The intellectual dark web

[icecube]

Jordan Peterson doxxes two student activists

Psychology prof tweets Facebook profiles of students protesting event

https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/30/jor...ent-activists/

Elizabeth has received extensive hate mail and harassment via Facebook, some of which have bordered on death threats. “These are his fans,” said Elizabeth. “These are the people he’s pandering to. This is why I take issue.”

This seems pretty hostile, knowing what would occur after siccing his fans on these people

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by icecube

If you played the righteous liberal drinking game on Calgarypuck you'd die of alcohol poisoning after scrolling through a couple of pages of this thread.

You could do this in a couple threads. I tend to avoid those.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I don't understand how anything Peterson has said here can be considered hostile so I'm simply trying to understand where this is coming from

Openly saying you're not going to address trans people by their preferred pronouns is hostile. I can agree to the notion that forcing someone to do so is considered compelled speech, but being the guy who won't refer to a transwoman as "she" or "her" makes you kind of a dick.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Openly saying you're not going to address trans people by their preferred pronouns is hostile. I can agree to the notion that forcing someone to do so is considered compelled speech, but being the guy who won't refer to a transwoman as "she" or "her" makes you kind of a dick.

He also has openly said he would if approached by a specific individual, of which he has had no requests (at the time).

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Openly saying you're not going to address trans people by their preferred pronouns is hostile. I can agree to the notion that forcing someone to do so is considered compelled speech, but being the guy who won't refer to a transwoman as "she" or "her" makes you kind of a dick.

Hasn't he said that if a person asked him to address them a certain way that he would do it, he just doesn't want to be mandated by law to do it.

He addresses it in the interview I just posted

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by dobbles

The unfortunate reality though is that even if that is true, the right has already effectively branded the party/the left as nothing but these people we read about online. The left has to do a better job of publicly dismissing those too far left. If we are going to rail on conservatives on climate change for example, we need to also rail on vaxxers who are often to the left.

I'm not surprised at the zeal of the radical left. It's been a thing in politics for a long time - the term political correctness was first popularized when I was in college in the early 90s. And identarian dogma has been around for decades.

What's troubling is how rapidly it has been embraced by the media and cultural elites, wholesale, essentially without debate or reflection. Social media has magnified the power of zealots, and they have not hesitated to use that power to cowe institutions and ruin careers. Beliefs that only seven or eight years ago wer confined to the far-left of campus humanites programs are now vigorously enforced as social norms, without anything close to a majority of public support, or even public debate.

The zealots are only doing what zealots have always done. The real threat to liberalism has been to moral cowardice of the journalists, politicians, corporate executives, and college administrators who roll over whenever the zealots bark. Much of it is simply tribalism - these loons may take things too far, but they're on our side, so I'll go along with it. That's a dangerous game. And I doubt it'll be a winning game either.

Some of it is a kind of religious conversion. It seems many people really do need some kind of simple, absolute, unchallengeable moral paradigm to filter all social conflicts through. Especially in times of anxiety and rapid change. I guess it's easier than thinking.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Some of it is a kind of religious conversion. It seems many people really do need some kind of simple, absolute, unchallengeable moral paradigm to filter all social conflicts through. Especially in times of anxiety and rapid change. I guess it's easier than thinking.

You do realize this is exactly what Peterson is offering his converts, too, right?

[icecube]

Has anyone shared this article yet?


A Field Guide to Jordan Peterson’s Political Arguments

If someone is on TV talking about how suppressed their free speech is…their free speech isn’t being suppressed

https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-g...s-312153eac99a

climate denial has nothing on racism denial. Or bigotry denial. Ultimately, I’ve come to view the sort of arguments that Peterson indulges in as yet another form of that denial. For many people, Peterson included, it’s more psychologically convenient to complain about “PC culture” than it is to ask ourselves how we can actually help trans people who are being discriminated against.
For people in positions of privilege and power, it takes far more courage to confront their own biases and stand in solidarity with people who are being discriminated against than it does to complain about people who disagree with them being mean on the Internet.

[FiftyBelow]

What's troubling is how rapidly it has been embraced by the media and cultural elites, wholesale, essentially without debate or reflection. Social media has magnified the power of zealots, and they have not hesitated to use that power to cowe institutions and ruin careers. Beliefs that only seven or eight years ago wer confined to the far-left of campus humanites programs are now vigorously enforced as social norms, without anything close to a majority of public support, or even public debate.

A lot of the pro-arguments for PC are grounded in sentimentality. I mean, at face value, who can argue you with nice sounding ideas as anti hate speech, equality, rights etc?

[rubecube]

Also I'm probably a few pages behind here, but I finally got around to reading the NYT piece from Nellie Bowles, and yes it is obviously a hit piece, but have there been any protests from Peterson about him being misquoted? I really tried to focus on his actual quotes instead of the narrative surrounding them, and he sounds like a more insane version of peter12.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Hasn't he said that if a person asked him to address them a certain way that he would do it, he just doesn't want to be mandated by law to do it.

He addresses it in the interview I just posted

I've seen him several times explain clearly that he would be happy to address a person as they request. This is what is so infuriating about the far left, they simply don't care and will continue to say things like this:

Openly saying you're not going to address trans people by their preferred pronouns is hostile.

This is a lie, period. Peterson never said he would refuse to address a person how they prefer he said the opposite.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by zamler

I've seen him several times explain clearly that he would be happy to address a person as they request. This is what is so infuriating about the far left, they simply don't care and will continue to say things like this:
This is a lie, period. Peterson never said he would refuse to address a person how they prefer he said the opposite.

It's no more of a lie than Peterson stating that Bill C-16 would compel him to address trans people by their preferred pronouns. But fine, if it was an unfair mischaracterization, I'll walk it back. One of Seth's reasons for believing that Peterson is hostile towards trans people is right in that tweet.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson
9/ Peterson is hostile to transgender persons—even regularly mis-citing data on such persons and on being transgender—because he holds an essentialist view of gender that originates in myth. So his postmodernism hides a retrograde philosophy. But where's his post-postmodernism?

He actually expands on this in another tweet.

https://twitter.com/user/status/998029909825085440

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's no more of a lie than Peterson stating that Bill C-16 would compel him to address trans people by their preferred pronouns. But fine, if it was an unfair mischaracterization, I'll walk it back. One of Seth's reasons for believing that Peterson is hostile towards trans people is right in that tweet.



He actually expands on this in another tweet.

Is it really a lie though? Sure, extreme cases will likely be few and far between. But anytime anything becomes a law, in principle, it is backed by the hard power of the state. It's why you make a law in the first place.

[GirlySports]

rubecube, listen to the discussion above, it's Peterson in his own words.

and why would Peterson protest about being misquoted. He just lets people misquote him, they're allowed to.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

Is it really a lie though? Sure, extreme cases will likely be few and far between. But anytime anything becomes a law, in principle, it is backed by the hard power of the state. It's why you make a law in the first place.

Because it's not what the law states or how the Charter works. Adding gender identity to the Charter has nothing to do with language. It means you can't discriminate against someone on the basis that they do not identify with their biological sex. That means things such as denying services, employment, etc.

So yeah, if we're going to call out the far left for distorting the facts, then why are we not holding Peterson to the same standards? The guy completely talked out of his ass on this topic and refuses to back off or come correct on it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

rubecube, listen to the discussion above, it's Peterson in his own words.

and why would Peterson protest about being misquoted. He just lets people misquote him, they're allowed to.

Relevant meme:

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Also I'm probably a few pages behind here, but I finally got around to reading the NYT piece from Nellie Bowles, and yes it is obviously a hit piece, but have there been any protests from Peterson about him being misquoted? I really tried to focus on his actual quotes instead of the narrative surrounding them, and he sounds like a more insane version of peter12.

[GirlySports]

ha

that's not my argument, i think the discussion in the above video is a good one and relevant to your thoughts

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Openly saying you're not going to address trans people by their preferred pronouns is hostile. I can agree to the notion that forcing someone to do so is considered compelled speech, but being the guy who won't refer to a transwoman as "she" or "her" makes you kind of a dick.

How many times does it need to be said that Peterson has no problem calling people by their preferred pronouns. We have a video no more than 2 pages back with this quote.

Why are you misrepresenting Peterson's position? Why are you lying?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You do realize this is exactly what Peterson is offering his converts, too, right?

He says people need goals. He also says we should give some thought before we tear down existing norms. I don't see him presenting a collective, conformist program.