They're basically concern trolling at this point. Idk why anyone is still engaging with them.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
They're basically concern trolling at this point. Idk why anyone is still engaging with them.
I posted the above video without watching it. It's pretty good. This guy also pointed out how Peterson has looked to the wisdom of the devious fox for his oratory skills
Great video, describes why listening to his videos/lectures/interviews always made me so oddly uncomfortable.
The article talks about the consequences of showing a TVO video debate about pronouns to a class of students. That's not the same as what you were talking about, which was actually refusing to use a trans person chosen pronoun.
Do you have a link to the video she showed? I have the link to the full debate, but I don't know what part she did actually show to her classroom.
To my knowledge, what Peterson said was that refusing to use a pronoun could be considered harassment, that they can fine you for that, if you don't pay the fine they can take you to a tribunal, and if you keep refusing to pay you could end up in jail. He was reaching but he wasn't obscure about it.
Petersons point isn't even about misgendering. It's about compelled speech, about forcing somebody to use a new gender neutral pronoun. That takes a very rare case to prove or disprove. It would take a gender neutral trans person asking a coworker to use a gender neutral pronoun, the coworker refusing and the trans person filing a human rights complaint because the coworker is refusing to use the genderless pronoun. Then, if the Ontario human rights commission fined the coworker for harassment, THAT would be compelled speech.
Look at these video from 22:25 to 23:35. This lawyer is talking in favor of bill c-16 and, if I am understanding it correctly, is also saying that a trans person with a non traditional pronoun would have a case in front of the Ontario Humans right commission.
Please take a look at the video above.
I also think it wouldn't hurt you if you took a look at this one:
Last edited:
People already seen the videos you posted. People already throughly debunked them. You refuse to address that and just repeat what you've been repeating 30 pages ago.
You're honestly the perfect example of why it isn't useful to talk to you. You're like a brick wall.
We weren't talking pronouns 30 pages ago and this is the first time I link these videos in this thread.
I read what other people write and try to answer honestly and provide links that support what I say. You said earlier in the thread that Peterson constantly uses the term cultural marxism and constantly goes out of its way in his self help book to address specifically white males.
https://www.resetera.com/posts/6371814/
Could you please provide some evidence of him constantly using the term cultural marxism or tell me where in the book he goes out of his way to address white males so I can check it out myself?
what you keep failing to understand is that jordan peterson - and that lawyer too, in spite of his good intentions - are FACTUALLY INCORRECT
like i can't change the law just by saying "actually i think the law says this" - that is just not how the concept of laws operate
i could make an argument in a court case, but i wouldn't get very far citing c-16 or the tribunal's interpretation because
"THE LAW IS OTHERWISE UNSETTLED AS TO WHETHER SOMEONE CAN INSIST ON ANY ONE GENDER-NEUTRAL PRONOUN IN PARTICULAR"
this is a direct quote from the interpretation of the law used by tribunals you are claiming force people to use gender neutral pronouns
is there any word in that sentence that you need for me to define for you? do you genuinely not comprehend what that means?
since you clearly didn't read last time, i'm gonna post the other sections of the interpretation that will probably debunk anything you try to say after this
"Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use "they" if you don't know which pronoun is preferred. Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach. - that interpretation even addresses common concerns with gender-neutral pronouns and even takes into account that some people may feel uncomfortable using them
"Other important considerations are the vulnerability of the group affected by the speech, and the degree of impact on their ability to access employment, services and housing on an equal basis." - the interpretation clearly indicates that this legislation is targeted at addressing discrimination against trans people in accessing employment, services, and housing
"A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor." - any sentencing is related to explicitly making someone feel unwelcome in the workplace to the degree that there is conclusive evidence
its the same as any other anti-discrimination law (because it is literally the same anti-discrimination law), and you sound exactly like the sort of person who bitches that banning racial slurs in the workplace means no one will know what to call different races
do you think that a co-worker saying that they won't stop referring to a black worker by the n-word is okay? do you think banning it in the workplace is forced speech? you're reaching for the most abstract case you can think of and ignoring the text of the bill and its interpretation to make imaginary hypotheticals and slippery slope arguments
let me give you a real world example of the amendment to c-16 being cited:
that case brought up misgendering as evidence that a transgender person was refused medical service (who died because of being refused that medical service) because of prejudice
in fact, 33% of a sample size of 20,000 transgender people report having been denied medical care because they are trans - https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Executive-Summary-Dec17.pdf
real people are suffering, and here you spinning ridiculous hypotheticals because are unable to read a single sentence
when its written clear as day
"THE LAW IS OTHERWISE UNSETTLED AS TO WHETHER SOMEONE CAN INSIST ON ANY ONE GENDER-NEUTRAL PRONOUN IN PARTICULAR"
you are very clearly not reading what i am writing, or are just failing to understand it in some way
Last edited:
I have to say, the chapter about rule 9 (assume the person you are listening to knows something you don't) is a very enjoyable read. It's mostly stories about Petersons clinical practice and the choices he makes during those conversations. It's almost no politics and religion.
The book in general is better when it doesn't try to shoehorn Christianity into every page.
The book in general is better when it doesn't try to shoehorn Christianity into every page.
I am reading what you are writing. And I noticed you didn't quote certain sentence of the interpretation. The one bolded in the first paragraph I quoted:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns#_edn2
"Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular."
"Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use "they" if you don't know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach."
The way I read the bolded parts, refusing to use a specific pronoun might be discrimination.
Remember that what we are discussing here is whether it is reasonable for Peterson to think that the way this is written, you might be forced to use one of the new non gendered pronouns.
We are not talking about using racial slurs (strawman) or denying transgender people medical service (false dilemma). That was never in the conversation.
Earlier in the thread I read some accusations about Peterson going out of his way to mention specific white male issues in the book. Did you find any of that?
Last edited:
oh, you noticed that? ah, well now i know you don't read, because that's the same exact fucking sentence i wrote a thousand words about
instead of linking you to a long post for the third time, i'm going to quote the entire thing
never did get a response on it, haha
but hey, do you recognize a certain sentence? you seem to have failed to read the part you didn't bold
i'll just write it out for you again
The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular
so, once again, it is unreasonable to conclude that this law will force peterson to use a gender-neutral pronoun, because it clearly says right there that the law does not mandate the usage of gender-neutral pronouns - you literally copied the sentence, you must have read it at this point
using racial slurs as an example isn't a strawman, it is an analogy to a similar situation covered by the exact same law
how is denying transgender people medical care an example of a false dilemma? i brought up that case to show what c-16 actually legislates and how the pronoun part of the interpretation is actually applied
since you like fallacies, i'm going to call you out on moving the goalpoints - we've shifted from "is it true that c-16 legislates this" to "is it reasonable for peterson to misunderstand this law"
"Refusing" in this context refers to doing something actively. What the bill basically says is that if you know someone uses a particular pronoun but you actively refuse to use it, then that's being discriminatory because you then refuse to accept their identity. And yeah, if someone tells you that they prefer to use a particular pronoun yet you insist on calling them a "he" or "she" when they do not identify with those pronouns is, then yeah, you are being forced to use their preferred pronouns OR use the entirely neutral "they". Just how you're forced to refer to women as "she/her" and men as "he/him" in the context of work, education, housing, etc. Knowingly misgendering a cis-gender person would also constitute harassment so it makes complete sense that doing so to a transgender person should also follow the same logic.
A boss calling a woman who he believes has masculine features as a "he/him" or calling an effeminate man a "she/her", especially when neither of them are comfortable with being called by those pronouns is harassment. You can joke all you want in your private space but you should not be doing so in a professional environment, whether it be work, school, or in business dealings, including housing.
And as I said, you can still use "THEY/THEM", which is entirely neutral.
I liked it. It fits perfectly with the article I posted a few days ago about how Peterson is gently pushing young men to authoritarianism.
Okay, what you're doing right now is literally against the rules of this forum. You're completely ignoring the multiple well-explained posts in here completely debunking your thoughts on bill c-16, and rebutting them with the exact same "but actually..."
Also, you can't just start quoting logical fallacies as a rebuttal to someone's argument without actually explaining why you think that person's argument was a logical fallacy! Both of the examples Slanos used were directly related to the bill, which made them relevant to the conversation.
Tbh I'm genuinely surprised you haven't been warned by a mod yet for brick walling this conversation. People aren't even responding to Kristoffer's excellent post above because they're too busy trying to get you to wrap your head around some simple wording in a bill.
The bill does not in fact say that actively refusing to use a person's preferred pronoun is discrimination. That's how the OHRC might interpret it, but the OHRC is not the final authority.
I hate that Peterson has become a thing and I hate that this thread has to exist because his very existence and presence on the web annoys me to no end.
I think from the first or second viewing of him talking just shows he's a sophisticated gishgalloper (focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments). By sophisticated, I mean that what he says "seems reasonable" in point by point basis, but then you're realizing he's just weaving a web around his moronic framework of how he was reality to be and at some point if you keep letting him weave his moron stories around his points you will fall into his blackhole surrounded by his "logic". Well actually, that's not true. Most people DON'T realize that this is what he is doing, which is why he is able to ensnare so much mindshare. He's a slippery spider of a man.
That he is able to seduce vulnerable young men (and whoever is sympathetic to his cause) with dumb as rocks common sense things (clean your room, take responsibility!) while not at all deciding to take responsibility himself for his own influence and mayhem is another part of his poisonous scheme. He knows exactly what he is doing or he is a useful and utterly naive fool for the alt-right, and none of these things are redeemable to me, so I hope his day comes when it all bites him in the ass and he loses everything. /bile
I think from the first or second viewing of him talking just shows he's a sophisticated gishgalloper (focuses on overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments). By sophisticated, I mean that what he says "seems reasonable" in point by point basis, but then you're realizing he's just weaving a web around his moronic framework of how he was reality to be and at some point if you keep letting him weave his moron stories around his points you will fall into his blackhole surrounded by his "logic". Well actually, that's not true. Most people DON'T realize that this is what he is doing, which is why he is able to ensnare so much mindshare. He's a slippery spider of a man.
That he is able to seduce vulnerable young men (and whoever is sympathetic to his cause) with dumb as rocks common sense things (clean your room, take responsibility!) while not at all deciding to take responsibility himself for his own influence and mayhem is another part of his poisonous scheme. He knows exactly what he is doing or he is a useful and utterly naive fool for the alt-right, and none of these things are redeemable to me, so I hope his day comes when it all bites him in the ass and he loses everything. /bile
You are right, I hadn't read that post you just quoted. I am sorry. But I disagree in your interpretation. Let's quote the same paragraphs one final time:
"Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular."
"Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use "they" if you don't know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach."
In your explanation of the first paragraph, you assimilated "refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity..." to actually using a wrong pronoun. That's not the case we are talking about. We are talking about refusing to use the personal pronoun period. Just using the persons name or avoiding the use of personal pronouns altogether. Seeing the wording in the first paragraph, do you think that would be allowed? Or do you think the second sentence of that paragraph, the one you quoted a thousand times, cancels the "personal pronoun" part of the first sentence? Do you think the second paragraph indicates you can just use the persons name and avoid the use of personal pronouns altogether? Wouldn't there be a case for discrimination if a coworker used personal pronouns for everybody but those who had a non gendered pronoun?
The way I see the racial slur as a strawman:
Petersons point: I don't want to say words I don't believe in.
Strawman: Peterson wants to say any words he likes.
Beating the strawman: If Peterson said any words he likes he could use racial slurs with his coworkers and that wouldn't be appropriate.
The way I see the false dilemma fallacy:
Petersons point: Passing bill c-16 (supposedly) includes compelled speech in legislation.
False dilemma: If we don't pass Bill c-16 trans people could be discriminated by being denied medical assistance.
Alternative option: Bill C-16 could have been passed with an ammendment allowing to avoid the enforced use of non gendered pronouns in certain cases AND still protecting trans gender peoples rights to medical assistance.
To the moving goal posts accusation: I don't think ever argued it was factually true that the bill introduced free speech. I just said there are various lawyers, not all from the right side of the political spectrum, that think you could be fined for refusing to use certain pronouns. I was arguing that in opposition to many opinions here stating that the law makes it perfectly clear that is not the case.
I don't think it's so self evident. Even some lawyers are supposedly misinterpreting it.
I don't think anybody would oppose to this.
I already explained the logical fallacies. And if you read my comments up here, I think it would be reasonable for you to concede that there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on what the actual effects of the law are at this point in time.
Last edited:
I don't think the term "white" is even mentioned once in the book (so far).
I thought it was a great post. Unfortunately the thread has been thoroughly Ricardoed and your post is drowning in a flood of absolute flannel.
Last edited:
There are multiple mentions of race and gender (especially gender) throughout the book, I guess "white men" isn't mentioned explicitly... Well... aside from this
He goes on and on about justifying oppressive structures because they've always been there.
Shortly after..
Hey women hear that! You can't be oppressed, men made you Tampons and birth pills. You're welcome!!
Last edited:
I read it. Was a good post, but like others have said, David Ricardo's dumbness keeps getting in the way.
I read it and appreciated it, but I should have indicated so. I get frustrated too when I perceive that people are ignoring posts I worked hard on. It was a very insightful post! It's a shame that I'm wasting my time on people who don't read instead of engaging more with you.
***
Ricardo, once again I've already explained that, and will do so again when I have more time.
Your suggestion that bill c-16 include text that specifically says it does not govern the usage of specific gender neutral pronouns is hilarious in that I've pointed you to the line that specifically does exactly that many times. I will address your other wilfull understandings later.
You even admit that you aren't even arguing whether or not your claim is true. You're strawmanning an anti-discriminatuon law and saying "but wouldn't it be reasonable to believe this strawmanning"?
I don't think dismantling the rest of your poor logic will actually change your mind, since you admit that you aren't arguing about the truth of a claim, but rather whether you can find any shred of doubt to use with the intent of framing an anti-discrimination law which specifically addresses your concern as "forcing speech". But I'll do it anyways.
Last edited:
David Ricardo
"Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering,"
you see that first comma, between "identity" and "or", that i highlighted in red?
it isn't signifying part of a list like using "and" would - rather, it presents the phrase "purposefully misgendering" as a semantic handle for the idea of "Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity"
therefore, your claim that c-16 requires the usage of a pronoun and that it is discrimination to only use a person's name is ludicrous without even taking into account that the law recommends doing that a sentence later
the case that sentence covers is "purposefully misgendering" as it applies to creating a hostile environment which restricts ewual access to employment, housing, and heathcare
not using a pronoun at all is not "purposeful misgendering", and is in fact recommended for the case where people like peterson are made uncomfortable by the idea of a gender-neutral singular pronoun
you can figure that out by reading where it says that
the rest comes later
"Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering,"
you see that first comma, between "identity" and "or", that i highlighted in red?
it isn't signifying part of a list like using "and" would - rather, it presents the phrase "purposefully misgendering" as a semantic handle for the idea of "Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity"
therefore, your claim that c-16 requires the usage of a pronoun and that it is discrimination to only use a person's name is ludicrous without even taking into account that the law recommends doing that a sentence later
the case that sentence covers is "purposefully misgendering" as it applies to creating a hostile environment which restricts ewual access to employment, housing, and heathcare
not using a pronoun at all is not "purposeful misgendering", and is in fact recommended for the case where people like peterson are made uncomfortable by the idea of a gender-neutral singular pronoun
you can figure that out by reading where it says that
the rest comes later
Sianos, stop writing. That is enough. If we agree on the meaning of that sentence, then we can end the bill c-16 conversation. I will write my answer in a few minutes.
"Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination..."
So, in your understanding, this sentence means that it's only discrimination if you use a wrong pronoun (purposely misgendering). But it's totally ok to refuse to use the gender identity matching pronoun as long as you don't use a wrong one. Agree?
That's a yes or no question. We could end this conversation right here.
"Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination..."
So, in your understanding, this sentence means that it's only discrimination if you use a wrong pronoun (purposely misgendering). But it's totally ok to refuse to use the gender identity matching pronoun as long as you don't use a wrong one. Agree?
That's a yes or no question. We could end this conversation right here.
Last edited:
Yes, that is exactly true.
Beyond that, even using the wrong pronoun is only discrimination in the case where there is evidence that is wilfull - that it is being done with the intention of making someone feel unwelcome based on their gender identity.
It is difficult to prove such a claim, and proving such a claim necessitates citing other discriminatory behavior to use as evidence that the continual misgendering was itentional.
The pronoun apocalypse that Peterson feared was nothing but a dream because he can't read and you shouldn't rely on a psychologist's opinion of a law when an actual organization full of lawyers says it's A-OK
Ok, my interpretation of that sentence is different but that doesn't change the fact that our conversation is over. I don't think any brick wall any of us writes will change the opinion of the other. At least we know exactly where we differ.
Please don't write another brick wall, just 2 or 3 other members agreeing with your interpretation of that sentence will suffice.
So you agree with Sianos interpretation of that OHRC sentence in my last post?
I agree with the Canadian Bar Association on it. They are the actual legal experts. Listen to them.
Of course you shouldn't listen to them! They stand to gain from litigation and uncertainty on this matter! It's a conspiracy!
I'm sorry. I don't have anything further to add to this ridiculous conversation but sarcasm and jokes.
To be fair if you were serious you could pose as Peterson...
The irony in this is that I put 0 effort in it, making it *gasp* anti intellectual.
We call these people this generation's intellectuals these days.
Because words mean nothing anymore.
It was still smarter than whatever Peterson can come up with
Why do people keep referring to some non legally binding article on the HRC website and not the bill itself? The bill plus the definition we have on discrimination provided by the Supreme Court AND the Canadian Bar Association (the organisation that decides who becomes lawyers) saying misgendering won't get you in trouble should be more than enough. But no, people keep going back to this one non legally binding article on the HRC, probably written by an intern that... Wait for it... STILL doesn't even say that misgendering gets you in trouble!!
It's literally a conspiracy theory
It's literally a conspiracy theory
It's the literal definition of concern trolling. When a whole host of people collectively debunk your point with objective evidence and you still refuse to concede, you aren't "just disagreeing." You're actively undermining the conversation and derailing otherwise productive discussion.
Because David Ricardo is so worried that it'll be illegal (it's won't) to not refer transgenders to their chosen name and gender, I propose we stand behind his viewpoint.
From now on, we shall call David Ricardo, "Fucker McFartface." Oh and refer to her as she because... hey 1st Amendment, you crazy Canadians!
You know, freedom of speech and all that shit.
From now on, we shall call David Ricardo, "Fucker McFartface." Oh and refer to her as she because... hey 1st Amendment, you crazy Canadians!
You know, freedom of speech and all that shit.
Dear God, I hope people see my point lol
Here I explain why your point is a strawman:
Petersons point: I don't want to say words I don't believe in.
Strawman: Peterson wants to say any words he likes.
Beating the strawman: If Peterson said any words he likes he could use racial slurs with his coworkers and that wouldn't be appropriate.
Watched half of the video, now im not native english speaker so just to clarify I understood it right:
JP/society expects women to leave their careers to be moms, fair point. There is other assumptions like that in general from JP I haven't really paid attention before. However did he say "biology could be altered", what does he mean by this? Is he also saying estrogen/testosterone has nothing to do with anything and there, in general, is no difference in men/women personality traits? Everything is a social construction and there simply isn't anything biologically different between men/women (other than physical) in general population?
Our point and one of the points of C-16 because Peterson can't read: you can avoid using pronouns by using the persons name. Fucking simple.
I think he means it could be altered through evolution and only through evolution. If he argues that something is biological then it would take thousands or millions of years. He doesn't want the differences to be sociological because then we could change it and he doesn't want that.
Women want men who are dicks and clean their rooms. The fact that I still don't have a girlfriend despite being a dick who cleans his room is because of society and social justice nonsense, you see.
I already said in this thread that I would be happy to refer to a trans person by the name and pronoun this person preferred. What we were talking about was whether Peterson has a point that it is possible that this bill could have been used as a backdoor to introduce compelled speech in Canadian law.
Regarding your "good manners" comment, I would recommend you to practice what you preach.
Peterson believes both biology and socialization have an influence on people. He is against the social constructionist world view and he doesn't think you can change biology, so I think you didn't get it right. I recommend you watch videos at normal speed that are not edited by a hater if you want to understand what he says.
Just search peterson + name of the topic on youtube and you will know what his views on that topic are.
Last edited:
- Status