The Jordan Peterson thread

[BecomingJulie]

One of the defining features of a civilised society is that it protects the weak from the worst excesses of the strong. Nobody has a problem with laws prohibiting murder, rape and theft. And if words uttered out loud have the ability to do real harm to people, then they should be treated as any other dangerous weapon. Those who are not on the receiving end of death threats with little reason to doubt that some of them are meant may have the luxury of insouciance over what others are saying about them, but many are not so fortunate. And who would have a problem with a law requiring them to behave the same way they were already going to?

 

[Wilson Wilson]

And who would have a problem with a law requiring them to behave the same way they were already going to?

A lot of people, I would imagine.

I take drugs every day. But it'd be absurd to enact a law forcing me to do so.

I enjoy going outside when it's sunny. But I don't think a law should be passed forcing everyone to do that either.

Calling someone the wrong pronoun could be hurtful to the other's emotional state sure. But hurting someone's feelings should not be a crime.

As Peterson said himself in that interview, there is no right not to be offended. You have to risk offending people to be able to think, debate, and express ideas. Perhaps my position is even offending you, but that doesn't mean I should be locked up for it.

It offends me when people call me a stupid druggie. But I don't think those people should be locked up just for hurting my feelings. If anything I'm glad people are vocal about their position in such things as it gives me an easy way to filter out people who I clearly wouldn't get along with.

Besides, do you truly believe that if you arrest people for hurting your feelings, their actual views are going to change? They've been trying that with drug use for years, doesn't seem to have worked too well does it? These laws would likely discourage people from saying things to your face, but they won't change their entire worldview because of it even if big daddy government thinks they should.

The type of law we're talking about is one that erodes freedom of speech and expression. As someone who moderates a forum dedicated to discussing illegal drug use you should appreciate that you have a right to freedom of speech. I dare say if our government decided to legislate against speech it disagreed with, discussions of drug use would be one of the first to go.

Having the state mandate what we can and can't say to each other is bordering on thoughtcrime. It is authoritarianism posing as manners. It has no place in a free society. This isn't North Korea.

 

[Limpet_Chicken]

Julie, you can hardly compare words in the form of death-threats to merely being offensive, no matter how gratuitously so they might be. As long as whatever somebody says neither publicly slanders someone's character (E.g implying say, TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, that someone is a child rapist) or actively threatens physical harm to another, then people have a right to speak. If somebody takes offense, that is their problem (not of course to say, that if someone goes around cursing people out, that eventually someone might take great exception and thump them one for it), but the likes of name-calling, or weak ass crap like using a non-preferred pronoun...meh. If someone swears at/insults you deliberately, just tell them to go fuck themselves.

Or in the case of someone being 'offended' at the use of a non-preferred pronoun, that IMO isn't even real offense, that is political 'race-card-playing' type bollocks, done mostly for political type reasons. And anyone who really gets their dick in a knot about it to the extent that they invoke some sort of authority or start a trial-by-publicity in complaint to try and bring down a shitstorm needs to go drink bleach, choke on their own spleen and die of cancer.

Transexual and don't like being called he or she, and rather than resolve the matter and tell someone 'I would rather you refer to me as 'X'', and instead start kicking off and calling in the SJW army? again, go drink bleach and die. Do I have a problem with transexuals? not so long as they don't try sticking body parts in me I don't want stuck in me, or try and lead me to believe they are female when they aren't. No. I don't. But start making a massive fuss and starting whining like a little bitch when someone refers to them in a way they don't prefer (but isn't outright insulting, I.e 'dirty tranny piece of shit' sort of reference), but simply non-preferred? people who ACT like whiny, stuck-up little bitches need to be TREATED like whiny, stuck-up little bitches.

 

[BecomingJulie]

As Peterson said himself in that interview, there is no right not to be offended.

I hear this line parroted often, and almost without exception from people who want to offend others. What I have never heard is any convincing explanation for why this should be the case; it is only ever presented as though it were an unfortunate but unchangeable fact. How would a right enshrined in law not to be offended be a bad thing?

I don't think there is anything controversial about the right not to get physically assaulted. So why not extend the restrictions against physical assault to cover words uttered out loud? The difference is one of degree, not kind. (And it's also worth noting that in Germany especially, and to a lesser extent in other parts of mainland Europe that were under German occupation in World War II, certain words are restricted .....)

 

[Wilson Wilson]

I hear this line parroted often, and almost without exception from people who want to offend others. What I have never heard is any convincing explanation for why this should be the case; it is only ever presented as though it were an unfortunate but unchangeable fact. How would a right enshrined in law not to be offended be a bad thing?

I don't think there is anything controversial about the right not to get physically assaulted. So why not extend the restrictions against physical assault to cover words uttered out loud? The difference is one of degree, not kind. (And it's also worth noting that in Germany especially, and to a lesser extent in other parts of mainland Europe that were under German occupation in World War II, certain words are restricted .....)

I explained why in my comment. Peterson explained why in the interview. To be able to think, debate, and express ideas, you are always going to offend someone. There is no way around that.

You saying that the coppers should arrest me if I don't call someone by their preferred pronouns is offending me right now. So do you think because you're offending me, you should be carted off to jail? Or is that limited only to people who offend you?

This is the other big thing: Who decides what is and isn't offensive? Who decides what offensive words are "harmful" enough to warrant arrest? Where do you draw that line? How can you possibly do it without bias, or without going too far?

And why can't people just be adults, take responsibility for themselves, and tell people who say mean things to them to just piss off? Having your feelings hurt is in no way comparable to being physically assaulted. A grown adult should not be so hurt just because someone calls them "he" instead of "she." If they are doing it on purpose to upset you, tell them where to fucking shove it. That's your right to use your own freedom of speech.

Finally, understand the wider implications of laws that control what we're allowed to say to each other. This is authoritarianism through and through. There are no two ways about it. Right now it's been sold to the public as a good thing because it's to help transgender people. Okay, now if that precedent is set that the government making laws telling us what we can and can't speak about is accepted and good, what's to stop them banning us from talking about drug use? For our own protection, of course, because drugs are bad and kids might read it. You can apply this logic to any given agenda the government might have.

What you are saying is that you trust the state to regulate what opinions we are allowed to express. That is fucking terrifying and the implications are far worse than being called the wrong pronoun.

 

[Limpet_Chicken]

I reckon for once your talking bollocks julie. Offense taken verbally is entirely different to physical harm. Hit someone in the face with a bat and they are going to be hurt regardless of their opinion. Call somebody a cunt and its entirely up to them whether or not they are hurt by it. words only hurt if you let them get to you. Otherwise its homo stercore veteris, hetero diem. Just pick your asshole of choice, they are all the same.

 

[quiet roar]

Cathy Newman was really fucking annoying in that clip. So shrill and dumb I wonder whether she was deliberately misinterpreting what he was saying.

 

[zephyr]

Becoming Julie: Do you ever consider your own words and actions towards others as much as you seem to expect those towards you? Do you feel extreme shame and guilt when you get a pronoun wrong? I certainly don't .


You really come off as pretty rude and curt at times to be honest and Im just reading this with a raised eyebrow,. Being a cunt and all Im not that sensitive to the words if strangers but the attitude you give is you seem to think you deserve more thought than anyone else.

Its no big deal to be transexual imo. Cant you just correct people if they get it wrong? Im pretty sure ppl wouldnt give it a second thought .




How do you find out what pronouns each snd every person prefers if usernames dont make it obvious?


Im just curious really. What makes you so different that it seens everyone is expected to just know what you want without knowing you?

 

[teflon320]

Saw him speak at UofT last month. I tried to get tickets to see him later this month. Sold out in 1 day. He is debating at the Munk Debates. I am going to try and make it.

Just read his book. I liked it.

Actually walked past the UofT campus earlier this evening.

I hear this line parroted often, and almost without exception from people who want to offend others. What I have never heard is any convincing explanation for why this should be the case; it is only ever presented as though it were an unfortunate but unchangeable fact. How would a right enshrined in law not to be offended be a bad thing?

I don't think there is anything controversial about the right not to get physically assaulted. So why not extend the restrictions against physical assault to cover words uttered out loud? The difference is one of degree, not kind. (And it's also worth noting that in Germany especially, and to a lesser extent in other parts of mainland Europe that were under German occupation in World War II, certain words are restricted .....)

I would just like to point out the irony that we are discussing the right to offend people with words. In Canada! Have you been here? We are sickenly polite.

And who would have a problem with a law requiring them to behave the same way they were already going to?

One of the reasons is because these types of laws are poorly designed and easily misapplied. We are already seeing the misapplication of the gender pronoun law at Laurier University.

Look. I understand your intention. Your probably a nice, reasonable person. If you had a friend that came to you one day and said "I no longer identify as,...... please address me as ........ If you had a good relationship with that person and you knew they were acting in a genuine way you may say "sure, why not, no big deal, it's the right thing to do". But you are negotiating with that person on a one on one basis. How can this be applied to all society, all citizens, government bureaucracies, non profits, corporations, etc.

For example. I own a business in Canada. My company paperwork is prefilled with several gender pronouns. Mr. Mrs. Ms. etc. If tomorrow a non gender binary person walks into my office and asks to open an account and my paperwork does not list Xi or Xir. Can I be fined? Will I be publicly shamed by the media? Will my business be damaged. I am asking this honestly because I actually own a business in Toronto. We have been talking about this problem. BTW. I have a _______ spot on my paperwork that I could write in any pronoun the person wanted. But I don't know if that is acceptable (see poorly written law)

This is a problem my business will most likely never face. But human rights legislation carries massive penalties for non compliance. So the worry that a misunderstanding could morph into a human rights complaint is there.

I know these issues can become very heated. Hopefully I have been respectful of you opinion BecomingJulie. Please know I have lots of friends in the LGBT community. I go to pride every year. I used to hang out at the goth and dark rave clubs. I have been involved in women's roller derby and I know trans people. So for the most part the law is compelling me to do what I would already do anyway.

 

[BecomingJulie]

Well, strictly speaking, "Mrs.", "Miss", "Ms.", "Mr.", "Mme.", "Mlle.", "M.", "Mx.", "Dame", "Sir", "Dr.", "Rev.", "Fr.", "Msgr." "Eng." &c. are not pronouns, they are titles. Whenever I've designed software that accepts a name and separates out the title, I've always explicitly made this accept an empty string (and usually put "Mr." some way down the list, not at the top); and I've always avoided supplying this information myself. I refuse to let myself be defined by marriage, so I'd sooner be Ms. than either Miss or Mrs.; but if I have used just my initials instead of a gender-obvious name, then I prefer just my initials with no title. (If Britain thought more highly of engineers, I'd love to use "Eng." as a title -- ask me what the square root of -1 is and I'll say j, and I know my 25.4 times table .....)

Pronouns are "I", "You", "We", "He", "She", "They" and similar; they can be nominative ("I", "We", ""He", "She", "They", "It"), accusative ("Me", "Us", "Him", Her", "Them", "It"), dative ("My", "Our", "His", "Her", "Their", "Its" -- note no apostrophe) or possessive ("Mine", "Ours", "His", Hers", "Theirs", "Its"), and you probably already knew all that stuff without knowing what any of it was called, unless you're some sort of cunning linguist; but pronouns are basically just a way of avoiding repeating the name of a person or thing. For instance:

Suzanne was walking along Main Street with Rusty, Suzanne's her Belgian Malinois, at the side of Suzanne's her body furthest away from the road. Suzanne She instinctively tightened Suzanne's her grip on Rusty's his lead as a lorry rumbled past Suzanne and Rusty them. Rusty would have been afraid of the traffic if Suzanne had not been with Rusty him. Vehicles were strictly a twolegs thing, alien to Rusty and Rusty's his wolf ancestors; but Rusty he trusted Suzanne, whomRusty he considered as the alpha bitch of Rusty's his pack, to keep Rusty him safe fromthe vehicles them.

You get the general idea; the pronoun is just short for the most-recently mentioned entity that it would match. Using too many pronouns can be confusing; you can't really write something like Becky was unable to leave the house when Suzanne called, as it was her Nan's last day and she needed to help her pack; but she did ask her if she wouldn't mind getting her coat back from the dry cleaners', if she was going into town, so she could give it to her before she went and expect anyone to be able to keep track of which "she" was meant by each "her", and therefore who was fetching whose coat for whose Nan.

There have been various attempts at introducing common-gender (i.e., either masculine or feminine) third person singular pronouns (which standard English doesn't have) but none of these seem to have met much widespread success. It's my guess that these neologisms will be obviated by further elision of the distinction between singular and plural in the third person -- i.e., the singular "they", which everybody already knows anyway. Nonetheless, a person might have valid reasons besides mere pretentiousness for preferring one of the "new" pronouns. Officialdom will find a way to cope with the changes, eventually, through sheer necessity, and most people will end up going along with that.

But anyway, it's all about (a) showing common courtesy towards the person being talked about, and (b) accepting inevitable, occasional honest mistakes in good grace, correcting the offender politely and forgiving them. Repeatedly, deliberately using the wrong words to describe someone after being asked not to is a form of aggression.

 

[teflon320]

Well, strictly speaking, "Mrs.", "Miss", "Ms.", "Mr.", "Mme.", "Mlle.", "M.", "Mx.", "Dame", "Sir", "Dr.", "Rev.", "Fr.", "Msgr." "Eng." &c. are not pronouns, they are titles.

You're right. I feel dumb now.

But I learned a new word. neologisms

 

[Limpet_Chicken]

If somebody tries to start shaming people because they are a special snowflake and cwy a wivver because some poopy-pants used the non-preferred gender pronoun, and playing the 'LGBT special snowflake' card then the most appropriate response is 'eat shit, choke on it and die you fucking we get the drift Limpet, no need for the language even as an example ;-).

Not because they are homosexual or whatever the hell else -sexual with an associated 'ism' attached to it, but because they attempt to '-ism' their way out of something or use their pet -ism as a weapon to demand special snowflake treatment.

And if they behave that way then they make themselves open-season for being as deliberately, as blatantly and flagrantly offensive as possible. Afterall, if someone starts cwwwyybabeeing at being addressed (politely, with the usual respect) as 'mr'/miss' or 'sir/madam' and attempts to sick the govt thought police pigs on you, then fuck it, if you are going to be hung, might as well be hung for stealing the whole cow rather than a bottle of bloody milk. Those cunts that use the -ophobias as a weapon, they deserve every stabbing they get from those they target.

 

[teflon320]

http://canoe.com/news/national/hell...asks-employees-to-use-gender-neutral-language

Not feeling so dumb anymore.

This is a federal department. Passports, citizenships, work permits, etc. Every person I know that has ever had the displeasure of having to use one of these outlets will tell you they are brutal! You have to line up for 30 minutes to get a number. But this is what they are going to focus on!

My country is fucked.

 

[Inso]

Intelligent man with some interesting views and commentary on the world, with a small part of troll mixed in