• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

'3y Kingdom

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,494
Just to make the point for the third time, people aren't even discussing the video that was actually shown in the class. Apparently, it doesn't matter what actually took place. What is important is what you perceive to have taken place.

We don't know exactly what was shown to the class. The class saw maybe three minutes of video; the entire discussion runs an hour, much of which is Peterson monologuing and mithering. But this was already discussed on this same page, as you can see if you scroll back up.

In the absence of video evidence, we are discussing whether Jordan Peterson is, ceteris paribus, useful material for understanding trans issues. Posters have attached many links demonstrating that he is not, due to a history of transphobia and bad-faith arguing. The video under discussion does not disprove them, and even if it did, the man's history on the issue does not inspire any confidence. Peterson, like Milo, is a known quantity. When Milo appeared on Bill Maher a while back, played down the vilest aspects of his extremism, and in doing so charmed the host, that did not suddenly excuse his prior actions or constitute a change in behavior. Peterson may have left out some of his more reprehensible comments for this video, but he hasn't changed.
 

Jam

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,050
That poster has been making coherent arguments the entire thread, on both this and previous pages. In the instance you are getting hung up on, they were merely responding to another poster's stated credence in PhDs. And "publicising" Peterson? The TA did that; most of those arguing against Peterson would enjoy nothing more than for him to not be cited as some kind of expert in these kinds of debates, given his history (also extensively demonstrated on this and previous pages)

And I praised Excelsior for doing that - I never stated that he lowered the standard or anything of the sort, I understand there some was tension from the last page regarding someone asking for proper arguments from Excelsior when he was providing them. Me criticising one element doesn't bring every other poster's insightful and detailed posts down.

And I don't think the TA was wrong in this scenario, unless she only shown Peterson's side on the clip without contextual comment and I'm under the impression she showed a segment that includes both his comments and the counter points given to him. She was teaching language correct? And that show's debate highlights the importance of the use of language, in particular personal pronouns, it emphasises the importance of usage. As in the clip wasn't used to chime in a view on the conversation about Transgender issues themselves but rather the importance of language in such a situation. I don't think it's necessary for her to comment on Transgenderism or to publically denounce Peterson when it totally ignores the context of her showing the video, two intellectuals debating the usage of language.

Choosing a clip regarding Transgender and in particular including Peterson was perhaps risqué in this climate but it's a national conversation and an important conversation people are having - she could have used a less 'controversial' clip to have the same effect but at the same time it does demonstrate the importance of language. It was inadvertently seen as highlighting Peterson's opinions of Transgender people which I don't believe was the TA's intention in the slightest.
 

Caz

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,055
Canada
I feel these name name drops are really disingenuous. If Carter Page made statements on business and in particular fund management and business within the energy sector I'd absolutely listen, similarly if Ben Carson was teaching me about neurosurgery I would completely take his word as gospel. Their misgivings in other areas doesn't weaken their expertise in other particular areas. Both people are trash and ended up in completely ill-fitting positions but on their home turf they're still top-level.

Reminder that [insert bad person here] has a PhD in this context is meaningless since Peterson's studies have been in psychology and political science. The debate is about something Peterson has a vested interest and understanding in.

I'm not commenting on his stance, just a reminder to challenge his actual thoughts than trying to discredit academic standards.

Expect, as it's been brought up multiple times, Jordan Peterson is not a professor of sexual diversity, gender pronouns, gender expression, etc., he's a philosophy teacher who refuses to use gender pronouns for reasons that have also been brought up multiple times in this thread and believes in a conspiracy that has literal Nazi origins and is demonstrably not qualified to be a starting point on the subject. What's especially nonsensical is that the oft-cited panel had U of T's professor of transgender studies, Nicholas Matte, yet no one ever brings him up or cites any of the points they raise in any sort of discussion surrounding sexual diversity, it's always Peterson and his transphobic justification for not using a person's preferred pronouns/misgendering an individual.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
There is no argument from me that secret recordings wouldn't somehow be beneficial. Whatever her intention or responsibility, it was still devious thing to do. While I'll likely continue to let this influence my opinion of her I don't expect others to do or feel the same. It seemed important enough to mention and add to the considerations of her intentions and honesty. I do understand what you're saying and my opinion could change after more thought.

Disagree it was devious she was being verbally abused and threatened with a gross minterpretation of C-116 (oddly these professors know Peterson and know why he probably shouldn't be invoked in trans conversation but yet don't know that his interpretation which they almost repeat verbatim at her is false and had been rebuked by everyone). There's nothing devious about collecting evidence so that a she said he said situation doesn't occur where she has no power...

Everything before that and after that are fair game.
 

Tya

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,656
Warning: Personal insults are unnecessary and unwelcomed
There is no argument from me that secret recordings wouldn't somehow be beneficial. Whatever her intention or responsibility, it was still a devious thing to do. While I'll likely continue to let this influence my opinion of her I don't expect others to do or feel the same. It seemed important enough to mention and add to the considerations of her intentions and honesty. I do understand what you're saying and my opinion could change after more thought.

It is maybe more telling that people who know her, such as her class peers, have been silent on the matter. They would possibly know more about her motivations. Hopefully, they'll communicate something in the coming days which could clarify things on this matter.

She recorded it because people like you exist.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
Choosing a clip regarding Transgender and in particular including Peterson was perhaps risqué in this climate but it's a national conversation and an important conversation people are having - she could have used a less 'controversial' clip to have the same effect but at the same time it does demonstrate the importance of language. It was inadvertently seen as highlighting Peterson's opinions of Transgender people which I don't believe was the TA's intention in the slightest.

Given her behavior on twitter where she has made sure to target the Queer organisation on campus (her tweet to them is pinned and they have experienced harassment of transphobic nature as a result,, and she's shown not to care responding to a story about that by accusing them of hating free speech) and accuse them of being against free speech and Academic freedom, and her responding positively to someone saying transphobia doesn't even exist... her neutrality and intentions with including Peterson cannot be assumed to have been neutral... we'll likely never know as no one is going to say what 3 minutes were used because the conversation in the general public has long since moved on and no one is going to likely want to look at her actions in the classroom anymore....



I'm still wondering what you meant when you asked what kind of person I am btw. I noticed you haven't engaged with me or what I've said since, skipping right around my comments.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
. If it's mutable, changeable, only subjective and transformable on a whim, then why should anyone have any respect for it?

https://joeclark.org/peterson/transcript_20160517.html

This is how Peterson chose to end his testimony against Bill C-16 reducing gender neutral individuals down to simply changing their identities on a whim... This is what I mean when I say he has no basis of understanding or knowledge of transgender issues.

I believe the ideologues who are pushing this movement are using unsuspecting and sometimes complicit members of the so-called transgender community to push their ideological vanguard forward. I firmly believe that so I'm not participating in that.

This is what he chose to say when testifying against the Bill. The so called transgender community....
 

mac

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,308
Choosing a clip regarding Transgender and in particular including Peterson was perhaps risqué in this climate but it's a national conversation and an important conversation people are having - she could have used a less 'controversial' clip to have the same effect but at the same time it does demonstrate the importance of language. It was inadvertently seen as highlighting Peterson's opinions of Transgender people which I don't believe was the TA's intention in the slightest.

New gender pronouns really are the bleeding edge of language. I suppose she could have gone with people talking about latinx or some new racial distinctions for the next Canadian census but she chose the hot subject in the news in Canada and used the leading academic figure who criticizes it. I suppose next time she'll stick with some boring example like the new words added to Merriam-Webster's.
 

Jam

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,050
Expect, as it's been brought up multiple times, Jordan Peterson is not a professor of sexual diversity, gender pronouns, gender expression, etc., he's a philosophy teacher who refuses to use gender pronouns for reasons that have also been brought up multiple times in this thread and believes in a conspiracy that has literal Nazi origins and is demonstrably not qualified to be a starting point on the subject. What's especially nonsensical is that the oft-cited panel had U of T's professor of transgender studies, Nicholas Matte, yet no one ever brings him up or cites any of the points they raise in any sort of discussion surrounding sexual diversity, it's always Peterson and his transphobic justification for not using a person's preferred pronouns/misgendering an individual.

Perhaps that's because Peterson's comments are controversial, often wrong, and incite heated discussion whereas Matte doesn't bring that to the table. Transphobic people bring up things like Peterson's comments and Trans and supporters argue back, whereas there isn't the alternative of Trans and supporters bringing up Matte and then Transphobic people arguing back how he is wrong. Well isn't is perhaps a bit strong, but generally the debate is Trans people breaking down the oppositions' views, rather than Transphobic people intellectually breaking down Trans-supportive views.

It is nonsensical but that's the nature of being in a repressed minority. Look at all the historical examples of similar debates with minorities where African-Americans or Homosexuals for example had to repeatedly argue against the same faux-science and its public avatars while their sides' own science was correct but scarcely commented on until eventually it became the status-quo. E.g. All that utter-ridiculous 'science' about African-American's skulls.

People will support the view that fits their own narrative regardless of its legitimacy, the minority is in a position where it has to repeatedly prove that view is false and this debate gets eyes. Minorities fighting for their social-legitimacy is the optics, rather than people fighting against their social-legitimacy. It's wrong but that's how it is.
 

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,050
The last few pages been people talking pass each other and arguments ignored in favor of personal insults. Feel free to make a new thread if something new happens concerning this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.