Jordan Peterson is bad news!

No, actually. I think you are describing the internet. Why should students pay their hard earned money to be taught things that "might" be true. Indeed what is university accreditation for if it is where students learn things that might or might not be true, or that they get to decide?

And it isn't just a matter of opinion if someone claims that the law might land him in jail, when there no evidence to that effect.

Again, the comparison was made in that secret tape with Charles Murray's racist ideas about race and intelligence which had not been subject to peer review, but which students might accept as true because of his degree and his reputation.

It is no different with Peterson's claims in that video that using a singular "they" is "dangerous" and based on a political agenda. A student with a few years under their belt might take it with a grain of salt. A first year might assume that because someone has "Dr." in front of his name he actually knows what he is talking about, even though neither linguistics nor law is his field of study.

No slight against freedom of speech, and people saying whatever nonsense they think might be true, but that is what speaker's corner is for. University is for teaching information that meets academic standards and peer review. I wouldn't be very pleased to have doctors decide for themselves what they think cures cancer in medical school. Or to have a similar situation in any accredited school, for that matter.

You want flat earth U? Send me $5,000. I'd be glad to send you the material.

Yes it is actually. Though maybe now that they have corrected the DSM and gender dysphoria is no longer an illness they should reclassify it as an mental illness of bigots and haters.
And it has a cultural foundation too.
But in this context it is about linguistics and law, areas Peterson is not an expert in.
Clearly, if he considers the fact languages evolve dangerous.

Ms. Shepherd showed the clip in an English grammar class which was part of the Communications course she was teaching.  The topic of the class was how the structure of a language can influence the way a society views things.  (This is the poorly understood and much-maligned Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.)  More specifically, she was trying to show that gender-specific pronouns can shape people’s ideas about gender, and used the Peterson clip to show how this could cause controversies.  (Some languages do not have gender-specific pronouns and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis would hold that they would view gender differently.)

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/21/laurier-apologizes-to-teaching-assistant-who-aired-clip-of-gender-pronoun-debate.html

What does this have to do with "creative work"?

I am talking about his baseless claim that C-16 compels speech. That it has the potential to put him in jail.

His claim that changing language is dangerous, that this concerns made up words by people with a political agenda.

His claim that race sensitivity is "political opinion".

Just to state a couple. This isn't "The Rites of Spring"; it is actually fairly clear stuff -  in some cases claims about legal, linguistic, and cultural issues that have no basis in fact, and in other cases are false characterizing that seems more based demonizing and paranoia; it certainly isn't scholarship. And it really isn't his field of study.

He talks about a political agenda. Well what political agenda is that? When pressed on it he equated it with Marxism and Maoism. I wonder what a political scientist would make of that professional opinion.

From Smith's link above.

Faith Goldy had been invited by the Laurier Society for Open Inquiry, a group Shepherd helped create in the wake of her dispute with faculty. She was to be the first in the Society's "Unpopular Opinions Speaker Series."

Surely Rambukkana, Pimlott, and Joel did not foresee these consequences of their actions.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

This is kind of weird, because what we are talking about is a supervisor advising a TA about how to be careful about presenting problematic information to the class. Seems simple, right? Not something that should require a formal complaint regimen, or sworn in witnesses. Or really, any excuse at all, to my mind.

You know that their were four people in that meeting, three of them to question Shepherd, who was unaccompanied. Why did Shepherd's supervisor think he needed help in this meeting (which was held under false pretences)? You also know the university violated it's own rules by not giving her notice of a disciplinary meeting and not telling her that she could bring an advocate? You know all this, right?

And what's the 'faux free speech argument'? Are you saying that speech is only free is you happen to agree with what is said? All other arguments for free speech are 'faux'?

Pertinent to the issue:

Why Lindsay Shepherd is suing Wilfrid Laurier University

Graduate student Lindsay Shepherd is suing my university, Wilfrid Laurier. She’s seeking damages related to prejudicial treatment perpetrated against her by some members of the campus community.

Many Canadians who’ve read the news support her suit. In large part it’s because seven months ago they heard for themselves that now-famous audio recording. It revealed two Laurier profs and an administrator cruelly bullying Lindsay to the point of tears, insisting she renounce her belief that universities should promote open debate.

...I can answer that. I’m one of the few professors at Laurier to publicly support Lindsay throughout her ordeal and we’ve talked about this at length.

...A “dignity culture” has been replaced by a “victimhood culture,” and Lindsay doesn’t want to be associated with the latter.

That’s why she refused to sue after she was called to an illegally constituted interrogation, was told students in her tutorial had complained about her, and that by showing a clip from public TV she had committed a crime.

That’s why she refused to sue following an independent investigation that found her three interrogators had misled her about the complaint.

That’s why she refused to sue when certain professors from her program published an open letter saying they supported the two colleagues who had falsely accused her. She refused when she was ridiculed in class in front of her peers. And she refused when her department chair insulted her in the national media.

...Why then did Lindsay finally feel pushed to take legal action? Because the university allowed an internal action to proceed against her. And, upon threat of severe academic penalty, they forbade her to discuss the details publicly.

...Through this entire affair, Lindsay has tried to play by the “old” rules of the dignity culture. She bore the insults of others with a thick skin and was willing to fight her own battles. But with this last straw, she’s realized that to survive a contest with the university she must play by its rules, the new rules.

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pertinent to the issue:

Why Lindsay Shepherd is suing Wilfrid Laurier University

Graduate student Lindsay Shepherd is suing my university, Wilfrid Laurier. She’s seeking damages related to prejudicial treatment perpetrated against her by some members of the campus community.

Many Canadians who’ve read the news support her suit. In large part it’s because seven months ago they heard for themselves that now-famous audio recording. It revealed two Laurier profs and an administrator cruelly bullying Lindsay to the point of tears, insisting she renounce her belief that universities should promote open debate.

...I can answer that. I’m one of the few professors at Laurier to publicly support Lindsay throughout her ordeal and we’ve talked about this at length.

...A “dignity culture” has been replaced by a “victimhood culture,” and Lindsay doesn’t want to be associated with the latter.

That’s why she refused to sue after she was called to an illegally constituted interrogation, was told students in her tutorial had complained about her, and that by showing a clip from public TV she had committed a crime.

That’s why she refused to sue following an independent investigation that found her three interrogators had misled her about the complaint.

That’s why she refused to sue when certain professors from her program published an open letter saying they supported the two colleagues who had falsely accused her. She refused when she was ridiculed in class in front of her peers. And she refused when her department chair insulted her in the national media.

...Why then did Lindsay finally feel pushed to take legal action? Because the university allowed an internal action to proceed against her. And, upon threat of severe academic penalty, they forbade her to discuss the details publicly.

...Through this entire affair, Lindsay has tried to play by the “old” rules of the dignity culture. She bore the insults of others with a thick skin and was willing to fight her own battles. But with this last straw, she’s realized that to survive a contest with the university she must play by its rules, the new rules.

That sums up the situation nicely. Thanks.

Ruling on “the admissibility of expert evidence on false confessions” in January 2012, Manitoba Justice Shawn Greenberg ruled three-quarters of Peterson’s evidence was inadmissible and questioned his credibility as an expert witness.

“Dr. Peterson has no experience” assessing “the reliability of confessions,” Justice Greenberg wrote in his ruling.

“In fact, he acknowledges that he has never seen a police confession and did not view the video of the confession in this case.”

https://pressprogress.ca/jordan-peterson-was-an-expert-witness-in-a-murd...
 

I would rather trust observations of innocent animals than the words of people.

progressive17 wrote:

I would rather trust observations of innocent animals than the words of people.

To which Michael Moriarity replied:

I have 5 cats, and I love them dearly, but I would never consider asking them for advice on politics. Their brains just aren't evolved for that purpose.​

I don't have cats, but I've seen them. They know something, but they're not letting on. 

progressive17 wrote:

I would rather trust observations of innocent animals than the words of people.

An interesting choice of words. Lions aren't "innocent" in the sense that they never hurt anyone; they're "innocent" because they're acknowledged not to have the brainpower to know that hurting people is wrong. In other words, the very fact wild animals can be described as "innocent" is an acknowledgement that they're capable of less, and hence held to a lesser standard, than human beings.

So if we can expect human beings to have better reasoning capabilities than animals -- and the law certainly does -- perhaps "Lions don't practice Marxism, therefore it'll never work for humans, and Jordan Peterson is right to try to save us from it" isn't the ironclad argument you think it is.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I have to admit that they often seem to know things I don't, but I doubt their secrets are political.

Decades ago I saw a cartoon I loved and was never able to find again. It showed a cat staring intently into a blank corner of a room, with a thought bubble above its head that was also blank.

Animals would not slaughter 100,000,000 people like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did.

The above link posted by RANGER is infected. Mods should remove link, and ban poster. 

What's wrong with "they?"

Pondering wrote:

He doesn't have to agree with gender neutral pronouns to use them when necessary

This is a part of his argument. By using gender neutral terms when you don't agree with them or believe in them you're still validating that belief. It's like being forced to apologize when you don't mean it.

Quote:

or to simply not use pronouns at all for that individual. Just use the person's name.

That works.

Peterson seems to be way too emotional for someone who is trying to talk about philosophy. As he rants and raves, he unconsciously describes himself.

He is trying to tell men to be individualists and take responsibility, but he lives in a coddled university environment, and grew up in a wealthy family. He was able to spend 5 years writing a book. Who but a Little Lord Fauntleroy could do that? 

He is incapable of expounding a strong philosophical basis for his commandments, as he seems to have no sense or idea of what those would be. I doubt that he even understands monetarism, let alone the deeper subjects which could unleash Free Will.

Now he seems to have a cult following. He is lapping it up, which is the exact opposite of what he should do. He is making millions from it, which is also the exact opposite of what a philosopher should want to do. Like all the other philosophical and religious and political losers, he is preaching self-sacrifice. Which is not the name of the game. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

What's wrong with "they?"

"They" is most commonly understood to be plural.  Someone will be here soon with some insignificant small exceptions, but realistically, most people understand "they" to refer to a a group of people of which they're not a part.

What about Rev's idea though?

"It" has always been singular and non-gendered.  Objections?

 

It's hard to believe that two smart people like you and Rev could be unaware of the negative connotations associated in English with the application of the pronoun "it" to a person. Therefore, you are just making mischief and don't really deserve a serious answer.

progressive17 wrote:

Animals would not slaughter 100,000,000 people like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did.

None of which was actually caused by Marxism(especially no Hitler's deeds, since he was an avowed anti-Marxist and anti-leftists who killed millions of social democrats, anarchists, socialists and large-and-small-c communists).  The main reason Stalin and Mao were able to do what they did was the use of the undemocratic, unaccountable "vanguard party" structure and the concept of "democratic centralism". 

The original goal of workers' control of the means of production, an objective which remains both perfectly legitimate and transcendently positive, is not the cause of their actions.

And, frankly, even if there had been no "left" at all in the first half of the 20th Century, Stalin and Mao were the sort of figures who would have some OTHER pretext to win the will cooperation of others in a program of slaughter.  They could just as easily have emerged out of a capitalist project, or out of any of the various forms of right-wing nationalism, the tradition from which Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler emerged.

It's not as though there'd have been no slaughter if only no one had sought a radically better world, if only the entire human race had accepted the political and economic status quo of 1914 as "the end of history".

progressive17 wrote:

George Orwell was definitely on to something. He must be doing ballet in his grave.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Read Politics and the English Language if you want to know what he thought about static language and adherence to rules. And about the power and utility of words.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

And consider that he spent the war working in a constructed language -  Basic English.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English

Can't say what he would make of the gender question, but I doubt he'd be in a faint about doing what made sense with the language. It is, after all, just a tool for communication, and if it is not serving that purpose, change it so it does.

Actually, I find using 'they' works quite well in most contexts.

I do think it sucks that the laws, for the most part, say 'he'. Granted that most criminals are men, because of testosterone or something. However women should have an equal opportunity at crime as in every other aspect of life.

A bit of a tangent, but here is someone who studies language talking about changing grammar to fit the needs of people, in this case activists. How it most closely relates to this conversation is touched on in the first five minutes, but the whole thing is worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=634&v=AToOLMXBILQ

6079_Smith_W wrote:

A bit of a tangent, but here is someone who studies language talking about changing grammar to fit the needs of people, in this case activists. How it most closely relates to this conversation is touched on in the first five minutes, but the whole thing is worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=634&v=AToOLMXBILQ

What a great video. I have to go out but I will watch it again or google the topic. Not sure how it connects to this topic yet but chock full of valuable insights. 

Meg took action. I think the rabble tradition is not to continue criticizing a member who can read but not respond to criticisms. 

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