Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Sweet Jesus]

Jordan believed compelled speech was dangerous, especially when you don't fully understand the consequences of messing with free speech.

We then saw the absurd list of gender pronouns that was at the centre of the debate, including for people who identified as worms and pixies.

The only thing missing was Tom Cruise and an alien plane spewing right wing racist thetans.

And much like Scientologists, the lefties will attack 'known enemies' with little regard to the damage they do to their victims health and reputation.

Right, but his primary concern was the compelled speech, rather than the question of whether people can identify as this or that. He's not actively objecting to the idea of gender fluidity. His objection is about government-mandated language.

 

[Christopher Buttersnip]

Jordan believed compelled speech was dangerous, especially when you don't fully understand the consequences of messing with free speech.

We then saw the absurd list of gender pronouns that was at the centre of the debate, including for people who identified as worms and pixies.

The only thing missing was Tom Cruise and an alien plane spewing right wing racist thetans.

And much like Scientologists, the lefties will attack 'known enemies' with little regard to the damage they do to their victims health and reputation.

Conflating 'lefties' with Scientology. Just when you think you've read the most ridiculous post up pops one to surpass it. Well done!

 

[EasternTiger]

Right, but his primary concern was the compelled speech, rather than the question of whether people can identify as this or that.

Yes. Absolutely his primary concern was compelled speech, and he even conceded he would call any student in his lecture by any pronoun they wished.

Although, he did point out the practical day to day difficulty of memorising 64+ pronouns, and then applying them correctly to old mate whose pronouns are now 'they' and 'pixiekin'

When observers of the debate saw this list, they rightly called the lefties out on it.

Lefties do NOT like to be called out on their BS.

So you get what we had here last week - which is the way he wants it.

 

[Suspense]

What is the problem with government-mandated language for those working for a government organisation or a federally regulated industry?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What is the problem with government-mandated language for those working for a government organisation or a federally regulated industry?

To compel individuals to actively use certain words seems like overreach to me, particularly when we are dealing with this emerging, rapidly shifting orthodoxy. That's distinct from saying you can't say certain things.

 

[Suspense]

To compel individuals to actively use certain words seems like overreach to me, particularly when we are dealing with this emerging, rapidly shifting orthodoxy. That's distinct from saying you can't say certain things.

But the government-mandated language only applies to the extent that I work in a government role or a federally regulated industry. This is nothing new and part of the gig - we are required to use certain pre-approved terminology/language all the time (e.g. writing school reports).

Outside of that specific context, I can misuse gender pronouns as much as I wish and not be in breach of any government mandates? Is that right?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

But the government-mandated language only applies to the extent that I work in a government role or a federally regulated industry. This is nothing new and part of the gig - we are required to use certain pre-approved terminology/language all the time (e.g. writing school reports).

Outside of that specific context, I can misuse gender pronouns as much as I wish and not be in breach of any government mandates? Is that right?

I guess his objection was to government-mandated language that is explicitly ideological, reflecting an orthodoxy that is 5 minutes old and still shifting. If there are 60+ genders, how is anyone meant to meet that standard? And then it changes? And you have to meet a new standard?

I mean, in the history of the world, has there ever been a safer, more welcoming environment for a trans person than Canada in the 21st century? On a university campus in Toronto, no less. And this very liberal setting somehow becomes the front line for an argument about whether using the wrong pronouns constitutes hate speech and an act of cultural violence? Give me a spell.

I'm all for the proection of vulnerable minorities but this pushes the envelope beyond "equality, safety and fairness" into an unreasonable encroachment on everyone else.

 

[RobbieK]

Who cares about your ridiculous, long-winded attempted arse-covering?

You are a grotesque, desperate hypocrite and everyone can see that.

But sure, tell everyone again about Movember and the importance of shifting stigmas around mental health. Or have you abandoned that posture because it's not useful today?

You owned yourself. Suck it up.

The broken record keeps on playing, still had nothing to say on anything substantial. Just proving my point.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The broken record keeps on playing, still had nothing to say on anything substantial. Just proving my point.

Tell everyone about the importance of Movember and shifting cultural stigmas around mental health.

Or is that just something you were pretending to believe?

I've got plenty to say. But let's first address the fact of your grotesque, desperate hypocrisy.

You've got no leg to stand on. But I'll enjoy watching you flop around trying to pretend you haven't had your arse handed to you. Who do you think you're kidding?

 

[RobbieK]

Tell everyone about the importance of Movember and shifting cultural stigmas around mental health.

I already did that. Unlike you I'm not stuck on repeat.

Why are you so scared to engage with what Peterson has said about addiction? Or to discuss the inconsistencies between how he talks about addiction being treated and how he treated his own? You say that you aren't even a Peterson fan, that you don't agree with much of what he says, so why are you so hesitant?

 

[Suspense]

I guess his objection was to government-mandated language reflecting an orthodoxy that is 5 minutes old and still shifting. If there are 60+ genders, how is anyone meant to meet that standard? And then it changes? And you have to meet a new standard?

I dunno. The issue with having to remember and correctly assign 60+ genders to x amount of students seems like it would be one of impracticality rather than the tyranny of being required to follow government-mandates within the organisation to which you are employed.

In practice, I have only ever had to use they/them/their/themself and it was fine. If I was to have a student with the pronoun Ze/Zir/Zirs/Zirself, I would probably just opt to use their first name as opposed to a pronoun (which is also acceptable) to save everyone from would undoubtedly be a grammatical shitshow.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I already did that.

Yeah, you did. And then you completely abandoned those stated principles. Because you're a desperate hypocrite.

Why are you so scared to engage with what Peterson has said about addiction? Or to discuss the inconsistencies between how he talks about addiction being treated and how he treated his own? You say that you aren't even a Peterson fan, that you don't agree with much of what he says, so why are you so hesitant?

Because whether I agree or disagree with Peterson's statements about treating addiction is not the issue. Nor am I any kind of expert on such matters so why would I presume to know more than I do?

Rather, the issue is poseurs like you pretending to care about mental illness, making a big song and dance about how important it is, right up until it becomes convenient to mock someone for it.

Your grotesque hypocrisy is the issue. Not whether I agree/disagree with Peterson's various positions on any number of topics. Frankly, I find many of his arguments unconvincing. It doesn't make me inclined to mock his mental illness/addiction. That would be deranged.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I dunno. The issue with having to remember and correctly assign 60+ genders to x amount of students seems like it would be one of impracticality rather than the tyranny of being required to follow government-mandates within the organisation to which you are employed.

It's both. It's impractical, which in turn makes it an unreasonable demand.

 

[RobbieK]

Yeah, you did. And then you completely abandoned those stated principles. Because you're a desperate hypocrite.

Because whether I agree or disagree with Peterson's statements about treating addiction is not the issue.

Rather, the issue is poseurs like you pretending to care about mental illness, making a big song and dance about how important it is, right up until it becoimes convenient to mock someone for it.

Your grotesque hypocrisy is the issue. Not whether I agree/disagree with Peterson's various positions on any number of topics.

What Peterson has said about addiction and how he treated his own addiction are very much the issue when it comes to the topic we are discussing, which is Peterson's hypocrisy on matters of addiction and how that can and will shape people's response to his own situation.

Why do you only care about my hypocrisy and not his?

You tried to make out earlier that I incorrectly viewed addiction as a moral failing, as just about making bad choices, when it is actually Peterson himself that pushes this erroneous perspective.

I'm just some random on an internet forum, not a public personality feted as some sort of self help guru. Why do you care more about my schadenfreude than you do about the dangerous, false messages about addiction or about his promotion of unscientific and dangerous methods for overcoming addiction?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What Peterson has said about addiction and how he treated his own addiction are very much the issue when it comes to the topic we are discussing, which is Peterson's hypocrisy on matters of addiction and how that can and will shape people's response to his own situation.

Why do you only care about my hypocrisy and not his?

I'm not convinced of Peterson's hypocrisy. Your hypocrisy, on the other hand, is on full display.

That aside, you claim Peterson is a hypocrite, and that somehow makes your hypocrisy OK? How does that work? You disagree with him and that makes it reasonable to revel in his illness? That's deranged.

If you claim to be concerned about mental illness and the surrounding stigma, why wouldn't you adhere to that standard? That has nothing to do with what Peterson has or hasn't said. You can disagree with Peterson without revelling in his suffering.

Why wouldn't you simply criticise and demonstrate Peterson's hypocrisy while still adhering to your own stated principles, instead of abandoning them as soon as it suits you?

It's because you're a desperate hypocrite.

You tried to make out earlier that I incorrectly viewed addiction as a moral failing, as just about making bad choices, when it is actually Peterson himself that pushes this erroneous perspective.

You clearly view Peterson's addiction through that lens i.e. he has failed to live up to his own advice/convictions. Whether that is true or not, you have cast that as a failing on his part.

I'm just some random on an internet forum, not a public personality feted as some sort of self help guru. Why do you care more about my schadenfreude than you do about the dangerous, false messages about addiction or about his promotion of unscientific and dangerous methods for overcoming addictuon?

I don't consider you honest enough to accept any of your characterisations of Peterson's work at face value.

Judging by how eagerly you've reversed yourself on the issue of mental illness, why would anyone take you seriously on any points of principle?

You're bad faith bullshit all the way.

 

[mcnulty]

It is funny how Peterson supporters constantly refuse to address the content of his work, instead constantly fall back on two tired of refrains, either that he has been mischaracterised or that he has been taken out of context

No one likes to admit they’ve been hoodwinked, let alone (for those who actually shelled out their hard earned) fleeced by this bloke.

Edit: though there are exceptions: kudos freebloke.

 

[Gough]

Addiction is an interesting concept, personally I think we're all addicted to something, be it ****, booze, exercise, sex, gambling or power. We just choose to look down on somebody's addiction that differs from ours. I'm more in control than a junkie even though I pay nearly $50 for 25 ciggys.

 

[mcnulty]

Addiction is an interesting concept, personally I think we're all addicted to something, be it ****, booze, exercise, sex, gambling or power. We just choose to look down on somebody's addiction that differs from ours. I'm more in control than a junkie even though I pay nearly $50 for 25 ciggys.

Fortunate people are addicted to things like exercise. As long as they don’t overdo it of course, because it can be related to body disorder issues like anorexia. But we’re all looking for that next dopamine hit. Whatever our good intentions, we keep getting slapped around by our neurochemistry.

Of course, this can all be disregarded or overcome by a dash of pop psychology flavoured with the political poison of your choice, as peddled by hucksters like Peterson.

 

[Seeds]

What a load of absolute gibberish.

You are confusing gibberish with your own cognitive dissonance.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You are confusing gibberish with your own cognitive dissonance.

No, your brand of gibberish is quite distinct.

 

[RobbieK]

So you claim Peterson is a hypocrite, and that somehows makes your hypocrisy OK? How does that work?

I didn't say it made my hypocrisy ok.

I do think it provides context for my hypocrisy.

If you claim to be concerned about mental illness and the surrounding stigma, why wouldn't you adhere to that standard? That has nothing to do with what Peterson has or hasn't said. You can disagree with Peterson without revelling in his suffering.

Why wouldn't you simply criticise and demonstrate Peterson's hypocrisy while still adhering to your own stated principles, instead of abandoning them as soon as it suits you?

I'm not perfect. I have all sorts of standards for myself that I fail to maintain at all times.

One thing I know I fail on is maintaining my sympathy for people on matters where they have either brought their suffering on to themselves or there is great irony in the way that they are suffering based on things that they have said and done.

Like the analogy with Trump I made earlier, I wouldn't wish Covid on anyone. I wouldn't want people to be sick. But when people deny that Covid exists, don't do anything to stop the spread, actively act in ways that do help spread it.... yeah, I struggle to work up much sympathy for them when they get it and if they died I would struggle to muster much emotion

I wouldn't wish mental health issues on anyone. But when someone pushes an ideologically driven understanding of a mental health issue like addiction that characterises it as a moral failing, defeatable by simply rationally choosing to make better choices, and then succumbs to addiction themselves it is hard for me not to feel schadenfreude. And then when they deal with their addiction in a thoroughly unscientific and dangerous manner, that runs totally counter to the method they have talked about in their books that they are continuing to sell as if they are an authority with an opinion worth reading... yeah, it is hard for me to muster much sympathy and makes me think that this is a person worthy of being ridiculed for their gross hypocrisy.

It's because you're a desperate hypocrite.

No, its just because I'm a pretty normal person with fairly standard levels of hypocrisy.

I don't consider you honest enough to accept any of your characterisations of Peterson's work at face value.

Judging by how eagerly you've reversed yourself on the issue of mental illness, why would anyone take you seriously on any points of principle?

I posted direct links to Peterson talking about addiction. Short videos, in one I even linked to a time-stamped version to take you directly to a key section. By all means don't take my characterisations at face value, listen to what he says.

There is a difference between you not trusting my characterisations and you simply asserting my characterisations are mischaracterisations without any evidence, yes?

Here is an article on Peterson's treatment in Russia:

What Happened to Jordan Peterson?

A philosopher, a medical crisis, and a mystery

newrepublic.com

Do you seriously think that how he tried to overcome his drug addiction is a scientifically valid and safe method consistent with what he has previously said about overcoming addiction?

Do you think that this is a course of action that should be held up as an example to other addicts for how to treat their addiction?

 

[Suspense]

It's both. It's impractical, which in turn makes it an unreasonable demand.

If it genuinely was an unreasonable workplace demand, you could take it to Fair Work (or the Canadian equivalent). But we both know Peterson's concerns are not based on pragmatism - but on personal ideological differences:

That's right. I don't recognize that [another person's right to determine what pronouns you use to address them]. I don't recognize another person's right to decide what words I'm going to use, especially when the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language and they are constructs of a small coterie of ideologically motivated people. They might have a point but I'm not going to say their words for them.

I'm not claiming that a person is free to use any words, in any context. But what I'm saying is that I'm not willing to mouth words that I think have been created for ideological purposes.

I'm not going to mouth words that I believe put me in the position of an ideological puppet. I won't do that. If it turns out that's a hate crime in Ontario, well, as far as I'm concerned, bring it on!

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappen...-refuses-to-use-genderless-pronouns-1.3786144

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I didn't say it made my hypocrisy ok.

Then how do you defend your hypocrisy? Or is it indefensible?

I'm not perfect. I have all sorts of standards for myself that I fail to maintain at all times.

One thing I know I fail on is maintaining my sympathy for people on matters where they have either brought their suffering on to themselves or there is great irony in the way that they are suffering based on things that they have said and done.

Like the analogy with Trump I made earlier, I wouldn't wish Covid on anyone. I wouldn't want people to be sick. But when people deny that Covid exists, don't do anything to stop the spread, actively act in ways that do help spread it.... yeah, I struggle to work up much sympathy for them when they get it and if they died I would struggle to muster much emotion

I wouldn't wish mental health issues on anyone. But when someone pushes an ideologically driven understanding of a mental health issue like addiction that characterises it as a moral failing, defeatable by simply rationally choosing to make better choices, and then succumbs to addiction themselves it is hard for me not to feel schadenfreude. And then when they deal with their addiction in a thoroughly unscientific and dangerous manner, that runs totally counter to the method they have talked about in their books that they are continuing to sell as if they are an authority with an opinion worth reading... yeah, it is hard for me to muster much sympathy and makes me think that this is a person worthy of being ridiculed for their gross hypocrisy.

Self-serving waffle.

You pretended to care about mental illness and "the stigma". But then you completely abandoned that once someone you find disagreeable was afflicted.

Grotesque, desperate hypocrisy.

No, its just because I'm a pretty normal person.

Normal people don't mock people for mental illness. That's deranged.

I posted direct links to Peterson talking about addiction. Short videos, in one I even linked to a time-stamped version to take you directly to a key section. By all means don't take my characterisations at face value, listen to what he says.

There is a difference between you not trusting my characterisations and you simply asserting my characterisations are mischaracterisations without any evidence, yes?

Here is an article on Peterson's treatment in Russia:

What Happened to Jordan Peterson?

A philosopher, a medical crisis, and a mystery

newrepublic.com

Do you seriously think that how he tried to overcome his drug addiction is a scientifically valid and safe method consistent with what he has previously said about overcoming addiction?

Do you think that this is a course of action that should be held up as an example to other addicts for how to treat their addiction?

I'm not interested in your critiques of Peterson. That has never been the issue. Your hypocrisy is the issue.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If it genuinely was an unreasonable workplace demand, you could take it to Fair Work (or the Canadian equivalent). But we both know Peterson's concerns are not based on pragmatism - but on personal ideological differences.

I'm not sure why you insist they're entirely separate.

 

[Seeds]

No, your brand of gibberish is quite distinct.

This is not my idea. Stop reading idiot books like those from jordan peterson and read from actual experts in their fields like Sean Carroll and Steven pinker. what i posted was not controversial or original.