Jordan Peterson's Rant in the National Post

[PeteMoss]

I think a lot of these people who get adopted by the free speech/right wing end up working themselves into a shoot. They go from unknown people to suddenly having all kinds of opportunities present themselves.

I'm sure it happens to the left wing hero's as well, but the left tends to be more fickle so they will turn on everyone as some point.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I'd highlight some of the fair points and also poor analysis he's made, but alas, CP's almost as bad as reddit these days for these sorts of topics in terms of being an echo chamber. Hack&Lube's post was hardly divisive and fairly broad and generally a fair statement, yet instant attacks on him.

You know if Peterson or anyone remotely "right-wing" is the topic you can be sure it'll just be the usual copypasta army of folks here on the prowl. Serves no one but driving away folks from rational discussions that might be helpful or convincing and instead it'll just be fringes of both sides arguing about extremes and CP will continue to be worse for it.

I will never change my believe that the best solutions are always smack dab in the middle where the left and right ideologies are compromised. Unfortunately we are in a time of extremes where you must be far left or far right. It's really disheartening.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I actually think that advice is somewhat universal for anyone. I don't think he proclaims that going about things that way is going to magically remove very real external barriers, just only that sorting yourself out and focusing on improving what you have control over first will result in better outcomes than not doing so. Simply that, nothing more.

His advice was clearly coming from a point of weakness himself, and not at all pretending to be an authority figure. I’ve never understood how this guy got so many people riled up. He was an interesting lecturer who has no problem admitting his own faults.

Not a deity, and not a evil villain.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I think a lot of these people who get adopted by the free speech/right wing end up working themselves into a shoot.

I can't believe how well this works on a punchline level. Well done sir, I tip my hat to you and you alone!

Much love,

HH

[GirlySports]

It's just again pigeonholing equality. But only one way.

Look at the accounting department in your company. It's probably majority non-white and that's OK. But if it were all white guys suddenly it's a problem and privileged.

And then there's the whole university degree status thing. If you are a woman for example and you don't have a university degree not in white collar jobs or you are a housewife or in child care, you are diminished, not contributing to the female quotas needed in society. I could tell you tonnes of such stories.

I could go on and on, why aren't there more male nurses? Why aren't there more women lawyers etc etc.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I will never change my believe that the best solutions are always smack dab in the middle where the left and right ideologies are compromised.

This makes no sense, some ideas are just better than others.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by FormerPresJamesTaylor

This makes no sense, some ideas are just better than others.

I used to worship Wait But Why's Tim Urban, until the Trump Era turned him into a Center Is The Truth And The Light prophet. sometimes it's ok to admit the truth is not actually somewhere in the middle. like if one end is "kill all Jews" and the other end is "don't kill all Jews", then I don't think you're gonna want to sit on the fence for that.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross

Do you have a source for this. I (thought) to remember that he says he will gladly call a student by their preferred pronoun, if they so desired. Actually, I remember hearing it multiple times specifically on the Joe Rogan Show.

I'm not gonna dig up the video, but he did explicitly state it in his opposition to bill C-16.

From Wikipedia:
On 27 September 2016, Peterson released the first installment of a three-part lecture video series, entitled "Professor against political correctness: Part I: Fear and the Law".[15][133][50] In the video, he stated that he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty, saying it fell under compelled speech, and announced his objection to the Canadian government's Bill C-16, which proposed to add "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to similarly expand the definitions of promoting genocide and publicly inciting hatred in the hate speech laws in Canada

So yeah, his chat with Joe Rogan aside, he's been pretty clear on his stance on using people's preferred pronouns.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm not gonna dig up the video, but he did explicitly state it in his opposition to bill C-16.

From Wikipedia:
On 27 September 2016, Peterson released the first installment of a three-part lecture video series, entitled "Professor against political correctness: Part I: Fear and the Law".[15][133][50] In the video, he stated that he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty, saying it fell under compelled speech, and announced his objection to the Canadian government's Bill C-16, which proposed to add "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to similarly expand the definitions of promoting genocide and publicly inciting hatred in the hate speech laws in Canada

So yeah, his chat with Joe Rogan aside, he's been pretty clear on his stance on using people's preferred pronouns.

He has stated, countless times, that he would refer to someone as whatever they asked of him. It couldn’t be more clear. He always stated that it was about the legislation, not people’s personal preferences.

[TheIronMaiden]

I have an anecdote that might contribute to this conversion ( I won't elaborate further in fear of doxing myself).

I'll put this first, I think that it is a good thing that for the moment there are structures in place meant to ensure diversity in academia. Multiple world views makes for better research where it is qualitative or quantitative, science or arts. In my discipline, Canadian history, it is dominated by white men and women. I would say in my experience, it is about 50/50 according to sex. That said, it is almost exclusively white.

A university that I have lectured for had a position opening for pre-confederation history, and had an over qualified candidate lined up. A woman whose research was both methodologically cutting edge, and rooted in most of the material expected to be taught in courses ( this being a teaching university). That said, she was euro Canadian. After the interview and agreeing informally this gets sent up the bureaucracy, at which point the Indigenous elders advisory board ( or whatever it is called) shoots the candidate down stating that an Indigenous person needs to be hired for this position or they create problems for the dean.

Again, this is great, Indigenous peoples should teach Canadian history and contribute to academic literature. Indeed, every Canadian university agrees and Indigenous PhD students often get hired right after passing their candidacy exams. That's right, they get hired to tenure track positions before finishing their PhD. and for very large sums of money, sums of money that very few History programs ( always broke with diminishing attendance) can afford.

So in response to this, the University chose to close this position because it was not practical for them to find a person, or afford them. Instead, they hired sessional instructors to spot cover ( which is basically free labor), consequently, I myself, grossly under qualified white rural Albertan was a sessional instructor.

Now does this mean that white men in academia are oppressed. No, infact in backwards way it helped a straight white man. But it does raise the question is diversity at every cost always a fruitful policy?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I could go on and on, why aren't there more male nurses? Why aren't there more women lawyers etc etc.

Speaking to my own experience in the legal industry, the major issue is nepotism and improper accommodations for women having children. Women form a majority of law students and a significant majority of new hires. However, if they want to take time off from their careers to have children, for the most part they are immediately removed from any kind of management/senior counsel track. On top of that there's issues of old white men putting their spawn into positions of power.

The old white men stay at the top. They hire a bunch of visible minorities and women for the entry level positions, so they can say my firm has X amount of women or minorities, but they have no mechanism for those people to actually make it into past the lower level. They have no intention of sharing what they've "earned".

The majority of women I know who are having success in law are those that are going out on their own. Many of these women are much better at running a business than the average senior lawyer (lawyers generally aren't great at that, and the ones who've been spoon-fed partnerships without building the business from the ground up are generally much worse) and are very successful.

There's also all sorts of other issues related to employment wages being crap across the board, and that applies to the legal industry. So people who go out on their own often make significantly more than their big firm employee counterparts. Part of this is related to the inability of many lawyers to run a profitable business and partly related to greedy senior partners.

[GirlySports]

That's a good anecdote of forcing things. Do people really care about development of say Indigenous. Are they grooming say an high school student in this role. Or do they want to just check off a box and virtue signal?

And you said, now the reverse of their intention is happening. More sessional instructors, white guys, are getting hired.

I'm all for fairness, it has to happen organically. (like if the Raiders and Chargers had tied organically haha). Companies that recognize fairness will get the best of both sides and the best of people in general. Companies like the ones who are just interviewing Firebot's wife based on tokenism or they thought she was white and were surprised that she wasn't, those companies will naturally just die off.


Edit: Yes, Fuzz, those law firms will just eventually die off. Again, are companies really investing in diversity or just checking boxes? And of course the other side, are minorities expecting promotions based just on race and not performance?

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

He has stated, countless times, that he would refer to someone as whatever they asked of him. It couldn’t be more clear. He always stated that it was about the legislation, not people’s personal preferences.

Didn't he totally mischaracterize and misunderstand Bill C-16? The topic that brought him to prominence.

He's found his lane as a full blow neo-con and it's hard to take him seriously. The man loves a bit of faux-outrage and theatre.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

He has stated, countless times, that he would refer to someone as whatever they asked of him. It couldn’t be more clear. He always stated that it was about the legislation, not people’s personal preferences.

Yes, he has said he will use preferred pronouns.

He has also stated explicitly that he would not use people's preferred ponouns (when his opposition to bill C-16 started).

And, he's said he would use their preferred pronouns specifically "he or she" but not other pronouns such as they/them, or less common ones like ze (even I think this one sounds odd, but if someone asked me to use it, I would do them that courtesy) under the suspicion that it is in fact not part of a persons identity, but likely some sort of power play on their part.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UbmaZQx74

So which Jordan do we believe? Perhaps a closer look at Bill C-16 will provide some insight.

Seriously have you read Bill C-16, it isn't long.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Bi...6_1/C-16_1.PDF

He opposed a bill that literally just added the worlds "Gender Identity or expression" to the list of identifiable groups. That's it, that's all it did.
The bill did no say simply calling someone by the wrong pronouns was now criminal, it simply added gender identity to the list of reasons you can't discriminate against someone.
Like every other group or any other reason on that list, if using the wrong pronouns rises to the level of harassment or discrimination (something he as a professor is in a position to do) then yes, it does become criminal, but simply making a mistake or being a jerk to someone in public does not rise to that level.


So he opposes a bill that provides protection to a group that has faced a lot of discrimination (transgender, non-binary, etc).

He explicitly says, in his opposition of the bill, he will not use the preferred pronouns of those people, which he later walks back partially or fully depending on his audience.

And he does this while using completely contrived reasoning as to why he is so opposed. Reasoning that he is smart enough to understand is contrived.

So yeah, on the balance of his actions on this matter, and in light of his other opinions on gender, equality, diversity etc, I have a hard time believing that his particular views on gender identity weren't the main reason he was opposed to this particular change to legislation (that change again being simply adding gender identity as an identifiable group)

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That's a good anecdote of forcing things. Do people really care about development of say Indigenous. Are they grooming say an high school student in this role. Or do they want to just check off a box and virtue signal?

And you said, now the reverse of their intention is happening. More sessional instructors, white guys, are getting hired.

I wouldn't say this is an accurate summery. Universities are very dedicated to educating Indigenous peoples, through establishing systems of grants, specific counseling and supporting student groups.

There are many Indigenous students interested in history, but like most people the choice between being a teacher, or a nurse, or being an academic historian is obvious for people who want bang for their buck going to uni. 10 years of schooling isnt for the feint of heart.

And to be clear Indigenous Historians are highly sought after, and that is a good thing, most are extremely qualified and have produced some excellent research. It is for this reason that small universities struggle to attract them over larger institutions.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That's a good anecdote of forcing things. Do people really care about development of say Indigenous. Are they grooming say an high school student in this role. Or do they want to just check off a box and virtue signal?

And you said, now the reverse of their intention is happening. More sessional instructors, white guys, are getting hired.

I'm all for fairness, it has to happen organically. (like if the Raiders and Chargers had tied organically haha). Companies that recognize fairness will get the best of both sides and the best of people in general. Companies like the ones who are just interviewing Firebot's wife based on tokenism or they thought she was white and were surprised that she wasn't, those companies will naturally just die off.


Edit: Yes, Fuzz, those law firms will just eventually die off. Again, are companies really investing in diversity or just checking boxes? And of course the other side, are minorities expecting promotions based just on race and not performance?

I appreciate being top of your mind, but not really sure why you mentioned me here...

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I appreciate being top of your mind, but not really sure why you mentioned me here...

D'oh! blankall. You guys have the same colored avatar.

Brainfart, sorry.

[Fuzz]

Confusing my pickle for a toad! Never have I been more offended.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Confusing my pickle for a toad! Never have I been more offended.

To be fair, your pickle is wearing a mask, which makes it a lot harder to recognize them (why would I presume a pickle's gender)

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

He has stated, countless times, that he would refer to someone as whatever they asked of him. It couldn’t be more clear. He always stated that it was about the legislation, not people’s personal preferences.

It's too bad we couldn't prevent all the jailings for misgendering people he was so sure were going to happen.