Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[RobbieK]

I'm not interested in your critiques of Peterson. That has never been the issue. Your hypocrisy is the issue.

My hypocrisy on this issue is a direct response to Peterson's own hypocrisy on this issue.

Does that "defend" my hypocrisy? No, it is still hypocrisy from me.

Again, though, I wonder why you are more concerned about my hypocrisy than the dangerous and false messages that Peterson promotes about addiction... I'm just some random on an internet forum, he is a person being presented as one of the most significant intellectuals in the world.

 

[Suspense]

I'm not sure why you insist they're entirely separate.

We are discussing what makes the use of preferred pronouns unreasonable within a work context. We both agreed having to remember and correctly assign 60+ genders to x amount of students would be impractical and unreasonable.

However, in Peterson's own words, he deems in unreasonable, not due to the overwhelming number of gender-neutral pronouns, but because he does not "recognize another person's right to decide what words I'm going to use, especially when the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language and they are constructs of a small coterie of ideologically motivated people".

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This is not my idea. Stop reading idiot books like those from jordan peterson and read from actual experts in their fields like Sean Carroll and Steven pinker. what i posted was not controversial or original.

Are you pretending to be informed? Does Steven Pinker know the difference between then/than?

I agree that nothing you post is likely to be original.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

My hypocrisy on this issue is a direct response to Peterson's own hypocrisy on this issue.

That makes no sense. How does Peterson's alleged hypocrisy justify yours? It doesn't.

Are you saying it's impossible to criticise Peterson without being a hypocrite yourself? That's pathetic.

Does that "defend" my hypocrisy? No, it is still hypocrisy from me.

Yes. You're a desperate hypocrite. Glad we agree.

Again, though, I wonder why you are more concerned about my hypocrisy than the dangerous and false messages that Peterson promotes about addiction.

Because a) I don't accept that chararcterisation. And b) that was never my concern. I don't feel compelled to defend Peterson's positions because, as I've said, I find a significant number of them unconvincing anyway. I'm not wedded to them at all.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

We are discussing what makes the use of preferred pronouns unreasonable within a work context. We both agreed having to remember and correctly assign 60+ genders to x amount of students would be impractical and unreasonable.

However, in Peterson's own words, he deems in unreasonable, not due to the overwhelming number of gender-neutral pronouns, but because he does not "recognize another person's right to decide what words I'm going to use, especially when the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language and they are constructs of a small coterie of ideologically motivated people".

Yeah, that illustrates his ideological concerns, which I don't dispute. It doesn't indicate that he doesn't also deem it impractical, which it quite clearly would be.

 

[RobbieK]

That makes no sense. How does Peterson's alleged hypocrisy justify yours? It doesn't.

I didn't say it justified my hypocrisy, simply that my hypocrisy is a response to his. It is still hypocritical of me. I have never denied that.

Are you saying it's impossible to criticise Peterson without being a hypocrite yourself? That's pathetic.

I never said that, no.

Yes. You're a desperate hypocrite. Glad we agree.

Hypocrite, yes. Desperate? No.

Because a) I don't accept that chararcterisation. And b) that was never my concern. I don't feel compelled to defend Peterson's positions because, as I've said, I find a significant number of them unconvincing anyway. I'm not wedded to them at all.

a) Why don't you accept that characterisation? You have never articulated any reason for it other than personal problems you have with me.

b) If you are so concerned about hypocrisy on matters of mental health, why do you not have concerns about the hypocrisy Peterson shows?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I didn't say it justified my hypocrisy, simply that my hypocrisy is a response to his.

That makes no rational sense. It's simply hypocrisy. It's not a response to anything. Stop making excuses for your bullshit.

I never said that, no.

So in what sense is your hypocrisy a rational response to anything? It isn't. It's just you abandoning your stated principles because you're a grotesque, desperate hypocrite.

Hypocrite, yes. Desperate? No.

You're desperate AF to claim to be right about something. Why else would you abandon your stated principles so eagerly? That's desperation.

a) Why don't you accept that characterisation? You have never articulated any reason for it other than personal problems you have with me.

Because you've demonstrated such dishonesty and bad faith.

b) If you are so concerned about hypocrisy on matters of mental health, why do you not have concerns about the hypocrisy Peterson shows?

That's your claim, which I don't accept at face value because I think you're FOS and a complete poseur. Nor am I motivated to defend or criticise that particular position of Peterson's either way.

 

[RobbieK]

That makes no rational sense. It's simply hypocrisy. It's not a response to anything. Stop making excuses for your bullshit.

So in what sense is your hypocrisy a rational response to anything? It isn't. It's just you abandoning your stated principles because you're a grotesque, desperate hypocrite.

You're desperate AF to claim to be right about something. Why else would you abandon your stated principles so eagerly? That's desperation.

Because you've demonstrated such dishonesty and bad faith.

That's your claim, which I don't accept at face value because I think you're FOS and a complete poseur. Nor am I motivated to defend or criticise that particular position of Peterson's either way.

For someone who cares about intellectual honesty, it really is puzzling that you are still trying to point score against me after I have long acknowledged my hypocrisy, and yet have absolutly no interest or motivation to engage with the fact that one of the "leading intellectuals" in the world today, the object of my hypocrisy, is a peddler of false claims about the nature of addiction and undertakes unscientific and dangerous methods to rid themselves of their own addictions, posing much greater risk to people who are suffering from addiction than any contempt or ridicule I have directed at Peterson could.

Makes you seem pretty petty.

 

[Suspense]

Yeah, that illustrates his ideological concerns, which I don't dispute. It doesn't indicate that he doesn't also deem it impractical, which it quite clearly would be.

Fair enough. I must say that I have not read much about his concerns wrt it being a pragmatically unreasonable workplace demand for educators. Quite absurd that the left would attack a good union man passionately advocating for workers' rights.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

For someone who cares about intellectual honesty, it really is puzzling that you are still trying to point score against me after I have long acknowledged my hypocrisy, and yet have absolutly no interest or motivation to engage with the fact that one of the "leading intellectuals" in the world today, the object of my hypocrisy, is a peddler of false claims about the nature of addiction and undertakes unscientific and dangerous methods to rid themselves of their own addictions, posing much greater risk to people who are suffering from addiction than any contempt or ridicule I have directed at Peterson could.

Makes you seem pretty petty.

More waffle.

My concern has never been with defending Peterson's specific claims.

Rather, the issue was the grotesque hypocrisy of people revelling in someone else's mental illness.

Which part of that are you struggling to grasp?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Fair enough. I must say that I have not read much about his concerns wrt it being a pragmatically unreasonable workplace demand for educators.

Presumably that is self-evident?

 

[mcnulty]

Ok everyone. Can I propose a compromise? Peterson is a complete and utter spud, but we shouldn’t tease him for such.

Can everyone agree on this?

 

[Frank Bunn]

What is the problem with government-mandated language for those working for a government organisation or a federally regulated industry?

Government mandated language is a minor issue compared to government funded schools adopting non-government left leaning programs.

 

[RobbieK]

Government mandated language is a minor issue compared to government funded schools adopting non-government left leaning programs.

Or government funded schools adopting non-government right leaning programs...?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Or government funded schools adopting non-government right leaning programs...?

Because teachers are generally right leaning...? LOL

 

[RobbieK]

Because teachers are generally right leaning...? LOL

There are plenty of conservative religious programs being taught in Australian public schools.

 

[Frank Bunn]

There are plenty of conservative religious programs being taught in Australian public schools.

Yeah nah. What do you think is the effect on children of the majority of left leaning teachers adopting left leaning programs?

 

[RobbieK]

Yeah nah. What do you think is the effect on children of the majority of left leaning teachers adopting left leaning programs?

There is absolutly no reason to think things like Safe Schools are having more impact on children than the religious indoctrination programs which are both significantly more commonly taught and longer lasting.

 

[Roby]

Is there a reason to have this thread?

 

[Suspense]

Presumably that is self-evident?

Peterson states that he is "very, very, very careful with his words" (that's three verys) so I won't presume anything (as self-evident as it may seem to you) - lest I be accused of drawing false inferences or a mischaracterisation.

 

[Suspense]

Government mandated language is a minor issue compared to government funded schools adopting non-government left leaning programs.

I'm not completely opposed to non-government programs being in schools (left-leaning, right-leaning or apolitical) but there needs to be appropriate government oversight. It (Safe Schools) is now fully funded and run by the Vic Govt.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Peterson states that he is "very, very, very careful with his words" (that's three verys) so I won't presume anything (as self-evident as it may seem to you) - lest I be accused of drawing false inferences or a mischaracterisation.

Well, it is self-evidently impractical. And I feel confident I've heard Peterson say as much, separate to his ideological objections. Even in the quote you posted - when he talks about "the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language" - that is a nod to the sheer impracticality of the demands. Like, wtf is this ridiculous new vocabulary with 60+ new pronouns we're meant to be using now?

 

[Suspense]

Well, it is self-evidently impractical. And I feel confident I've heard Peterson say as much, separate to his ideological objections. Even in the quote you posted - when he talks about "the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language" - that is a nod to the sheer impracticality of the demands. Like, wtf is this ridiculous new vocabulary with 60+ new pronouns we're meant to be using now?

Depends on how you define 'non-standard elements of the English language'. By far the most common gender-neutral set of pronouns is they/them/their/themself. Though it can sound a bit weird as we often use those terms as plural personal pronouns (regardless of gender) - it is hardly what I would describe as 'impractical'.

From an unofficial 2020 Gender Census (non-binary respondents):






As these results may indicate, it is a small proportion of an already small minority of the population that actually use these neopronouns. If we are talking about matters of pragmatism and the apparent self-evident impracticality of having to juggle the use of "all these pronouns" - at any given point in time, how many students would Peterson be in regular constant contact with - to the extent that he would be expected to remember their preferred neopronoun? As a professor/lecturer, I'd say very few (my university professors/lecturers were barely expected to remember any of their students' names let alone their preferred pronouns). In the real world, how many times has someone asked you to use the pronoun fae when referring to them?

The use of neopronouns and the degree to which you can expect others (particularly those not 'in the loop') to reliably and correctly use them is the subject of ongoing debate within the non-binary community. Unlike Peterson, I'm not opposed to a definitive set of gender-neutral singular personal pronouns which doesn't necessarily involve the repurposing of traditional plural personal pronouns (them/their) - however, they would have to be less grammatically clunky than ze/hir/zir/hirself/zirself to gain widespread use and acceptance.

As the Census results state: "Users of these neopronouns will probably not reach consensus for many years – language and especially pronouns as a closed class can be very slow to settle and gain ground. Even if one neopronoun does become very commonly used, many will continue to use other neopronouns for a long time to come."

In the interim, I somehow doubt that safely using they/them/their/themself or avoiding the use of pronouns altogether (in the case of preferred neopronouns) could result in an anti-discrimination complaint at the Human Rights Commission.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Depends on how you define 'non-standard elements of the English language'. By far the most common gender-neutral set of pronouns is they/them/their/themself. Though it can sound a bit weird as we often use those terms as plural personal pronouns (regardless of gender) - it is hardly what I would describe as 'impractical'.

From an unofficial 2020 Gender Census (non-binary respondents):
View attachment 1019592

View attachment 1019594

View attachment 1019595

As these results may indicate, it is a small proportion of an already small minority of the population that actually use these neopronouns. If we are talking about matters of pragmatism and the apparent self-evident impracticality of having to juggle the use of "all these pronouns" - at any given point in time, how many students would Peterson be in regular constant contact with - to the extent that he would be expected to remember their preferred neopronoun? As a professor/lecturer, I'd say very few (my university professors/lecturers were barely expected to remember any of their students' names let alone their preferred pronouns). In the real world, how many times has someone asked you to use the pronoun fae when referring to them?

The use of neopronouns and the degree to which you can expect others (particularly those not 'in the loop') to reliably and correctly use them is the subject of ongoing debate within the non-binary community. Unlike Peterson, I'm not opposed to a definitive set of gender-neutral singular personal pronouns which doesn't necessarily involve the repurposing of traditional plural personal pronouns (them/their) - however, they would have to be less grammatically clunky than ze/hir/zir/hirself/zirself to gain widespread use and acceptance.

As the Census results state: "Users of these neopronouns will probably not reach consensus for many years – language and especially pronouns as a closed class can be very slow to settle and gain ground. Even if one neopronoun does become very commonly used, many will continue to use other neopronouns for a long time to come."

In the interim, I somehow doubt that safely using they/them/their/themself or avoiding the use of pronouns altogether (in the case of preferred neopronouns) could result in an anti-discrimination complaint at the Human Rights Commission.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

If you are simply disputing that Peterson objected on a practical basis, see the video below. He discusses the "absurdity" of the law, describing it as "practically untenable". From 4.35...




Whether you agree or disagree with that position, it's clear that he expressed a practical objection, alongside his ethical/ideological objections.

 

[douglyzia]

Not really a fan of Peterson. If Peterson fans make fun of Michael E. Dyson for his unnecessary bombastry, I don't see why Peterson should escape scrutiny for using a million words, rambling tediously and at length, to make a simple point.