues, his employer, politicians or anyone who is arguing in favour of the bill is saying "whoa, lets relax with the hate speech allegations and equating words with violence"
the so-called moderator of the u of t debate didn't say much about it either.
i feel like the accusations levelled against peterson are extremely serious, especially when taken as a package, and are downplayed, whereas his statements/arguments are over-simplified, given an exaggerated sense of doom...such as saying his refusal to use pronouns--even though he can converse perfectly fine without them--is somehow associated with suicide, people being homeless, being a bigot hate speech user, etc. All claims that have been thrown at him.
Everyone has an agenda. Peterson has an anti-PC agenda. His twitter feed is currently full of mentions of how European countries are starting to finally challenge Islam. Peterson despises the radical left. But that doesn't make him a right-winger. I don't really like Ezra Levant at all, but I can recognize an ally on free speech when I see one. You have to be willing to work with people you don't like in order to defeat people you can't stand. Socialists ought to understand that.
Yikes.
Everyone has an agenda. Peterson has an anti-PC agenda. His twitter feed is currently full of mentions of how European countries are starting to finally challenge Islam. Peterson despises the radical left. But that doesn't make him a right-winger. I don't really like Ezra Levant at all, but I can recognize an ally on free speech when I see one. You have to be willing to work with people you don't like in order to defeat people you can't stand. Socialists ought to understand that.
Yikes.
Guilt by association is a deplorable concept.
