Jordan Peterson

[Chose]

Funny. When I find that my intentions, and what I am saying generally, are being widely misinterpreted, I tend to examine how I created such an image of myself. Guess being so self-aware it only occurs to you that you're fine and it's the world that's wrong.

I have examined that. You see, I have talked to far more people in person about this, and I have yet to talk to someone after sharing my views who thinks I am trans-phobic.

A few people on the internet who have views are far left of center interpreting what I said that way just isn't that surprising, especially when I have seem them repeatedly misrepresent other people, and when confronted with this fact in clear and understandable way, continue to deny it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I have examined that. You see, I have talked to far more people in person about this, and I have yet to talk to someone after sharing my views who thinks I am trans-phobic.

A few people on the internet who have views are far left of center interpreting what I said that way just isn't that surprising, especially when I have seem them repeatedly misrepresent other people, and when confronted with this fact in clear and understandable way, continue to deny it.

Ah. So it isn't "the whole world" that is wrong, just the people you have subsequently dismissed. Do you keep count of them, or just write them off as beneath you?

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, your feelings are wrong, almost obviously so.

You imagine that the Red Army persuaded it's way into Berlin?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you're putting too many of 'these people' into a box that cannot be talked to, then honestly, I don't know what to say to you next. They're gonna vote next time, regardless of how you drive them away from reasonable discourse.

I'm as supportive of taking responsibility as anyone, but do you really think that they were anywhere in the vicinity of reasonable discourse when you or I came along?

 

[inthesomeday]

I know what my intentions are, and I know where my heart is, and I also know there is no way any of you could have access to that information. So when you are incorrectly telling me what my intentions are, I not only know that you are comfortable asserting something that you couldn't know, but I also know that you are wrong. This is one thing I can be certain about, my own thoughts and feelings on this topic. I want what is best for everyone, especially trans people, and I have a different idea about what gender is and isn't than what I am hearing from many on the far left, and I think it would be the most helpful thing for everyone.

Hey have you ever met a trans person before?

Funny. When I find that my intentions, and what I am saying generally, are being widely misinterpreted, I tend to examine how I created such an image of myself. Guess being so self-aware it only occurs to you that you're fine and it's the world that's wrong.

Self criticism is literally Maoism

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Self criticism is literally Maoism

At the very least it is a slippery slope.

 

[Chose]

And I think this is completely different from what you originally said, and indeed wholly unrelated to an evaluation of whether we live in a violent society.

Right, because I was responding to your house analogy, and not repeating myself.

Hey have you ever met a trans person before?

Yes, I already said this.

 

[Yeekim]

how in the ever living did you get that out of my post?.. and why do you even bother to reply when you obviously don't know anything about pete, like what's the point?
I gave a rough genealogy of the schools of thought that put "productivity" and "biological capability" at the forefront and showed how peterson perfectly fits the bill, just that he has adapted to a more modern audience. a tenured, successful college professor will obviously be aware that talking about eugenics will be hugely problematic for him. what pete really thinks deep down is unknowable for us. otoh what he says on the surface is very revealing. that was the entire gist of my post. analyzing what he talks about in interviews and his own YouTube videos, rather than lectures, paints a vivid picture of his worldview.

It might help if you shared some videos or quotes of what you think is "revealing".
You came off as making huge leaps in your reasoning, probably because we're not remotely on the same page regarding the guy. But than again, I took your post as a self-contained argument and I responded because it was in sharp contrast to the quality of argument I've come to expect from you on these boards.

You are of course entitled to a gut feeling towards the guy. You might be entirely right. But... I don't know... seeing you build a case of "he secretly dreams of genocide" on the whole of "he says that IQ 80 people require more work than they can offer back in terms of productivity" felt really grating for some reason.

As warpus said, why don't we limit ourselves to arguing against what one actually says, rather than what we think they think deep down? As you yourself say, this is unknowable to us.
Misgendering someone is apparently a crime, this honestly seems worse for me.

your post is so scattered I barely know what to reply to. "it also implies you don't wish to risk making an argument that people have worth beyond their economic utility, so you attempt to preempt the whole argument with a false dogma." why would I even have to make such an argument? it should be obvious to anyone with a brain, infact it is the point I am moving toward. the kind of "scientists" that grade people only on their (economic) "utility" are knowingly being reductionist in order to drive forward an agenda.

But you never demonstrated he grades people solely on their economic utility. Had you claimed he does, I could have just taken your word and we could have jointly agreed on half a dozen reasons why this is foolish reductionism. But you brought a specific example which amounts to him stating a fact and then proceeded to attack him not because the fact was erroneous or because his conclusions (which you never even mentioned) from it were erroneous, but seemingly simply because he dared to bring it up.

"With a lot of people increasingly worried (and with a good reason) about whether those of us with perfectly normal IQ are going to be "productive" enough to support themselves in a generation or so".

not once in my life have I heard anyone form that thought. it seems more like You are worrying about this, not the whole world.

You've seriously never heard anyone worry about effects automation has on jobs (both blue and white collar) nor advocate "citizen's income" on that very premise?

 

[Yeekim]

This line is hilarious. Yes, you should just ask and then use what they tell you. Why in the world would you not?

I looked into controversy around bill C-16 and found this ruling.
Tl; dr - a transwoman was awarded $15,000 in damages from Vancouver police, because they occasionally used her legal name rather than her preferred name when writing her tickets and such.
Using someone's legal name rather than anything else in official documentation seems like one possible reason.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I looked into controversy around bill C-16 and found this ruling.
Tl; dr - a transwoman was awarded $15,000 in damages from Vancouver police, because they occasionally used her legal name rather than her preferred name when writing her tickets and such.
Using someone's legal name rather than anything else in official documentation seems like one possible reason.

Not being familiar with Vancouver police I can only base my response on US police, which might not be fair. But with US police it would be likely beyond even a hint of doubt that far more often than not a US cop would find that taunting someone by intentional misuse of their name was "funny," and if a group of cops all had an opportunity to get in on the "fun" their behavior would very much resemble the bully pack on an elementary school playground. When the consequences land having them cry "But it was official use! Documents! Not our fault!" would also be par for the course.

 

[Yeekim]

Not being familiar with Vancouver police I can only base my response on US police, which might not be fair. But with US police it would be likely beyond even a hint of doubt that far more often than not a US cop would find that taunting someone by intentional misuse of their name was "funny," and if a group of cops all had an opportunity to get in on the "fun" their behavior would very much resemble the bully pack on an elementary school playground. When the consequences land having them cry "But it was official use! Documents! Not our fault!" would also be par for the course.

Is it really a misuse if that's the name on your ID though?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is it really a misuse if that's the name on your ID though?

Depends, and I suspect you recognize that. By what seems to be cumulative odd circumstance, I know a surprising number of people who go by their middle name instead of their first name. Some more than others do this out of a genuine dislike for their first name. Every one of them has had the experience of a cop, or a teacher, or someone with a "your name is on paper and will be treated like everyone else's name on paper" excuse making it absolutely clear, though not actionable, that they were enjoying using the name they had been requested to not use just to exert authority.

 

[Synobun]

Is it really a misuse if that's the name on your ID though?

Yes. Changing your ID and legal name in Canada can take years.

 

[Arwon]

I now know who this plonker is and I'm holding all of you responsible

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I now know who this plonker is and I'm holding all of you responsible

Take your brain out and wash it?

 

[inthesomeday]

Right, because I was responding to your house analogy, and not repeating myself.

So to recap you think that modern international capitalism is a nonviolent society?

Yes, I already said this.

Have you talked to them about the concept of gender at all?

 

[Chose]

So to recap you think that modern international capitalism is a nonviolent society?

Haha, no, that isn't what I think or what I said. You summarized our society as one of violence and not dialog. I disagreed, because I think it has more dialog than violence. This becomes especially clear with a proper historical lens.

Have you talked to them about the concept of gender at all?

A little bit. My turn the ask the questions, have you ever met a conservative?

 

[Traitorfish]

Have you talked to them about the concept of gender at all?

When you say "to", do you mean "with", or do you mean "at"?

Important distinction, I think.

 

[Yeekim]

Yes. Changing your ID and legal name in Canada can take years.

You're joking?
EDIT: Ok, I believe you - but why would such a wholly trivial change take years?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Haha, no, that isn't what I think or what I said. You summarized our society as one of violence and not dialog. I disagreed, because I think it has more dialog than violence. This becomes especially clear with a proper historical lens.

Problem is that the ones who rely on it being 'more dialog than violence' generally have a deep seated reliance on the fact that if the ultimate violence of the state does get applied it will be in their favor.