Oops. Obviously I have to post better than boingboing leading to a somethingawful article.
That would be greatly appreciated. Makes you come off as being more thoughtful about the issue and having exercised some critical thought on the issue.
For example, these three links portray the issue much differently than your first ridiculous link from WND, and actually drill down into the matter of gender dysphoria, discussing some important facts that drive families to make decisions, and the protocols for following through on such transition. They also don't deliver pre-packaged ideology and give a reader something to draw their own conclusions - those nasty things called facts.
The WND article is filled with inaccuracies and leave many important details on the cutting room floor, so it can present the most sensationalist and inflammatory bend on the issue possible. The WND article does not discuss the actual process of gender reassignment with any level of detail, or why certain procedures are done at give times. It is all rhetoric without substance on the why of the story. My favorite bit of bull#### from the WND story is the inflammatory section head "No one can determine gender identity of 2-year-old," which no one has ever suggested nor acted upon, but it sure makes for salacious reading and activates the fear mechanisms in the brains of conservatives. And you also have to admit that having the following link in the article, not just once, but twice, does tip off the reader to the obvious bias injected into the article.
The other articles provide those nasty facts and balance that provide so much clarity on the issue, and make it easier to understand and not get all worked up about.
"Gender-reassignment surgery, which may include removing or creating penises, is only done by a handful of U.S. doctors, on patients at least 18 years old, Spack said. His clinic has worked with local surgeons who've done breast removal surgery on girls at age 16, but that surgery can be relatively minor, or avoided, if puberty is halted in time, he said."
Ah, so no lopping off of body parts of young children like the impression one would get from the WND article. In fact, there is a method and reason to starting such treatment early on.
"Kids will more easily pass as the opposite gender, and require less drastic treatment later, if drug treatment starts early, Spack said."
So this is a drug regiment, and mostly hormone treatment. But this is all done willy-nilly, right?
"Kids that young and their families get psychological counseling and are monitored until the first signs of puberty emerge, usually around age 11 or 12. Then children are given puberty-blocking drugs, in monthly $1,000 injections or implants imbedded in the arm."
No, there are proper protocols to go through for such reassignment, and there is a medical basis for the treatment schedule. And clearly, by time the patient is displaying the signs of puberty, gender imprinting will have long been determined. So basically, nothing to see here.
It is amazing what understanding you can get from actual journalism and not from sensationalist bull#### like ideologically slanted websites/blogs and bad youtube videos.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
From eclectic, innovative, quick thinker to megalomaniac??
Not a particularly persuasive article. The author now says that Peterson is dangerous and untrustworthy but doesn't say why. He only alludes to the fact that he believes Peterson sees himself as some sort of messianic figure. The piece is a little too fluffy to take seriously.
I'm no expert on Peterson but I've watched a few debates and read a few pieces both by Peterson and about Peterson. I think a lot of what he purports is reasonable and interesting. However, what really concerns me is that Peterson has a tendency to be vague, opaque and wishy-washy when it comes to certain topics. When asked about the alt-right he'll usually say something along the lines of "I don't support any sort of racist doctrine but the Marxist leftists are (followed by 5 minutes of ranting about the extreme left)" It's always the same pattern: a very short blurb somewhat addressing the question followed by a long diatribe against his chosen enemy.
It seems that everything he does is seen through the prism of "yeah, but about those Post-Modern Marxist Leftists..." What's the opposite version of Godwining called when you use the worst example of an extreme-left wing philosophy to make your point? Petersoning?
It's another hit piece, but actually started off pretty well. There are moments of clarity when it isn't just transparent smearing, disingenuously referring to other hit pieces as "legitimate criticism" and certitudinous declarations of things as if they were facts and not contentious. In particular, these are well said:
Quote:
At the same time, his interest in political issues became more apparent. We disagreed about most things, but I don’t ask of my friends that we agree. What was off-putting was his tendency to be categorical about his positions, reminiscent of his lectures where he presented personal theories as absolute truths. I rarely challenged him. He overwhelmed challenges with volumes of information that were hard to process and evaluate. He was more forceful than I, and had a much quicker mind. Also, again evocative of what I saw in the classroom, he sometimes appeared to be in the thrall of his ideas and would not, or could not, constrain himself and self-monitor what he was saying.
Quote:
Remarkably, the 50 students always showed up at 9 a.m. and were held in rapt attention for an hour. Jordan was a captivating lecturer — electric and eclectic — cherry-picking from neuroscience, mythology, psychology, philosophy, the Bible and popular culture. The class loved him. But, as reported by that one astute student, Jordan presented conjecture as statement of fact. I expressed my concern to him about this a number of times, and each time Jordan agreed. He acknowledged the danger of such practices, but then continued to do it again and again, as if he could not control himself.
He was a preacher more than a teacher.
Quote:
More recently, when questioned about the merits of 12 Rules for Life, Jordan answered that he must be doing something right because of the huge response the book has received. How odd given what he said in that same interview about demagogues and cheering crowds. In an article published in January in the Spectator, Douglas Murray described the atmosphere at one of Jordan’s talks as “ecstatic.”
I have no way of knowing whether Jordan is aware that he is playing out of the same authoritarian demagogue handbook that he himself has described. If he is unaware, then his ironic failure, unwillingness, or inability to see in himself what he attributes to them is very disconcerting.
Quote:
He is a biological and Darwinian determinist. Gender, gender roles, dominance hierarchies, parenthood, all firmly entrenched in our biological heritage and not to be toyed with. Years ago when he was living in my house, he said children are little monkeys trying to clamber up the dominance hierarchy and need to be kept in their place. I thought he was being ironic. Apparently, not.
These concerns are worth talking about.
Then it goes off the rails completely right around the point where it defends Marxism as a political philosophy and accuses Peterson of being the one to employ McCarthyist tactics. No mention of Shepard's star chamber experience. Much of the rest of it is just smear after smear and deliberate misrepresentation. Totally undercuts the good parts of the article, the legitimate cautions on offer, with hyperbole and nonsense. Which is pretty unfortunate.
I still haven't seen a better critique than James Lindsay's.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Of course it is. Anything that is critical of the Dear Leader is a hit piece. Anything that does not fellate the new President of the "White Men Have Been Given a Raw Deal Club" is clearly an unfair assessment of the brilliance of one Jordan Peterson.
I think it is interesting to hear from the individual who helped create Jordon Peterson, to see him write about the history behind the man and his observations as an academic and mentor. It provides a great deal of context that is lacking about Peterson, and it answers many of the questions I posed about how his faculty and the university feel about his work. I think it is interesting to know about the development of the man and the changes that happen to people as success comes to them. I especially find it interesting to hear from those who saw the promise in someone and help the individual grow to what they are today. None of the stuff in this piece is surprising, as every college has at least one "Jordon Peterson" in every faculty, and they all share the same level of arrogance and bad behaviors. It is just interesting to read that Jordon is "that guy" in the faculty. No hit piece here, just the guy that hired Peterson exploring the falling of the dominoes he set into motion.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
It's another hit piece, but actually started off pretty well. There are moments of clarity when it isn't just transparent smearing, disingenuously referring to other hit pieces as "legitimate criticism" and certitudinous declarations of things as if they were facts and not contentious. In particular, these are well said:
These concerns are worth talking about.
Then it goes off the rails completely right around the point where it defends Marxism as a political philosophy and accuses Peterson of being the one to employ McCarthyist tactics. No mention of Shepard's star chamber experience. Much of the rest of it is just smear after smear and deliberate misrepresentation. Totally undercuts the good parts of the article, the legitimate cautions on offer, with hyperbole and nonsense. Which is pretty unfortunate.
I still haven't seen a better critique than James Lindsay's.
How isn't marxism a legitimate political philosophy? It's literally one of the foundations of modern social science and extremely important. It bothers me that campus has effectively become a neo-marxist hot bed (i.e. it's the only tool in the toolbox so everything looks like a nail) but to suggest it's not a valuable tool in examining social hierarchies and systems is dishonest.
__________________
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
How isn't marxism a legitimate political philosophy? It's literally one of the foundations of modern social science and extremely important. It bothers me that campus has effectively become a neo-marxist hot bed (i.e. it's the only tool in the toolbox so everything looks like a nail) but to suggest it's not a valuable tool in examining social hierarchies and systems is dishonest.
I didn't suggest that. I suggested that it shouldn't be defended as a viable political philosophy. Here is what the article says.
Quote:
Calling Marxism, a respectable political and philosophical tradition, “murderous” conflates it with the perversion of those ideas in Stalinist Russia and elsewhere where they were. That is like calling Christianity a murderous ideology because of the blood that was shed in its name during the Inquisition, the Crusades and the great wars of Europe. That is ridiculous.
Those two things are not remotely comparable. There are clear examples of Marxist politics in modern goverments. They inevitably end badly. There is no large scale example in modern history of a Christian theocracy - not even close, in spite of obvious pandering to Christians throughout the 20th century. Moreover, Christianity is a religion first, not a political philosophy. It's a bad analogy.
My objection is to the writer suggesting that Marxism was simply perverted in every instance in which it was enacted in the 20th century, and its pure form, is completely viable if only it could be tried somewhere. I think that's wrong, and hopelessly naive.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The hold Peterson has on his disciples, that every article critical of him is no more than a “hit piece,” is truly incredible. I’m inclined to believe the idea that Peterson sees himself as some sort of messiah, he’s certainly growing a following with similar traits to that of a religion. It’s kind of unfortunate to watch otherwise intelligent people succumb so easily. Very sad.
Of course it is. Anything that is critical of the Dear Leader is a hit piece. Anything that does not fellate the new President of the "White Men Have Been Given a Raw Deal Club" is clearly an unfair assessment of the brilliance of one Jordan Peterson.
You are a challenging person to have conversations with between little snide comments like this and the inability to see your own hypocrisy. I think many people in here have been both critical and supportive of some aspects of Peterson's style and content but I guess you see what you want to see.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cain For This Useful Post:
My objection is to the writer suggesting that Marxism was simply perverted in every instance in which it was enacted in the 20th century, and its pure form, is completely viable if only it could be tried somewhere. I think that's wrong, and hopelessly naive.
It might be naive, but it’s true. It’s an impossible truth. Marxism, like many other viable political ideologies that have influence today, in their “pure” form would work exceptionally well. But like almost all of them, the purity is impossible, as the human condition is the greatest negative influence to any social theory.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
The hold Peterson has on his disciples, that every article critical of him is no more than a “hit piece,” is truly incredible. I’m inclined to believe the idea that Peterson sees himself as some sort of messiah, he’s certainly growing a following with similar traits to that of a religion. It’s kind of unfortunate to watch otherwise intelligent people succumb so easily. Very sad.
Are you trying to suggest I'm a "disciple" after I've routinely and consistently criticized the guy as a crazy person? Because that's the obvious conclusion that any reader of this page would draw given that I'm the one who referred to it as a hit piece, so if you didn't mean that, you should clarify.
Anyway, it's clearly a hit piece. It's deliberately designed to sewer his reputation. Patently. How could you read it any other way? The fact that there are legitimate criticisms and good points interspersed is only undercut by the obvious agenda to smear him. If the author had just stuck to those, and not engaged in this stuff:
Quote:
His strategy is eerily familiar. In the 1950s a vicious attack on freedom of speech and thought occurred in the United States at the hands of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee. People suspected of having left-wing, “Communist” leanings were blacklisted and silenced. It was a frightening period of lost jobs, broken lives and betrayal. Ironically, around this time the Stasi were doing the same to people in East Berlin who were disloyal to that very same “murderous” ideology.
That's just a smear. And then you have this:
Quote:
Not long afterwards the following message was sent from his wife’s email address exhorting recipients to sign a petition opposing Ontario’s Bill 28. That bill proposed changing the language in legislation about families from “mother” and “father” to the gender-neutral “parents.”
“A new bill, introduced in Ontario on September 29th, subjugates the natural family to the transgender agenda. The bill — misleadingly called the ‘All Families Are Equal Act’ — is moving extremely fast. We must ACT NOW to stop this bill from passing into law.”
This is not a free-speech issue so Jordan is wearing a different political hat. And what does a “transgender agenda” have to do with a bill protecting same-sex parents? What is this all about?
Good ####ing question! What IS that all about? Does he still hold that view? That should give serious pause to anyone defending him if he does. I would like to know his reasoning. If the article simply stuck to this instead of the conclusory moral self-righteousness, it would have been an effective critique.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
It might be naive, but it’s true. It’s an impossible truth. Marxism, like many other viable political ideologies that have influence today, in their “pure” form would work exceptionally well. But like almost all of them, the purity is impossible, as the human condition is the greatest negative influence to any social theory.
I don't know how Marxism even in it's pure form can work. Collectivism? co-ownership of property? Production and Technology hinder progress? Could there be no money at all?
Who is the state? Who makes the decisions? someone has to and that turns into a higher class system.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
But, as reported by that one astute student, Jordan presented conjecture as statement of fact.
There are entire programs at U of T and every other Canadian university that present ideological dogma as fact. The patriarchy, neo-colonialism, privilege. These aren't empirical scientific truths, but ideological constructs. And there are whole courses and programs where they are not presented as one of many ways to interpret our society, but as absolute truths.
So if we're going to eliminate ideology masquerading as fact from academia, it's going to be a much bigger job than clamping down on Peterson.
Quote:
“You don’t understand. I am willing to lose everything, my home, my job etc., because I believe in this.” And then he said, with the intensity he is now famous for, “Bernie. Tammy had a dream, and sometimes her dreams are prophetic. She dreamed that it was five minutes to midnight.”
That was our last conversation. He was playing out the ideas that appeared in his first book. The social order is coming apart. We are on the edge of chaos. He is the prophet, and he would be the martyr. Jordan would be our saviour. I think he believes that.
This rings true. I don't think Peterson's ambitions are about money, as many of his critics (especially the Canadian critics) assert. My sense is Peterson genuinely believes he's spreading a message vital for the future of society. But there's something alarming about his messianic posturing, and how it's received by his more ardent fans.
Quote:
Jordan is not part of the alt-right. He fits no mould. But he should be concerned about what the “dark desires” of the alt-right might be. He could be, perhaps unwittingly, activating “the dark desires” of that mob.
Peterson has repeatedly condemned the alt-right. He has repeatedly said white nativism is a terrible idea. He's spent as much time lecturing about the terrible history of fascism as he has about the terrible history of communism.
Most people in the West today, I'd guess 80+ per cent, find leftist identity politics to be obnoxious folly. Among that 80+ per cent of people are the 10 per cent or so who are white nationalists, or alt-right. Any scathing indictment of the far left is going to be cheered by the far right. That's only concerning if you're trapped in binary thinking and believe there is only Left and Right - if you don't understand that the great majority of people dislike both the far left and far right.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 05-25-2018 at 10:07 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Contrapoints is usually ok - but of course 5 seconds into telling her audience who Jordan Peterson is she gets it all wrong .. "Protecting transgender rights under the Canadian human rights act will lead to Stalinism" That is a massive hyperbolic misrepresentation of the facts of what Jordan Peterson did or thinks.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
The Following User Says Thank You to MelBridgeman For This Useful Post:
Marxism is a tool for analyzing social structures. It has its use as a kind of lens. However, it has limitations, which is why it shouldn't be the only lens through which you analyze society. And its usefulness has declined as we've moved away from the kind of labour-intensive industrial economy that Marx and Engels based their observations on.
Today's identarian politics isn't a threat to liberalism because it uses Marxism to examine power relationships. It's a threat because it sees all of society through a Marxist lens, and strives to delegitimise any alternative explanations for behaviour and outcomes. The progressive left today does not use Marxism as a tool, they wield it as a weaponized dogma.
Communism, which is the society-wide implementation of a Marxist program, is dangerous folly. However sincere its ideals, it has proven impossible to implement without a totalitarian authority at the top employing industrial-scale violence to achieve and maintain the system.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
