Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[yebiga]

Yeah, it sucks that his daughter was subverted into adopting a mindset they otherwise shouldn't be old enough to consent to.

Why create re-education camps when you can brainwash them from kindy and close the parents' legal avenues for recourse, threatening punishment if they take the case public as a case study?

Meanwhile, the 'transgender' suicide rate doesn't improve.

Nice 'progress'.

A father of an under-age daughter cannot stop her gender transitioning, nor is he permitted to publicly object or he is threatened by a court to be imprisoned.
Neither the first order to enable the transition against the fathers wishes nor subsequent threat to imprison the father is remotely rational. This is the state interfering in an area where it has no public support and where the state has never had jurisdiction. Ideologues are fast tracking crazy policy decisions unilaterally without oversight.

The most basic instincts of any parent is to protect their child and the law recognises that the parent has an obligation to protect his/her child. Here the father is being punished for attempting to exercise his obligation. This is a dangerous and irrational plunge into unchartered waters. A perfect example where crazed good intentions pave a golden road to hell.

If it wasn't so devastating to those it effects - it would be funny.

 

[Chief]

Yeah, it sucks that his daughter was subverted into

Blah blah blah.

 

[Noidenous]

Blah blah blah.

Just a 'slippery slope fallacy', eh?

 

[FireKrakouer]

He’s trying to exert his will over that of everybody else. He’s trying to make life difficult for his child. He’s being a campaigner of a person. The court said “stop it or it’s contempt of court”. He didn’t stop. He got whacked.

Sucks to be him.

Yeah how dare he refer to his young child by their biological gender.

 

[RedStarUncle]

A father of an under-age daughter cannot stop her gender transitioning, nor is he permitted to publicly object or he is threatened by a court to be imprisoned.
Neither the first order to enable the transition against the fathers wishes nor subsequent threat to imprison the father is remotely rational. This is the state interfering in an area where it has no public support and where the state has never had jurisdiction. Ideologues are fast tracking crazy policy decisions unilaterally without oversight.

The most basic instincts of any parent is to protect their child and the law recognises that the parent has an obligation to protect his/her child. Here the father is being punished for attempting to exercise his obligation. This is a dangerous and irrational plunge into unchartered waters. A perfect example where crazed good intentions pave a golden road to hell.

If it wasn't so devastating to those it effects - it would be funny.

You're clearly deliberately ignoring a critical fact in this case - there are TWO parents. They are separated. One - the primary carer - supports the child's decisions while the other doesn't.

That inherently makes this a complicated issue where societal intervention is required.




You're pretending like this is a case of just a parent wanting to make decisions about raising their child and getting locked up for it. Because that's what you want people to believe these laws permit. But it's just not the actual situation.

 

[Noidenous]

You're clearly deliberately ignoring a critical fact in this case - there are TWO parents. They are separated. One - the primary carer - supports the child's decisions while the other doesn't.

That inherently makes this a complicated issue where societal intervention is required.




You're pretending like this is a case of just a parent wanting to make decisions about raising their child and getting locked up for it. Because that's what you want people to believe these laws permit. But it's just not the actual situation.

Perhaps destruction of the nuclear family isn't the best course of action then.

 

[Suspense]

Phenomenology gives birth to at least 2 bastard children: Existentialism and Post-Mordernism. These breakthrough into academia and popular culture. Both are rooted in angst against the world. The first blames god the later blame culture and in particular white culture and heaven knows what else.

Existentialism and Post-Modernism are not 'rooted in angst against the world'.

 

[yebiga]

You're clearly deliberately ignoring a critical fact in this case - there are TWO parents. They are separated. One - the primary carer - supports the child's decisions while the other doesn't.

That inherently makes this a complicated issue where societal intervention is required.




You're pretending like this is a case of just a parent wanting to make decisions about raising their child and getting locked up for it. Because that's what you want people to believe these laws permit. But it's just not the actual situation.

This is hardly a custodial detail pertaining to the choice of school, or weekend access that typically is resolved by courts when dealing with parents and custody. You are trying to mitigate the fact that a Government is assisting the gender re-assigment of an under-age child against the wishes of a non custodial parent as if it were routine issue - common practice - seriously!

What will the government and courts do when that child turns 25 or 30 and decides this was a premature decision? Implicit in being under-age is the recognition that you are not mature enough to be making major decisions. This is why we don't sell alcohol to under-age children, we don't allow them to drive a car, we typically don't allow them to get married or even vote. Yet, now we feel they are mature enough to make a decision of such importance to their identity - smack in the middle of adolescence when we know people are most confused about their identity.

This decision may or may not damage this child in the long run but it is almost certain to permanently fracture the relationship it has with either or both of its parents. And over the course of a life time, that may well be the bigger tragedy here.

 

[Noidenous]

Excuse me - Fire - I'm going to jump in here.

Background
Since before Plato, philosophers had argued over a number of fundamentals: How do we know what we know? What is truth? Is the world just mind? Are Plato's Ideals real? Is there a god? Is he/she manifest in our world. Then, the Cartesian question arose splitting mind and body and this split arguably inspired an empirical shift towards science. Either way, at this point, the history of thought, culture and civilisation is aligned in sync. From Greek Metaphysics to Plato's ideals and all the subsequent complexities that are examined and postulated almost inevitably lead to something like the culture of Christendom.

Then came along Phenomenology - early hints of it with Hegel, developing thru Keikergarde, Neitzsche, Husserl and Heidegger, amongst others.. Phenomenology approaches those big questions not from the perspective of an unobtainable objective truth but from the perspective of the human consciousness. Truth, god, and objectivity is replaced by what is functional, sufficient, efficient. Taken seriously, Phenomenology renders the preceding platonic philosophical questions as nonsense, unanswerable and maybe even irrelevant.

This is the crudest possible summary of philosophical thought up until the advent of the 20th century. Now the 20th Century doesn't really know what to do with Phenomenology, it's all a bit too confronting throwing centuries of abstractions away. So it's largely ignored by academia and the culture. But ideas can't be ignored and so on the fringes Phenomenology gives birth to at least 2 bastard children: Existentialism and Post-Mordernism. These breakthrough into academia and popular culture. Both are rooted in angst against the world. The first blames god the later blame culture and in particular white culture and heaven knows what else.

This is the messy field confronting Peterson - and he bravely, naively with the greatest presumption attempts to unravel the mess and offer clarity.

Introduction:
Now, I believe Peterson himself is not fully aware of what he has achieved. As he is not a trained Philosopher but a trained Psychologist. However, it is now clear, that only a Psychologist could complete the task. Phenomenology is after all concerned with Psychology. JPs Psychology and Religious Lectures together with his book Maps of Meaning, unravel these complex philosophical thoughts of the ages and neatly packages them into a profound single synthesis resolving age old intractable contradictions and answering the question of meaning.

The Body: On request

Funnily enough, the recent shooter was a paranoid islamo-leftist who couldn't reconcile their opposing philosophical / personal interests.

Of course, the only analysis required by the usual types is 'oh, he has light-coloured skin, typical whities'.

 

[Goosecat]

He’s trying to exert his will over that of everybody else... He’s being a campaigner of a person. He didn’t stop. He got whacked.

Sucks to be him.

LOL. Crickey sounds like Big Footy alright

 

[Chief]

LOL. Crickey sounds like Big Footy alright

Prove me wrong. He’s trying to bully and undermine his ex-wife and deny his child’s choices.

He’s been ordered by a court to stop.

He didn’t stop.

The court enforced its order.

Now he’s playing the martyr for sympathy.

Classic story arc of an abuser.

Next stop: murder attempt.

 

[Noidenous]

Prove me wrong. He’s trying to bully and undermine his ex-wife and deny his child’s choices.

He’s been ordered by a court to stop.

He didn’t stop.

The court enforced its order.

Now he’s playing the martyr for sympathy.

Classic story arc of an abuser.

Next stop: murder attempt.

I have a child that wants to identify as a drunkard, whore and heroin addict at age 8. They also deliberately and unnaturally talk like Mitch Hedberg in the hope it helps them 'pass'.

What is the rational response to that?

Does opposing my ex-wife who is enabling this amount to being ordered silent?

 

[Goosecat]

Blah blah blah.

That's a pretty terrible response Chief, to a much more serious subject than even those with some exposure to the area really comprehend.
Camille can be hard to listen to. Her mind works faster than her lingual system can manage and getting her words out can be a struggle. However if you can handle 7 minutes, I believe this small snippet is worth your time.
If 7 minutes requires too much thought and understanding, try from 4 minutes on.
Remember this comes from a genuine place of empathy, care, intelligence and understanding.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

Excuse me - Fire - I'm going to jump in here.

Background
Since before Plato, philosophers had argued over a number of fundamentals: How do we know what we know? What is truth? Is the world just mind? Are Plato's Ideals real? Is there a god? Is he/she manifest in our world. Then, the Cartesian question arose splitting mind and body and this split arguably inspired an empirical shift towards science. Either way, at this point, the history of thought, culture and civilisation is aligned in sync. From Greek Metaphysics to Plato's ideals and all the subsequent complexities that are examined and postulated almost inevitably lead to something like the culture of Christendom.
...

This is one hell of a post for bigfooty. Something to respond to in detail elsewhere but not here, just wanted to acknowledge the effort and point out that that last bit in bold was not inevitable, but rather a shift away from many schools of Hellenistic thought toward Abrahamic, most often as a result of conquest and sometimes natural catastrophe (referring to the demise of Sparta and the rise of Athens in its place, and subsequent Roman intervention and dominance).
An act of God, perhaps? Small joke.

Plato is perhaps the most recognisable (by name, at any rate), but he was also perhaps the more easily transportable philosophy into Roman and later Abrahamic tradition, with several stumbles along the way by means of Hellenistic Judaism and Hellenistic Christianity, and thus has endured as a founder of modern thought, where history has paid less attention to other Greek philosophers and their adherents. I do not necessarily regard Plato as a "pinnacle" of Greek philosophy. I have a soft eyes for Epicurus and Epicureanism in general, and its important to remember that most of the Greek schools of thought existed at more or less the same time, all learning from and sometimes complementing each other (notwithstanding several personal dislikes and enmities among the philosophers themselves) - Platonic thought is the progenitor of modern Western philosophy more as a result of expedience than any natural evolutionary process.
I personally believe that Abrahamic religion (and, subsequently, the modern Western world) is such a chaotic mess because it departed from the Stoics and Epicureans, replacing them with a more nihilistic approach (note here that I'm using the word nihilistic in the ancient Greek sense, not the modern), and that is a significant factor in how we've arrived where we are.

The primary thing to understand in my view is that thought, philosophy and civilisation are not necessarily "progressive" (in the positive-outcome sense that word is used in social circles) by nature, but rather linear by expedience and chance, rather than objective merit.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

This is historically completely true - reforms are constantly put forward - lets call them progressive - some are implemented and established - in time they themselves become considered conservative.

The culture wars we are experiencing now - are different. Progressive policies and ideas are increasingly dysfunctional because the normal negotiation and dialogue is being avoided, allowing the implementation of ever more dysfunctional ideas, policies, modes of being. Think thru the notion of defunding the police or the idea that black lives matter. These intrinsically dysfunctional ideas lacking any pretence of practicality that appeal solely to emotional righteousness.

Peterson is reasserting the value of dialogue and negotiation and challenging the contemporary trend to railroad policy thru via displays of outrage, and the veneer of compassion covering up what is mostly the age old power grab. But worse than that - this perverse often fake culture war, acts primarily as a diversion releasing the heads of our hierarchical structures to avoid almost all scrutiny and restraint.

Little wonder - nonsense reigns supreme.
Once you knock down the statues, rename the streets, censor the books, men and women are divided - the logic leads to the rejection of the English language itself as steeped in colonial oppression. Perhaps you could respond pictorially.

To quote you again - that bit in bold, they aren't different. They're a more sophisticated understanding and expression of social and ideological manipulation based upon the replacement of observable, tangible realities and phenomena with unrealistic, unobservable and artificial idealism, a process which took shape over 2000 years ago. In effect, Abrahamic nihilism.
Modern America is an example of it, and perhaps the most adept proponent.

I'll note here I'm not disagreeing with most of what you're saying. I'm just being picky with a few bits here and there.

 

[Chief]

Neither the first order to enable the transition against the fathers wishes nor subsequent threat to imprison the father is remotely rational.

The state has had family law powers for a long time.

A divorcing couple can include non-disparagement clauses in consent orders. A court will enforce them.

A court can order people not to engage in all sorts of behaviour - this is not new.

 

[Chief]

That's a pretty terrible response Chief

It’s entirely appropriate when someone hares off on a trans-phobic rant.

 

[Chief]

I have a child that wants to identify as a drunkard, whore and heroin addict at age 8.

And you’re equating this to a transgender child?

You are a piece of work at times, Noidy.

 

[Chief]

Think thru the notion of defunding the police or the idea that black lives matter.

You obviously haven’t

 

[yebiga]

The state has had family law powers for a long time.

A divorcing couple can include non-disparagement clauses in consent orders. A court will enforce them.

A court can order people not to engage in all sorts of behaviour - this is not new.

This is hardly a custodial detail pertaining to the choice of school, or weekend access that typically is resolved by courts when dealing with parents and custody. You are trying to mitigate the fact that a Government is assisting the gender re-assigment of an under-age child against the wishes of a non custodial parent as if it were a routine matter - just an administrative practice!

What will the government and courts do when that child turns 25 or 30 and decides this was a premature decision? Implicit in being under-age is the recognition that you are not mature enough to be making major decisions. This is why we don't sell alcohol to under-age children, we don't allow them to drive a car, we typically don't allow them to get married or even vote. Yet, now we feel they are mature enough to make a decision of such importance to their identity - smack in the middle of adolescence when we know people are most confused about their identity.

This decision may or may not damage this child in the long run but it is almost certain to permanently fracture the relationship it has with either or both of its parents. And over the course of a life time, that may well be the bigger tragedy here.

Tell me Chief are you trying to get a gig on Channel 10s The Project or are you under strict guidelines to always swim in the shallow end?

 

[yebiga]

You obviously haven’t

Try elucidating the rationality then - of this defund the police and BLM worm hole.
Good luck

 

[FireKrakouer]

And you’re equating this to a transgender child?

You are a piece of work at times, Noidy.

Chief, this is like that Moana Hope thread, where 99% of posters here disagreed with you yet you doubled down. I have a trans woman cousin whom I treat with complete respect and use her preferred pronouns as she is an adult. Let's not normalise the abuse of children though.

 

[mcnulty]

The decision to transition is not the child’s alone nor is it “child abuse”. It’s made in conjunction with the primary care giver and multiple health professionals and would not have been taken lightly. Unless you want accuse them (and the courts) of said abuse.

I’ll admit I know very little about gender dysphasia and nothing about the particulars of this child. How people can be so absolute in their opinions on this is beyond me, but suffice to say the courts have spoken.

 

[Gough]

The decision to transition is not the child’s alone nor is it “child abuse”. It’s made in conjunction with the primary care giver and multiple health professionals and would not have been taken lightly. Unless you want accuse them (and the courts) of said abuse.

I’ll admit I know very little about gender dysphasia and nothing about the particulars of this child. How people can be so absolute in their opinions on this is beyond me, but suffice to say the courts have spoken.

These are the people that lost the war on gay rights, now they have to have a go at something else they don't understand. If you look you'll even see they're just recycling the same arguments that anti gay activists used in the 80s and 90s.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Perhaps destruction of the nuclear family isn't the best course of action then.

You might be right... but it's irrelevant. What you do about a situation where parents aren't divorced can't be based on a belief that parents shouldn't get divorced.

The situation is as it is. And the father is in the situation he is in not because of how he has acted as a parent, but because of how he has acted in violation of the decision and rights of the custodial parent and child. I'm not arguing right or wrong here... just that it's deliberately misleading to present this as the Canadian government interfering with (custodial) parents' rights to parent their kids.