Channel 4: Jordan Peterson and gender
Scroll to see replies
Original post by DeBruyne18
Oh come off it.
Trans activists aren't eroding 'fundamental rights' nor are we going to slip into a murderous dictatorship because of them.
Trans activists aren't eroding 'fundamental rights' nor are we going to slip into a murderous dictatorship because of them.
Do (at least some) trans activists wish to legislate what people can and cannot say wrt trans people? Yes, they are therefore at least attempting to errode at least one fundamental right.
Original post by DeBruyne18
That's not what the act is doing though.
The whole concept of 'rights', especially 'human rights' is a bit vague and inherently arguable. Are we born with fundamental rights or does society just agree to grant them to us? I personally believe that the only basis for free speech is that society chooses to grant it, rather than people having it inherently.
The whole concept of 'rights', especially 'human rights' is a bit vague and inherently arguable. Are we born with fundamental rights or does society just agree to grant them to us? I personally believe that the only basis for free speech is that society chooses to grant it, rather than people having it inherently.
Peterson's university's lawyers contacted him to inform him to stop because they thought the law could be interpreted in that way. Like I said it's a 'possible' interpretation, which is dangerous legally speaking.
What you say about human rights is interesting and yes it's debatable.
But aren't you admitting now that Peterson is not some crazy person but has a valid point of view that deserves serious attention and debate?
"I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer."
Douglas Murray in The Spectator.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/watch-cathy-newmans-catastrophic-interview-with-jordan-peterson/
Douglas Murray in The Spectator.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/watch-cathy-newmans-catastrophic-interview-with-jordan-peterson/
Original post by Joe312
Peterson was quite clear in the interview that he was talking about a particular similarity in the ideology between Mao and trans activists. He would attribute this similarity to most radical left activists as it happens.
They are both collectivist and as a consequence are willing to repress free speech.
They both believe they are doing this for some greater good.
They both believe they should be given the power in society to decide what others should be allowed to say.
Peterson's point is to show what, throughout history, that kind of tyranny has led to. He thinks free speech is the ultimate value because the free expression of thought is the only way truth can emerge. Truth is the only antidote to Tyranny and also to suffering.
Peterson does feel empathy to the struggle of trans people, but thinks they have become so misguided in their suffering that they don't understand they are chipping away at the pillar which holds all of society together.
I agree with him. I think free speech really does hold a free society together and therefore it is worth the downsides of letting people I think deplorable continuing to speak.
They are both collectivist and as a consequence are willing to repress free speech.
They both believe they are doing this for some greater good.
They both believe they should be given the power in society to decide what others should be allowed to say.
Peterson's point is to show what, throughout history, that kind of tyranny has led to. He thinks free speech is the ultimate value because the free expression of thought is the only way truth can emerge. Truth is the only antidote to Tyranny and also to suffering.
Peterson does feel empathy to the struggle of trans people, but thinks they have become so misguided in their suffering that they don't understand they are chipping away at the pillar which holds all of society together.
I agree with him. I think free speech really does hold a free society together and therefore it is worth the downsides of letting people I think deplorable continuing to speak.
This is both outrageously stupid and extremely pernicious. The people Peterson is targeting are among the most vulnerable people on earth. Trans people consistently suffer pervasive discrimination, including heinous levels of interpersonal violence. The thought that people like Peterson need to be defended from the tyranny of trans people would be funny if it wasn't such a dangerous example of punching down and afflicting the afflicted. It licenses the people who discriminate and cause violence to trans people by giving them the impression they are the people under attack, which is both pathetic and dangerous. The point about how this is extraordinarily pernicious regarding trans people carries over mutatis mutandis to other groups who are disadvantaged as compared to young men, which is more or less all of them (young men are as a class comparatively disadvantaged compared to older men, but not when compared to any other group -- intersectionalities can change this a lot, e.g. in the US young black men are disadvantaged compared to older black men).
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by jam277.5
This is both outrageously stupid and extremely pernicious. The people Peterson is targeting are among the most vulnerable people on earth. Trans people consistently suffer pervasive discrimination, including heinous levels of interpersonal violence. The thought that people like Peterson need to be defended from the tyranny of trans people would be funny if it wasn't such a dangerous example of punching down and afflicting the afflicted. It licenses the people who discriminate and cause violence to trans people by giving them the impression they are the people under attack, which is both pathetic and dangerous. The point about how this is extraordinarily pernicious regarding trans people carries over mutatis mutandis to other groups who are disadvantaged as compared to young men, which is more or less all of them (young men are as a class comparatively disadvantaged compared to older men, but not when compared to any other group).
Peterson has no problem calling trans people by whatever they want to be called. He has empathy for their suffering. He supports their being treated equally before the law.
He does not support giving governments the power to force people to say something. Trans pronouns included.
These are the facts - deal with this in your analysis and I'll see where our disagreement is. So far I don't see it.
Original post by jam277.5
This is both outrageously stupid and extremely pernicious. The people Peterson is targeting are among the most vulnerable people on earth.
The power in his country, thanks to hate speech law which Peterson bravely opposes, lies with the trans lobby.
Check out this recording. A post graduate, at a Canadian University, was hauled before a secret kangeroo court for showing a short clip of Jordan Peterson which had been broadcast on TV in Ontario.
Her career was om the line and she was accused (by the Diversity Police, there), of breaking the law. She clearly hadn't. But she had guts and secretly recorded this bullying. And the university had to back down.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heres-the-full-recording-of-wilfrid-laurier-reprimanding-lindsay-shepherd-for-showing-a-jordan-peterson-video
Basically, this is an example of an ad hominem attack. Saying that communist regimes criticized Liberalism and committed atrocities is true, but it doesn't mean that all criticisms of Liberalism are therefore invalid and should be ignored.
There is lots of scholarship that admits that Liberalism has, in practice, advanced white supremacy throughout its history. For example, Charles W. Mills is an excellent political philosopher who believes that we can preserve Liberalism while also criticizing it for its past injustices in practice. He makes the point that liberal theory, from Kant to Rawls, has focused on ideal theories of a well-ordered society, but we actually live in an ill-ordered society. The focus on ideal theory ignores the fact that actual liberal societies have operated contrary to ideal theory, in terms of explicit and implicit support for white supremacy, patriarchy, etc. He argues that we have to re-imagine Liberalism from the point of view of an ill-ordered society attempting to remedy a history of illiberal violations against basic rights for certain groups. I am referencing, in particular, his criticism of Rawls in his new book Black Rights/White Wrongs.
Now, it is possible to argue for liberal ideal theory in a nuanced way that engages with critics in good faith. But the reason that I call Peterson's argument an ad hominem attack is that it is intended to shut down debate and foreclose the possibility of discussing these issues. If you want to talk about the actual history of oppression, and the complicity of liberal ideal theory in that oppression, you are a "cultural Marxist" and an enemy of freedom, and your criticism is invalid. The only valid perspective is that of liberal ideal theory, which ignores race, gender, religion, etc. The effect of this assertion is that we are prohibited from talking about ways to remedy injustice that has been practiced against groups on the basis of race, gender, etc.
So, it is not necessarily a bad thing to defend liberal ideal theory. But, Peterson just doesn't do a good job because he doesn't actually engage with critics. He just says "you are all enemies of freedom," uses an ad hominem attack, and that's that. He cherry-picks examples of people doing egregiously stupid things, claims that they are representative of everyone on the other side of the debate, and uses this to claim that everyone who advances a similar position is the enemy. This is actually a technique that was pioneered by the Soviet Union to criticize the Liberal West: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
So, it's not that he's advancing an unsupportable position, or that he's wrong about everything. It's that he is not arguing in good faith. If you're going to argue for ideal theory in light of history, you need to have a better response to critics like Charles W. Mills than to wave your hands and say "but Communists did bad things."
There is lots of scholarship that admits that Liberalism has, in practice, advanced white supremacy throughout its history. For example, Charles W. Mills is an excellent political philosopher who believes that we can preserve Liberalism while also criticizing it for its past injustices in practice. He makes the point that liberal theory, from Kant to Rawls, has focused on ideal theories of a well-ordered society, but we actually live in an ill-ordered society. The focus on ideal theory ignores the fact that actual liberal societies have operated contrary to ideal theory, in terms of explicit and implicit support for white supremacy, patriarchy, etc. He argues that we have to re-imagine Liberalism from the point of view of an ill-ordered society attempting to remedy a history of illiberal violations against basic rights for certain groups. I am referencing, in particular, his criticism of Rawls in his new book Black Rights/White Wrongs.
Now, it is possible to argue for liberal ideal theory in a nuanced way that engages with critics in good faith. But the reason that I call Peterson's argument an ad hominem attack is that it is intended to shut down debate and foreclose the possibility of discussing these issues. If you want to talk about the actual history of oppression, and the complicity of liberal ideal theory in that oppression, you are a "cultural Marxist" and an enemy of freedom, and your criticism is invalid. The only valid perspective is that of liberal ideal theory, which ignores race, gender, religion, etc. The effect of this assertion is that we are prohibited from talking about ways to remedy injustice that has been practiced against groups on the basis of race, gender, etc.
So, it is not necessarily a bad thing to defend liberal ideal theory. But, Peterson just doesn't do a good job because he doesn't actually engage with critics. He just says "you are all enemies of freedom," uses an ad hominem attack, and that's that. He cherry-picks examples of people doing egregiously stupid things, claims that they are representative of everyone on the other side of the debate, and uses this to claim that everyone who advances a similar position is the enemy. This is actually a technique that was pioneered by the Soviet Union to criticize the Liberal West: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
So, it's not that he's advancing an unsupportable position, or that he's wrong about everything. It's that he is not arguing in good faith. If you're going to argue for ideal theory in light of history, you need to have a better response to critics like Charles W. Mills than to wave your hands and say "but Communists did bad things."
Jordan is insanely measured and calm in all situations, which is his strength - he tries to be logical and fair.
I didn't like her arguments, but the worst thing about the "interview" was how rude and childish she was. If you're not going to be logical and respectful, then don't bother doing it in the first place. Rude Beatch.
I didn't like her arguments, but the worst thing about the "interview" was how rude and childish she was. If you're not going to be logical and respectful, then don't bother doing it in the first place. Rude Beatch.
Original post by Ganjaweed Rebel
Criticising someone for ''having no formal training'' and claiming that academics criticise him are not arguments. Either you can state what his arguments are and why they are wrong, without reference to his background or you should not speak on the matter at all.
Not going to weigh in on the merits of Jordan Peterson's arguments but what exactly is this post addressing? The feature, being "not-a-philosopher," isn't really the pivot-point for the backlash; it is the credence of the views themselves. If somebody adept in a subject talks about another's lack of expertise then this is a shorthand way of illuminating their wrongness (in the proponents eyes), and making it clear that their claims should not be treated as authority (which is where they get their social power).
If an academic sees a layman speaking in a subject it is absolutely necessary that if somebody does speak erroneously then it's most appropriate if academics versed in the subject critique him. This isn't some kind of appeal to authority here; it would be necessary to highlight what academic / scholarly critics think of the issue outside of ordinary users on the internet
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Cathy Newman now using the classic feminist tactic of claiming she is the victim of "misogynstic abuse" after she made herself look like an idiot.
If anyone is genuinely making threats against her, then obviously they should desist, and hopefully they will be brought before the police.
If anyone is genuinely making threats against her, then obviously they should desist, and hopefully they will be brought before the police.
And rather conveniently the focus will now be on her 'abuse' rather than her losing the argument.
Watch as the progressive media hone in on the only three threatening comments they can find amongst the three thousand that call her out on her fallacious reasoning.
Sony play the same tactics when the public slated Amy Schumas show.
All the reasonable well Thought Out criticisms we've removed and only the rabid anti-feminist loons posts were left thereby making it sound like a personal Vendetta when in fact it was a very good critique of the fact that a show was utter cack.
All the reasonable well Thought Out criticisms we've removed and only the rabid anti-feminist loons posts were left thereby making it sound like a personal Vendetta when in fact it was a very good critique of the fact that a show was utter cack.
Original post by Ganjaweed Rebel
Libertarianism isn't neo-liberalism; this is an intellectually foolish and dishonest and when those on the conservative right claim National Socialism (Nazism) and Socialism are equivalent. Try again.
Pinochet's Chile was very right wing neo-liberal and in favour of the 'free market'. He was supported by Libertarians such as Friedman and Hayek. He was a also a brutal dictator.
Original post by limetang
Do (at least some) trans activists wish to legislate what people can and cannot say wrt trans people? Yes, they are therefore at least attempting to errode at least one fundamental right.
That's such over-dramatic language. They want legal protections of the kind which are given to groups such as homosexuals, Jewish people and blacks.
You're right to 'free speech' does not trump someone else's right to be racially abused, or discriminated against.
Original post by Rinsed
Socialists, whether I agree with them or not on a given issue, are concerned with society and that's a perfectly respectable impulse. Many SJWs today, like the Bolsheviks before them, are concerned with individual facets of identity and aim to sow discord amongst society based upon them.
One is expected to be concerned only with your membership of whatever groups have been created, and indeed to view the others with suspicion or hostility. The communists pitted the classes against each other, trans-activists pit gender-identities against each other, radical feminists pit the sexes against one another, and yes, nationalists pit ethnicities/nationalities against one another. And, once this conflict has been created, a great many things can be justified group which might have seemed absurd in more harmonious times. All for your protection, you understand.
For example, the #MeToo scandal started with a reasonable causus belli, but increasingly reads like a chapter of Animal Farm. Male actors can lose their jobs with only an accusation, and long-time feminists who suggest that maybe the absence of due-process is not a good thing for sexual equality are accused of treachery to their sex. God help men who complain, you will be assumed to be a misogynist. Likewise trans-activists want to ensure people may only speak, and therefore think, in ways which they approve of. Peterson's point is that, even in the absence of millions dead, they are using tactics which Mao and Stalin would well have understood.
One is expected to be concerned only with your membership of whatever groups have been created, and indeed to view the others with suspicion or hostility. The communists pitted the classes against each other, trans-activists pit gender-identities against each other, radical feminists pit the sexes against one another, and yes, nationalists pit ethnicities/nationalities against one another. And, once this conflict has been created, a great many things can be justified group which might have seemed absurd in more harmonious times. All for your protection, you understand.
For example, the #MeToo scandal started with a reasonable causus belli, but increasingly reads like a chapter of Animal Farm. Male actors can lose their jobs with only an accusation, and long-time feminists who suggest that maybe the absence of due-process is not a good thing for sexual equality are accused of treachery to their sex. God help men who complain, you will be assumed to be a misogynist. Likewise trans-activists want to ensure people may only speak, and therefore think, in ways which they approve of. Peterson's point is that, even in the absence of millions dead, they are using tactics which Mao and Stalin would well have understood.
I think you and several others wildly overestimate and overstate 'SJW' influence and activity. There seems to be a real tendency among those on the right (and some in the centre) to play this up dramatically, probably so they feel like they have something to fight against.
Sure, there are some annoying people as mentioned. But there also seems to be a worrying tendency from your side to conflate being anti-pc with being an a*shole. The Toby Young fiasco demonstrated this rather well. He's said some truly awful things which any teacher would have been sacked for. They made him unfit to have such a role in education, regardless of his policies. Yet many on the right were determined to make out this was an attack on their freedoms. You have a right to be an a*sshole. You don't have a right not be judged negatively for it and have it held against you.
The whole comparing trans activists to Mao, on any level is idiotic. It's slanderous waffle. If you disagree with them, fine. But to argue that they are being like a brutal dictator who killed millions, is just absurd. If you compare someone to Mao you know the implications. Why does Peterson not go after the loonies on the right? Why is it only the 'radical left' he seems to have such a problem with?
Original post by Joe312
Peterson's university's lawyers contacted him to inform him to stop because they thought the law could be interpreted in that way. Like I said it's a 'possible' interpretation, which is dangerous legally speaking.
What you say about human rights is interesting and yes it's debatable.
But aren't you admitting now that Peterson is not some crazy person but has a valid point of view that deserves serious attention and debate?
What you say about human rights is interesting and yes it's debatable.
But aren't you admitting now that Peterson is not some crazy person but has a valid point of view that deserves serious attention and debate?
The law hasn't been interpreted or applied like that though has it?
I think he made some good points but also some bat sh*t crazy points, like comparing trans activists to Mao. Don't make such ludicrous arguments and i'll take him more seriously.
I also can't stand his fanboys, they're insufferable. Nor can I stand that he seems happy that the alt-right are throwing their weight behind him.
Original post by DeBruyne18
Pinochet's Chile was very right wing neo-liberal and in favour of the 'free market'. He was supported by Libertarians such as Friedman and Hayek. He was a also a brutal dictator.
Well done for ignoring what I said repeating the nonsense your originally said.
Original post by Ganjaweed Rebel
Well done for ignoring what I said repeating the nonsense your originally said.
Stop playing on semantics.
Original post by DeBruyne18
The law hasn't been interpreted or applied like that though has it?
Original post by DeBruyne18
I think he made some good points but also some bat sh*t crazy points, like comparing trans activists to Mao. Don't make such ludicrous arguments and i'll take him more seriously.
Original post by DeBruyne18
I also can't stand his fanboys, they're insufferable. Nor can I stand that he seems happy that the alt-right are throwing their weight behind him.
I've not heard him say much about the alt right, got any quotes to back that up?
About his fans, well... who cares lol.
Original post by AperfectBalance
"No formal training" with philosophy, you do not need "training" to be a philosopher
I think that assertion depends on an entirely false belief that a philosopher is just someone who sits around thinking about things.
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5153694
I made a thread regarding his new book. I've only just finished chapter one but I'm enjoying it!
On topic: I enjoyed the interview. Peterson probably enjoyed it. The interviewer, while grating and jumping the gun quite often, played devil's advocate quite well and even had the humour to admit to being caught out. Channel 4 also released the video virtually unedited. Even more people will buy the book now. Jordan handled himself with excellent composure I thought.
And I knew noxious terms such as "sjw's" and "snowflakes" would be overflowing in this thread. They're often used in a lazy and generalised mannered too.
I made a thread regarding his new book. I've only just finished chapter one but I'm enjoying it!
On topic: I enjoyed the interview. Peterson probably enjoyed it. The interviewer, while grating and jumping the gun quite often, played devil's advocate quite well and even had the humour to admit to being caught out. Channel 4 also released the video virtually unedited. Even more people will buy the book now. Jordan handled himself with excellent composure I thought.
And I knew noxious terms such as "sjw's" and "snowflakes" would be overflowing in this thread. They're often used in a lazy and generalised mannered too.
(edited 6 years ago)
C4 have had to call in security experts as a result of the threats made against the interviewer.
Just the alt right acting like a bunch of entitled little *****es who can't help lashing out with vile abuse and death threats whenever one of their little shitbois is challenged.
Just the alt right acting like a bunch of entitled little *****es who can't help lashing out with vile abuse and death threats whenever one of their little shitbois is challenged.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Does carbohydrates cause acne?
- What’s meant by this
- Depressed that I am not in a relationship
- Psychology memory
- What YouTube tutorial channels do you watch?
- My good friend has invited everyone except me to his baby shower. How do I respond?
- Who will win the EFL Cup?
- Please answer this short questionnaire!
- is it actually useful
- Big 4 or Civil Service Graduate Programme?
- A Level English Language Investigation ideas
- What is your claim to fame?
- English language paper 2
- im nearly 17 and still afraid of talking to girls
- Marketing Level 4 Apprenticeships
- Advice for writing an essay
- Can I learn Alevel bio and chem AS/A2 content in 5 months in prep for 2024 exams?
- EPQ Question Ideas?
- Switching from university to a journalism apprenticeship!
- Nottingham veterinary medicine (D100) September 2023
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
