The post is really about the Contrapoints channel, and Peterson’s her most recent generally-accessible topic. I knew more people would read it if the Peterson commentary led, as he’s in the zeitgeist and is a particularly odious figure for trans people. He catapaulted to fame for his attacks on an Ontario bill about accommodating trans people. “I’m being silenced,” he mewled on every major media outlet.
TIL about the child in the basement. Had not encountered the story before and will need to think about it some more. Even a thread about JP can teach something useful I guess.
6 Likes
From what series is that ?
Strongly agreed as well.
Not that I’m angling to get on The List, but that is genuinely disappointing.
There are better, more productive ways to initiate active conversations about the persecution of trans people without resorting to using tired-out clickbait.
10 Likes
Weeeellll… That and a very careful framing and casting of history in primary education. You have to admit, you either have to have an active interest in history or at least take a number of college-level courses (assuming you don’t go to a conservative-leaning uni, because then all bets are off…) that deconstruct everything you learned up to that point, or take AP/Honors history classes at the high school level at a good school before you’re really exposed to not just how bad things were historically, but how bad they still are today in many structural and institutional ways.
For people that understand this stuff, it’s frustrating to try and interact with people that don’t, simply because the gulf between the two viewpoints is composed of a massive amount of information. And really, it’s not just the facts of the matter, it’s the synthetic portion, where the info is assimilated into a knowledge framework that then is distilled into a nuanced perspective.
It’s not like correcting someone on 1 + 1 = 3, it’s having to teach them algebra, calculus and then you can start correcting their errors. It’s… Exhausting.
11 Likes
and even more so when your interlocutor is liable at any moment to start muttering “fake news” at hearing something they don’t like.
8 Likes
Yeah, I didn’t even address the biggest issue here - the fact that scammers like JP target the authoritarian mindset. Those are, by far, the most difficult to persuade because once they’ve developed their knowledge framework, they’re particularly unwilling to change it unless they are directed to change it by someone they view as authoritative… But the scammers specifically poison them against seeing academia or experts or reporters and/or scientists as valid figures of authority.
10 Likes
I think there are other opinions, as well. Another BB forum denizen privately messaged me a while back with a different perspective on Jordan Peterson.
I thought it was interesting, but since I don’t have time to engage in any kind of meaningful assessment of Peterson’s work or character I haven’t formed any opinions of my own.
It happens to all of us from time to time (well, at least it happens to me, anyway!). Kudos to you for caring enough to edit your response.
2 Likes
Pretty much correct even if meant sarcastically. What you would call compelled speech is better known as simply not attacking others based on the class of people they are and behaving in a civil manner expected by all in public. If you have to be compelled not to act in a malicious harmful way towards others, so be it. Society does not function without a baseline of public civility among its people.
12 Likes
Not to mention that if someone is against “compelled speech” but is in favour of “enforced monogamy” I think they are confused about what kind of liberty is more fundamental to our wellbeing.
20 Likes
i’ve mentioned to someone in another thread that if you consistently refuse to use the pronouns or other descriptors an individual specifies for themselves that you are basically an asshole and among the various enumerated and implied rights, the right to be an asshole is only weakly protected.
10 Likes
“Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” is taken by some as an invitation to swing their fists within an inch of other people’s, repeatedly.
15 Likes
“i’m not touching you! i’m not touching you! i’m not touching you! i’m not touching you! . . .”
14 Likes
Pretty much correct even if meant sarcastically. What you would call compelled speech is better known as simply not attacking others based on the class of people they are and behaving in a civil manner expected by all in public. If you have to be compelled not to act in a malicious harmful way towards others, so be it. Society does not function without a baseline of public civility among its people.
Nope. Not using someones pronoun is not malicious. And this is obviously irrelevant, anyways, since Jordan has noted he does use their pronouns sometimes. He just doesn’t want a freaking bureacracy dictating what words we should use. So he opposed the legislation. And you, inevitably, will agree with this because it’s the right position to take. The government can’t force you to use certain words. That is a pretty, pretty good idea. Especially for freedom. Compelled speech is incompatible with free speech.
Well, not if they voluntarily partner up, thus eliminating the need for “State Tyranny”.
Dig up!
7 Likes
Well, not if they voluntarily partner up, thus eliminating the need for “State Tyranny”.
Oh my God, that is exactly right! Finally, you’re starting to catch up with Peterson’s point.
Civility matters. Treating others with the same basic respect that one wants for oneself matters.
There is no constitutional “right” to be a willful asshole to other people because they happen to be different.
Not everyone wants a partner, and those who do may not necessarily want one of the opposite gender.
10 Likes
There’s no other tyranny than state tyranny for the Libertarian types who follow Jordaddy – certainly not tyranny of corporations and often not the petty tyranny of husband over wife in many “traditional” marriages. Of course that raises the question of who exactly will be “enforcing” monogamy (with one partner. for life) when so many people clearly in American society clearly prefer alternatives (e.g. serial monogamy, polygamy, polyamoury, no partner, fwbs, etc., etc.) and the freedom of choice that implies. One thing to note in this regard: “the state” as we understand it today and which rugged individualists so loathe (when it’s not protecting their property) did not exist back in the “good old days” of wives as chattel.
What a self-contradictory witch’s brew Peterson is serving up to the misogynist alt-right. It reminds me of the bizarre phenomenon of self-identified Libertarians who oppose reproductive choice – it sounds bizarre but it’s a common attitude amongst MRAs (the same ones to whom Jordaddy panders).
10 Likes
Yeah, just like drugs; no matter what laws are passed to try to control the populace, people are still going to behave however they want.
Morality (or any perception thereof) cannot be legislated.
Just as people can’t actually be “forced” to use someone’s preferred pronouns, people’s sexual behavior can’t be controlled.
Homosexuality, for instance, has been demonized and vilified by mainstream society for ages, yet it has still existed since the dawn of mankind…
8 Likes
