Jordan Peterson

[El_Machinae]

Is there really any point though? I mean, maybe it makes them momentarily more attractive, which is fine, but do you think that you are setting that 'wait, you actually have a personal stake in this' deeply enough that the next time their knee jerks it is not going to catch someone in the groin exactly the same way anyhow?

Well, I cannot very well just murder them in order to silence them. So, either we have to live with our political disagreements or I learn to buckle to their personality. But yes, it takes time to change minds. I acknowledge that.

 

[inthesomeday]

This was a good recovery, but as shown in the conversation between me and El Mac there's something in the self identification. It is distinctly possible that I am as supportive of most communist principles as you are, and almost certain that my lifestyle exemplifies more communist principles, but it would never cross my mend to call myself "a communist." It's nice that if i called you a communist you wouldn't take it as a "lose your mind" word and move to direct confrontation, but to me that is just an indication of taking your position weakly.

The 'conservative' I'm taking about when I am disliking them is the guy who takes his position so to heart that he says "lib'rul" with a sneer and uses malformed words like "dumbocrat." Those are the people who "seek to perpetuate vile systems of oppression," and they deserve whatever they get...but they are rare, and I think even a lot of people who are about as committed to conservatism as you probably are to communism don't really like them either.

I say liberal with a sneer. I say conservative with a sneer too. People who examine their political positions and are able to summarize them as “conservative” don’t generally get the time of day from me in political discussion. Is there something wrong with this?

Self-criticism has been around at least since, oh, 1000 BC or so? Maoist "self-crit" is cultish misanthropy for the most part...or at least, that's how it's typically applied in leftbook...

I took that as sarcasm. The number of people commenting in certain quarters of the internet who would say "Self examination?? Eff off, you communist" is far from small.

It was indeed a joke, although I’m curious what you define as “cultish misanthropy”

 

[Chose]

But this is the thing, such a concept of dialogue is so mind-bogglingly limited it might be better treated as a game. While politicians and news anchors of all liberal parties in the west argue back and forth about the specific extent to which government should be allowed to control the lives of the people, the constant and ever-present violence of capitalism marches on uninterested all across the globe. So I guess if just anything can be considered dialogue then sure there’s lots of dialogue. Over whether the frat party should order pizza or Chinese, over who wore it best, over what specific measures the government is allowed to take to protect oil interests.

If you're saying there is a lot of dumb dialog going on with politicians and new anchors, you won't get any argument from me. I'm just talking about the general way I see people interacting with each other most of the time. To support your claim, you seem to be using a much narrower definition of dialog, and a much broader definition of violence, than what those words me to me, and I would also argue, most people.

Because a conservative exists by choice. Trans people don’t choose to be born in the body they are.

Look at it this way: I’m a communist, right, but if some guy says “I hate communists” I don’t really take personal offense to it because as I choose to be a communist I have to accept that cultural conflict is a struggle I’ve gotta deal with. But if some guy says “I hate Filipinos” I take it pretty personally. I didn’t choose to be Filipino, and to invalidate me for it is racist. Disliking conservatives because they seek to perpetuate vile systems of oppression is perfectly fine; disliking them because they’re trans is not.

Well, conservative people didn't choose how their brains work, or their parents, or where they were born, or what ideas were instilled in them as children. It doesn't really work to walk up to a conservative and say "stop being a conservative, idiot!" change your mind to be like a communist! I mean, if you want to talk scientifically, the accepted view is that you are shaped by your biology and environment, completely. News flash, you don't get to pick either for probably the first 18 years of your life. I see this turning into a discussion about free will and determinism.

Regardless of your views on that, there is no evidence that being trans is predetermined. As with most things, it seems to be a product of biology and environment, and it is very hard to determine how much of each have a factor. However, I tend to have the view that environment plays the bigger role in a lot of these things. It's a very dangerous game to start saying things happening at the level of the mind are strictly biological, see: IQ.
​

You’re right! Mostly because it’s normally in disregard of scientific fact, that gender identity is completely distinct from sex or sexual orientation, but also because I choose not to respect or listen to conservative opinions as a matter of principle, as I find their racist, misogynistic, and classist programs of thought and action to be generally despicable, the same as they are perfectly entitled to find my love for the poor despicable.

Isn't it agreed, scientifically, that gender identity is heavily correlated with sex? Also, the whole "racist, misogynistic, classist" bit has been hurled at so many people so many times, it has lost almost any meaning to me. That just isn't a picture of conservatives that matches my experience, in any way. Also, do you honestly imagine that conservative people find your love for the poor despicable? You think those are the thoughts going through their mind?

 

[Berzerker]

no evidence trans is predetermined but conservatism is?

 

[Chose]

no evidence trans is predetermined but conservatism is?

No, there isn't evidence either is. Usually people by "predetermined" are referring to biological factors. I was talking about mostly environmental factors about conservatism. Regardless, I'm just pointing out it is very difficult to weave these things apart and say "That is biological, that is environmental, that is a choice, etc..". If you have a gene that you can point to that determines some physical characteristic, I'll accept that. Otherwise, it's mostly a guessing game.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I say liberal with a sneer. I say conservative with a sneer too. People who examine their political positions and are able to summarize them as “conservative” don’t generally get the time of day from me in political discussion. Is there something wrong with this?

Depends. You said you are a communist. Have you condensed your political position into that single word? If not, what purpose does it serve when you use it?

 

[inthesomeday]

If you're saying there is a lot of dumb dialog going on with politicians and new anchors, you won't get any argument from me. I'm just talking about the general way I see people interacting with each other most of the time. To support your claim, you seem to be using a much narrower definition of dialog, and a much broader definition of violence, than what those words me to me, and I would also argue, most people.

But the substance of the interactions you’re referring to is essentially nothing. We can discuss ordinance all we want in a city hall meeting with no effective change to anyone’s lives except in the most negligible ways, and while that technically counts as dialogue it’s essentially meaningless and certainly does nothing to oppose or even to interact with the vast systemic violence of capitalism.

Well, conservative people didn't choose how their brains work, or their parents, or where they were born, or what ideas were instilled in them as children. It doesn't really work to walk up to a conservative and say "stop being a conservative, idiot!" change your mind to be like a communist! I mean, if you want to talk scientifically, the accepted view is that you are shaped by your biology and environment, completely. News flash, you don't get to pick either for probably the first 18 years of your life. I see this turning into a discussion about free will and determinism.

Well then if we back our scope back all this way then it’s really no use to have this conversation because then everything in the world is deterministic, which is valueless regardless of how philosophically true it is. The point is that gender identity, like birth sex, race, ability, and class, is not something that one has much control over, and is thus in my value set off-limits to reasonable prejudice. Meanwhile conservatism is a fairly conscious choice that takes significant action to maintain. Nobody is born conservative; plenty of people are born with gender identities incompatible with the one forced on them by birth sex.

So ultimately it’s clear why saying “I dislike black people, trans people, gay people, and women on the grounds of those social identities” is pretty thoroughly more despicable than saying “I dislike conservatives on the grounds of their political self-identification”, or indeed “I dislike communists on the grounds of their political self-identification”.

Regardless of your views on that, there is no evidence that being trans is predetermined. As with most things, it seems to be a product of biology and environment, and it is very hard to determine how much of each have a factor. However, I tend to have the view that environment plays the bigger role in a lot of these things. It's a very dangerous game to start saying things happening at the level of the mind are strictly biological, see: IQ.

Isn't it agreed, scientifically, that gender identity is heavily correlated with sex?

​

First, pretend IQ is a meaningful measure of anything (it isn’t really, but for analogical purposes.) Imagine if society constructed an IQ binary. Everyone has either an IQ of 2 or 250. Obviously this is useless because intelligence exists on a huge spectrum, but this is a good analogy for gender identity and the gender binary.

We use some external, essentially unrelated but somewhat correlated feature to determine from birth whether a person belongs to Binary A or Binary B. Let’s say cranial circumference within some threshold of literal externally observed . For their entire life this Binary, and their place in this binary, is enforced heavily.

Little Jimmy is born a genius. Actual IQ 350. However, because he was born with a small head for unrelated reasons, he is now placed in the other binary, and is treated his whole life like he has an IQ of 2. This affects everything— the clothes he gets to wear, where he is expected to shop, what careers he finds opportunities in. Gradually, this builds up into a massive dysphoria. He adopts the binary identity B.

Now it’s true that in an ideal world jimmy would be able to express his identity exactly how it was, at 350. Indeed, this IQ binary is harmful even to people who come very close to the binaries in their actual measurements. However, his dysphoria, and the contrast between the binary identity he was raised into and what is presented as the only alternative, which he comes much closer to identifying with, has pushed him into a position where he must adopt this binary identity.

Furthermore, while it’s true that environmental factors definitely changed his IQ at least a few points, maybe even 10 or 20, it’s unlikely they were able to affect him anywhere near enough to disturb which binary he identified with.

Now imagine all the same but for gender identity. Gender identity as a spectrum is much more complex than IQ, of course, but this analogy should hopefully help you to understand the function of the binary and its effect on the personal interpretation of gender identity.

Also, the whole "racist, misogynistic, classist" bit has been hurled at so many people so many times, it has lost almost any meaning to me. That just isn't a picture of conservatives that matches my experience, in any way. Also, do you honestly imagine that conservative people find your love for the poor despicable? You think those are the thoughts going through their mind?

Subconsciously for some, overtly for others.

 

[inthesomeday]

Depends. You said you are a communist. Have you condensed your political position into that single word? If not, what purpose does it serve when you use it?

I think I have. It means I support the advancement of a stateless, classless, moneyless and hierarchy-free society by whatever means necessary and tend to view the world, history, and society with a dialectical materialist lens. Any of my further political positions can be derived from this basis.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think I have. It means I support the advancement of a stateless, classless, moneyless and hierarchy-free society by whatever means necessary and tend to view the world, history, and society with a dialectical materialist lens. Any of my further political positions can be derived from this basis.

By whatever means necessary? I suspect that I could mount a challenge to that, but I digress.

If you can actually use that single word lens to determine your "high ground" on any and every issue...then just like the "conservative" you too have so simplified your world view as to not merit the time of day. I can just say "okay, you are this idealized one word thing, and I'm not" and move right along.

 

[Yeekim]

Synsensea - while that's the general namechanging rule, when it comes to gender change, all you need to do (at least in Quebec, and Quebec is usually pretty hardcore on name change rules) is meet the requirement for a legal gender marker change to get a complimentary name change along with it.

... which is the only way that makes any sense. If it is really possible one has to jump through hoops for years to change one's name after sex-change operation, then Canada needs to get its priorities right and fix this sort of nonsense. I somehow think this has a lot more serious adverse impact on people's lives than being referred by wrong pronoun...

 

[Lexicus]

I’m curious what you define as “cultish misanthropy”

Well, as much as I hate landlords and similar types, the original Maoist "struggle sessions" were a form of cultish misanthropy and psychological torture. Leftbook tankies mostly now use it to enforce their crap on unsuspecting Facebook denizens.

I don't have a problem with self-crit per se. I mean, I've arrived where I am now intellectually through a lot of actual self-criticism, and it's not like I think I've reached some kind of endpoint. But the kind of "immediately flagellate yourself or be banned from our group" thing you see all the time on leftbook is not healthy. I've seen Europeans banned for not cottoning on to particularly American understandings of race, I've seen well-meaning people get banned because they haven't read the same obscure books as the admins...you get the idea. I will also add that none of this is very high-stakes although I have seen some pretty crazy mental-illness related real-life fallout from leftbook...

 

[Hrothbern]

 

[El_Machinae]

By whatever means necessary? I suspect that I could mount a challenge to that, but I digress.

So, to be clear, this is an expression of what I will call 'communication charity'. I think it's the right thing to do, but just want to be clear that it's being done. We all implicitly doubt that he means "willing to mass murder", which really benefits the discussion. But if we had the least bias against communists (and we should) we should suddenly remember that he's showing political solidarity with some of the greatest mass murderers of all time by calling himself a 'communist'. In casual conversation, many of the self-identifying (as in, that's what they call themselves) communists tend to have very little care or comprehension of the downstream effects their desires have. Moral atrocities being permitted in conquest of an enemy, and all.

So, we can read his line, and brush it off as hyperbole and continue the conversation where they get so mad at Peterson. Or we can remember that there's a type of people who will express such disgust towards someone like Peterson. And so, their bias might be getting the better of them. Then we have to decide if they're actually better at 'reading between the lines' as they claim to be.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sometimes. It's mostly, meh. Though there is a certain degree of pride to be in studying language, trivia, math, and problem solving. I generally don't call people proud of what they can bench losers, though they sometimes are as well.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This line is hilarious. Yes, you should just ask and then use what they tell you. Why in the world would you not? The only thing wrong with a law requiring that is that such a law should never be required, and the people who feel like the law forcing them to not be sphincters is 'dangerous' should find a mirror and take a good look at themselves.

Of all the people in your life who have addressed you or referred to you as "he", "him", "sir" etc, how many of them asked you what you identified as first? How often do you do that when you meet new people, or have to interract with strangers? The fact is people just generally don't do that. They generally deduce your gender as one of two options based on how you present, then refer to you as such. So you're actually acting all incredulous as if this is standard behaviour, but you're actually asking for a fundamental shift in the basics of human social interraction. So yeah... if it looks like we're starting to go down the path of the current normal behaviour potentially leading to legal action, that's understandably worrying.

 

[El_Machinae]

What activists need to remember is that there is a dizzying speed to the rate at which 'the rules' change. One can be an ally to the underlying concept and then get in trouble for not knowing which piece of new culture is being enforced by what person. It's not like there is any underlying sense in which we can extrapolate which way the whims will go. Seriously, with the way partisanship goes these days, you need to know the code-words of the day and the code-words of tomorrow.

This isn't like the current mistreatment of Canadian indigenous people, where their legal title has changed from 'Indian' to 'First Nations', and you have to individually correct Boomers to use a modern word in lieu of an incorrect historical word. What's happening now is a small meme will explode through one segment of the community, and rile people up, and they're willing to use the meme to decide who's a friend and who's an ally. There's no doubt the laws need to change, but there's also no doubt whether you want the current law decided by the meme-du-jour.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Uh...in what way?

Chose already answered, but it really is nonsensical. It talks about a "gender spectrum", which can only really be inferred to mean some sort of linear space with "male" at one end and "female" at the other. But in that model, what does "both male and female" mean? Does that just mean someone in the middle of the spectrum? But if so, what then does "neither" mean? Do both of them mean the same thing, as in someone who is not at either extreme end but is somewhere in the middle? But then... what does "anywhere along the gender spectrum" mean? Do all three mean the same thing?!

Of course the obvious answer is no they don't, but if they don't then it's clear that "gender spectrum" is completely the wrong term to use as it doesn't fit the actual paradigm you're trying to describe, and as this is supposed to be some sort of definitive document to define these terms... it fails spectacularly because the definition doesn't even hold together logically.

Also the statement "Gender identity is fundamentally different from a person’s sexual orientation" clearly isn't true, given the massively strong correlation between the two things (and indeed between those two things and biological sex) that we observe in society.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, and some people just want to be angry and have enemies. Youth is great, but it isn't all great, and while Peter Pan is fetching I wouldn't want to live next to him.

 

[Kyriakos]

Apparently the Unabomber had scored an iq of a bit over 160 at some test(s?). He still was someone with views that included reverting to a life with no technology. While tech does enslave, and likely will expand its enslaving effect, it is also true that no-tech would create a huge load of problems. Similar with anarchy: in theory it would be great to live with no authorities whatsoever, but it would soon become another 'survival of the fittest' situation.
At least the Unabomber had notable work in math. Peterson Schmeterson

Moreover, there isn't any work of science, art*, architecture etc, achieved in an environment of either anarchy or no tech (of the time). Classical plays made use of mechanically-moving scenery, Pythagoras invented all sorts of machines, and even democracy rested on wealth developed from organized co-existence.

*though art (and also philosophy) can be about examining what living in a context is, and therefore can travel outside it. Notable examples do exist (eg hermit authors, from Heraklitos to Nietzche etc)

 

[inthesomeday]

By whatever means necessary? I suspect that I could mount a challenge to that, but I digress.

If you can actually use that single word lens to determine your "high ground" on any and every issue...then just like the "conservative" you too have so simplified your world view as to not merit the time of day. I can just say "okay, you are this idealized one word thing, and I'm not" and move right along.

The reason I disregard conservatism is not its simplicity, it is the substance of its theory. Disregarding communism due to a disagreement with its theoretical substance is fine.

Well, as much as I hate landlords and similar types, the original Maoist "struggle sessions" were a form of cultish misanthropy and psychological torture. Leftbook tankies mostly now use it to enforce their crap on unsuspecting Facebook denizens.

I don't have a problem with self-crit per se. I mean, I've arrived where I am now intellectually through a lot of actual self-criticism, and it's not like I think I've reached some kind of endpoint. But the kind of "immediately flagellate yourself or be banned from our group" thing you see all the time on leftbook is not healthy. I've seen Europeans banned for not cottoning on to particularly American understandings of race, I've seen well-meaning people get banned because they haven't read the same obscure books as the admins...you get the idea. I will also add that none of this is very high-stakes although I have seen some pretty crazy mental-illness related real-life fallout from leftbook...

Fair enough, though obviously there’s no shortage of things done wrong in the PRC.

So, to be clear, this is an expression of what I will call 'communication charity'. I think it's the right thing to do, but just want to be clear that it's being done. We all implicitly doubt that he means "willing to mass murder", which really benefits the discussion. But if we had the least bias against communists (and we should) we should suddenly remember that he's showing political solidarity with some of the greatest mass murderers of all time by calling himself a 'communist'. In casual conversation, many of the self-identifying (as in, that's what they call themselves) communists tend to have very little care or comprehension of the downstream effects their desires have. Moral atrocities being permitted in conquest of an enemy, and all.

Self-identifying with pretty much any political term gets you in with a whole lot of political mass murderers, because the reality is people playing politics tend towards the mass murdery side. It’s got little to nothing to do with the theory of the ideology itself and more to do with the tendency of power and hierarchy. Communists get stuck with Stalin (which we really don’t deserve, and who really gets exaggerated) and conservatives get Thatcher, Reagan, Churchill, Hoover, Bush, Nixon, Trump, the Koch brothers, and plenty others. Sure with many of these the lines between conservatism, fascism, and just general shillism blur, but we’re going purely off of self-id here.

So, we can read his line, and brush it off as hyperbole and continue the conversation where they get so mad at Peterson. Or we can remember that there's a type of people who will express such disgust towards someone like Peterson. And so, their bias might be getting the better of them. Then we have to decide if they're actually better at 'reading between the lines' as they claim to be.

One can generally trust the extremists of both sides to identify the extremists of one side. For example, while the right might call Hillary Clinton a communist, we don’t really take her. When we call some guy like maybe Mattis a fascist, the right doesn’t really take him. But when we call Peterson a fascist, and the right takes him into their fold with glee, we might be onto something.