Dr Jordan Peterson

L

Larry

Member
Has anyone been following the controversy at Toronto university with Dr Jordan Peterson and bill
C-16 regarding mandated use of pronouns regarding gender/non gender identities and free speech
.
BTW I think he would be a great guest for Skeptiko given the depth of his thinking and understanding of the social sciences, religion, spirituality etc.
 
Larry said:
Has anyone been following the controversy at Toronto university with Dr Jordan Peterson and bill
C-16 regarding mandated use of pronouns regarding gender/non gender identities and free speech
.
BTW I think he would be a great guest for Skeptiko given the depth of his thinking and understanding of the social sciences, religion, spirituality etc.
Click to expand...

I discovered him through the Kek/Pepe the frog stuff. Since then I've been listening to some of his lectures, and love it! I agree: he would be a great Skeptiko guest!
 
Larry said:
Has anyone been following the controversy at Toronto university with Dr Jordan Peterson and bill
C-16 regarding mandated use of pronouns regarding gender/non gender identities and free speech
.
BTW I think he would be a great guest for Skeptiko given the depth of his thinking and understanding of the social sciences, religion, spirituality etc.
Click to expand...

Just listened to this debate. Found Peterson to be reasonable and the snooty SJW lawyers to be repulsively arrogant.

I don't think there should be any law about what one person can or cannot call another person. It's absurd. A person should be free (legally) to insult (intentionally or unintentionally) anyone. The community and institutions of which they are a part have certain actions they can freely take if they find a person's speech to be a problem. But to make it a criminal offense is an entirely new level.

So to answer the question that Jordan sidestepped: should a professor be free to call a black person the N-word and is that comparable to calling a Trans person by the wrong pronoun? Yes a professor should be free (legally) to call a black person the N-word, and the University should also be free to fire that professor because it is not a good thing for the university to have professors insulting students.

Is the N-word equivalent to calling a Trans person by the wrong pronoun? First of all there are cases where it's hard to tell, so assuming a gender and calling by that pronoun is not an insult or lack of respect. If the person clearly looks like one gender and insists on being called the opposite gender, then it's still not an insult because the usage of gender in speech is every bit as much about the external qualities as internal. If a Trans person is consistent in appearance and claimed identity and it is obvious they are identifying with a certain gender, and a person refers to them intentionally with the opposite gender, this could possibly be construed as an insult - though not as severe an insult as the N-word because there is nothing demeaning about being identified as one gender or another, but there is something demeaning about using a term that puts someone back in the context of slavery and abuse based on race.
 
Hurmanetar said:
Just listened to this debate. Found Peterson to be reasonable and the snooty SJW lawyers to be repulsively arrogant.

I don't think there should be any law about what one person can or cannot call another person. It's absurd. A person should be free (legally) to insult (intentionally or unintentionally) anyone. The community and institutions of which they are a part have certain actions they can freely take if they find a person's speech to be a problem. But to make it a criminal offense is an entirely new level.

So to answer the question that Jordan sidestepped: should a professor be free to call a black person the N-word and is that comparable to calling a Trans person by the wrong pronoun? Yes a professor should be free (legally) to call a black person the N-word, and the University should also be free to fire that professor because it is not a good thing for the university to have professors insulting students.

Is the N-word equivalent to calling a Trans person by the wrong pronoun? First of all there are cases where it's hard to tell, so assuming a gender and calling by that pronoun is not an insult or lack of respect. If the person clearly looks like one gender and insists on being called the opposite gender, then it's still not an insult because the usage of gender in speech is every bit as much about the external qualities as internal. If a Trans person is consistent in appearance and claimed identity and it is obvious they are identifying with a certain gender, and a person refers to them intentionally with the opposite gender, this could possibly be construed as an insult - though not as severe an insult as the N-word because there is nothing demeaning about being identified as one gender or another, but there is something demeaning about using a term that puts someone back in the context of slavery and abuse based on race.
Click to expand...
I can't believe you and I are in agreement about this:). Probably not for long. Dr Petersons links his current free speech fiasco with postmodernism driven by unconscious marxist/socialist/utopian elements which seems to be his raison-detre. Dr Peterson (a good Jungian) does see liberal and conservative attitudes related to personality typology one being more free thinking and creative and the other more practical and able to implement the ideas. I whole heartedly agree with this. The problem I have is his linking socialism with evil incarnate, like a virus. I see socialism and capitalism as two structural elements or psychological drives, one protecting the collective and the other related to individual freedom and incentive – in the proper balance we can all prosper and grow. When one side becomes the dominant ideology demonizing the other we get the soviet union and china under Stalin and Mao or the present situation where a group of oligarchs holding the majority of the wealth rule as stateless entities outside the democratic process hording their wealth in off shore accounts.

I recently sent Dr Peterson this note:
Dr Peterson
I am new to your teachings but familiar with the topics you discuss. Your explication of Marxist ideologies historical scourge in the 20 century in Russia and China was shocking and edifying.
I especially liked how your describe the polarities that frame our social and political agendas as typo-logical(trait) and need to be in balance and support each other rather than be turned into ideologies and separate us. The issue I have with your depiction of socialism is that you only show the shadow side as with Stalin Mao. . . In America it was the labor movement that brought the working class out of virtual slavery in the industrial revolution and Roosevelts new deal democracy that brought some balance to the economy and saved us from a possible revolution or coup. Then there was McCarthyism which did the very thing you accuse socialism of doing elsewhere operating under the guise of freedom. My contention is that ideological possession can use any model to reduce people to their most primitive nature. You laud the Scandinavian culture as being the most gender neutral in regards to assigned roles yet I've never heard you mention the more positive socialists aspect of the cultures. At any rate I think there is a serious imbalance and omission in what you present in this regard.
 
Marxism? I'm not convinced. I interpret their ideology as reflective of social Darwinism... There is something in the way that they subsconciously minimize specific groups (by appealing to victimization) that is eerily reminiscent of that.
 
E.Flowers said:
Marxism? I'm not convinced. I interpret their ideology as reflective of social Darwinism... There is something in the way that they subsconciously minimize specific groups (by appealing to victimization) that is eerily reminiscent of that.
Click to expand...
Could you clarify a bit. I'm not sure what or who you are referring to
Thanks
 
Larry said:
Could you clarify a bit. I'm not sure what or who you are referring to
Thanks
Click to expand...

The "us" (the PC crowd) vs. "them" (the "cisgender" straight/men/white people) mentality. They (quite arbitrarily) defined which groups they felt represent the current elite/threat and have thus far employed a lot of social tactics (mob pressure seems like a favorite) to outlive and phase them out of society.

"We are the future" appears to be their general idea, the "retrograde" groups will disappear in their utopian fantasies... They feel "selected" in the most literal sense.
 
E.Flowers said:
The "us" (the PC crowd) vs. "them" (the "cisgender" straight/men/white people) mentality. They (quite arbitrarily) defined which groups they felt represent the current elite/threat and have thus far employed a lot of social tactics (mob pressure seems like a favorite) to outlive and phase them out of society.

"We are the future" appears to be their general idea, the "retrograde" groups will disappear in their utopian fantasies... They feel "selected" in the most literal sense.
Click to expand...
Peterson certainly thinks that Marxist philosophy or ideology is behind it (the "us PC crowd). Social Darwinism is more aligned with capitalism as represented by Herbert spencer http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande03.html who coined the term survival of the fittest.
 
Larry said:
Peterson certainly thinks that Marxist philosophy or ideology is behind it (the "us PC crowd). Social Darwinism is more aligned with capitalism as represented by Herbert spencer http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande03.html who coined the term survival of the fittest.
Click to expand...

What is making me cynical about his argument is the background of most of the PC crowd. A nice fraction of these kids are in the upper middle class demographic (almost a requisite to be in some of the most PC-influenced colleges out there, since there hardly is "equality" when it comes to paying tuition), and those that are seem predominantly white. Such class homogeny is actually excluding actual minorities (who, as far as I can tell, are more into affirmative action than PC in interactions and communication anyways).

If this was about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, they would be closer to the latter. To be honest, in those cases even "white guilt" is more plausible than the premise that they are actually acting that way because they understand Marxism.

However, I can see that pseudo-socialist professors know how to manipulate these students to "support" several of their ideas... Let's see how these kids react to that when they learn what it means for their pre-existing social status. Will they "check [their] privilege"? I doubt it. But, then again, I watched more than a few hippies evolve into people that are more conservative that me, so what do I know?
 
Last edited:
E.Flowers said:
What is making me cynical about his argument is the background of most of the PC crowd. A nice fraction of these kids are in the upper middle class demographic (almost a requisite to be in some of the most PC-influenced colleges out there, since there hardly is "equality" when it comes to paying tuition), and those that are seem predominantly white. Such class homogeny is actually excluding actual minorities (who, as far as I can tell, are more into affirmative action than PC in interactions and communication anyways).

If this was about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, they would be closer to the latter. To be honest, in those cases even "white guilt" is more plausible than the premise that they are actually acting that way because they understand Marxism.

However, I can see that pseudo-socialist professors know how to manipulate these students to "support" several of their ideas... Let's see how these kids react to that when they learn what it means for their pre-existing social status. Will they "check [their] privilege"? I doubt it. But, then again, I watched more than a few hippies evolve into people that are more conservative that me, so what do I know?
Click to expand...
Agreed!

I think that almost all (not all) politicians are fairly selfish people.

Therefore the idea of politicians queuing up to declare their undying support for gays/lesbians/immigrants/tran-sexuals/blacks/the climate/the planet rings utterly false. I would make the same comment about most in the media.

They only spout this stuff because they think it is the fashion and will get them extra votes.

David
 
They only spout this stuff because they think it is the fashion and will get them extra votes.
Click to expand...

True

Politicians are in the business of buying votes.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2016/01/jonathan-haidts-constructive-approach.html

Milton Friedman:

No we don't need to change congress. Excuse me. People have a great misunderstanding about this. People in congress are in a business. They're trying to buy votes. They're in the business of competing with one another to get elected. The same congressman will vote for a different thing if he thinks that's politically profitable. You don't have to change congress. People have a great misconception in this way. They think the way you solve things is by electing the right people. It's nice to elect the right people but that isn't the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.

...

I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.​
 
Last edited:
Jim_Smith said:
[QUOTE"]They only spout this stuff because they think it is the fashion and will get them extra votes.
Click to expand...

True

Politicians are in the business of buying votes.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2016/01/jonathan-haidts-constructive-approach.html

Milton Friedman:

No we don't need to change congress. Excuse me. People have a great misunderstanding about this. People in congress are in a business. They're trying to buy votes. They're in the business of competing with one another to get elected. The same congressman will vote for a different thing if he thinks that's politically profitable. You don't have to change congress. People have a great misconception in this way. They think the way you solve things is by electing the right people. It's nice to elect the right people but that isn't the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.

...

I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.​
[/QUOTE]
There is truth in what you say but it sounds cynical and narrow to me. Who are these right and wrong people and who decides what the right and wrong thing(s) are.
At any rate. My intention in starting this thread was to shed some light on these two poles that represent irreconcilable opposite aspect of human natural (liberal/conservative socialist/capitalist. . .) and how to balance them and not get caught in the trap of turning them into ideologies that demonize the other:
I ran across this short video that I think does a good job of shedding some light on this issue looking at the polarity between nature and nurture
 
Jim_Smith said:
True

Politicians are in the business of buying votes.
Click to expand...

I saw an interview on the news, a democratic member of the house of representatives explained why they were using such extremely confrontational negative language when describing how they had to react to Trump. He said it was because they were getting a lot of calls from constituents demanding they do something using that kind of language.

To me this shows a lack of leadership but ultimately it is understandable how we get these "leaders". Milton Friedman was right, they are in the business of buying votes. The problem is that it is vicious cycle, journalists and politicians reflect public opinioin for their personal gain, but that also influences public opinion and like a feedback loop it gets worse and worse over time.

The solution to polarization is not going to come from politicians or journalists. It has to come from the people. We need cultural leaders who will help us change. Unfortunately they are nowhere in sight. The only person I know is Johathan Heidt, a sociologist. Religious leaders should be trying to help but I have not seen or heard of them trying.
 
Last edited:
Arouet said:
You think perpetual campaigns for votes on legislation is going to make people less polarized?
Click to expand...

My hope is that a platform like that would allow people to fairly explore both sides of each issue, and also that taking issues one at a time may avoid tribal choices.
 
Hurmanetar said:
So to answer the question that Jordan sidestepped: should a professor be free to call a black person the N-word and is that comparable to calling a Trans person by the wrong pronoun? Yes a professor should be free (legally) to call a black person the N-word, and the University should also be free to fire that professor because it is not a good thing for the university to have professors insulting students.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective on an interesting issue - where to draw the line between what's wrong but legal, and what's wrong and illegal. We have been (or were) having that debate in Australia over repealing wording in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. That link was literally the second result I got on Google, and superficially (in the Google results) didn't seem to be drafted by members of either of our conservative or leftist parties, but on reading it I discovered that it was after all written by members of our conservative aka Liberal - big L - Party. C'est la vie. To be honest, even though I'm generally more left of centre, I view things more along the lines of this article, and, if I understand him right, of Hurm, with the big caveat - which I think Hurm shares - that I don't think people should have moral or social licence to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate other races, even if they may have the legal right (other, probably, than intimidation), and that this is a very fraught and difficult issue, so that my views are provisional, and I'm open to being talked out of them if any SJW cares to chime in (seriously, you don't have to be an SJW to respond).

I would probably be more comfortable with these offences being part of tort law rather than criminal law - but, as I wrote above, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act continues to create controversy. The section makes unlawful any act reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people because of their race, colour, ethnicity or nationality.
Click to expand...
 
Laird said:
Through demonstrating the legitimacy of a direct democracy platform, perhaps?
Click to expand...
There has been a literal explosion in mass communication between individuals in this digital era. Never before has the average citizen had the ability to participate in communication forums so vast and diverse. Many would have considered this to be the golden age of shared perspective, understanding, etc.

Its been damn near the opposite. Polarization seems worse now than ever and reading social network communications seem to show people being more dug in than ever to the "I'm 100% right; you're 100% wrong" mantra. Fake news, self-reinforcing digital communities, etc.

So, now a "direct democracy platform" will solve polarization? I think you're a noble dreamer, but I also think you're a few standard deviations away from reality on this one.
 
Silence said:
There has been a literal explosion in mass communication between individuals in this digital era. Never before has the average citizen had the ability to participate in communication forums so vast and diverse. Many would have considered this to be the golden age of shared perspective, understanding, etc.

Its been damn near the opposite. Polarization seems worse now than ever and reading social network communications seem to show people being more dug in than ever to the "I'm 100% right; you're 100% wrong" mantra. Fake news, self-reinforcing digital communities, etc.

So, now a "direct democracy platform" will solve polarization? I think you're a noble dreamer, but I also think you're a few standard deviations away from reality on this one.
Click to expand...

Hey, you know, I'll cop that. Of course I don't know that that which I propose is any sort of panacea (as somebody else here put it), but then, I don't see too many other options on the table. It does seem to be a natural evolution of democracy to me (as yet somebody else here put it). Here's something to think about: there are all sorts of petition websites out there - I receive regular requests to sign this or that petition with which the site operators have matched me. Great. But what do I really know about the issues involved in the petition? I might read the petitioner's case, and at best it will link to a related news article (typically on an "aligned" news site); at worst I will have little to no information with which to make a decision that isn't based on pure faith (in the petitioner). This strikes me as problematic. Every story has two sides. So, I could just "back my tribe", but what if I wasn't signing a petition, but instead participating in the pro/con discussion of a proposal on a direct democracy platform where both sides of the story were not just told but curated (through up/down votes)? Wouldn't it be more likely that an optimal solution would emerge from a platform that sets both pros and cons on an equal footing, rather than "trusting that one's tribe is feeding one the right petitions"? I hope that that gives you a sense of where I'm coming from on this issue.

Anyhow, I appreciate you engaging, man, I am very open to constructive criticism. If there is a better way than direct democracy, then let's get that ball rolling!

Feel free to respond in the direct (digital) democracy thread if you prefer, I kind of snuck this topic in here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top