Jordan Peterson

[billvon 2,991]

2 hours ago, NewGuy2005 said:

The impression I got was that he would not oblige the request to be called by alternate pronouns in cases where he thought the person was not actually trans, but just trying to be obstinate.  Such a situation is not that difficult to imagine, is it?

You say that as if the two options are "trans" and "obstinate."  (Which I suspect Peterson believes.)  A lot of people nowadays are genderfluid, and the ones I know are neither transgender or obstinate, although I am sure obstinate people exist.  I have trouble with the pronouns, but I am getting better.

[wmw999 2,447]

Without having read or listened to anything about him outside of this thread, I’d say that at the very least he sounds arrogant. What stranger gets to judge what someone needs better than that person does? And if politeness is too big a burden for him to bear, then maybe the moniker “dick” would work for him.  Because, after all, I get to choose what i call him, too, right?

I have a youngish non-cisgender nibling. It’s beed a difficult road for them, but nevertheless a preferable one to the one assigned by the visible gender pieces. I think that’s their business. 

Wendy P. 

[jakee 1,489]

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

Yep, that pretty much sums up this thread.  All these paraphrases but no one can be bothered to post at least one link to any sources to back up anything they've said.

The guy who started this thread couldn’t even be bothered to say why he wanted to talk about him. The guy who resurrected the thread hasn’t bothered to mention anything he supports about the man’s philosophy or why he cares if others dislike him.

 

Why should anyone else be bothered to provide any evidence when the instigators can’t be bothered to do even say what they’re thinking, let alone support it?

[NewGuy2005 53]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

You say that as if the two options are "trans" and "obstinate."  (Which I suspect Peterson believes.)  A lot of people nowadays are genderfluid, and the ones I know are neither transgender or obstinate, although I am sure obstinate people exist.  I have trouble with the pronouns, but I am getting better.

That's not at all what I am saying.  If he thinks a person that claims to be trans is telling the truth, he will respect their referred pronoun.  If he suspects that the person is lying, he will not.  That's my take on it, anyway.  Can you not imagine a situation where smartass cisgendered student meets highly controversial professor?

Jakee:  All of the guy's lectures from the past many years are online.  The amount of content is enormous.  I wouldn't know where to suggest you start.

Like I said, I stopped listening to him.  This was after his discussions with Sam Harris regarding the existence of God.  

 

Edited August 12, 2019 by NewGuy2005

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, NewGuy2005 said:

That's not at all what I am saying.  If he thinks a person that claims to be trans is telling the truth, he will respect their referred pronoun.  If he suspects that the person is lying, he will not.  That's my take on it, anyway. 

Right.  So if he thinks the person is NOT trans, just genderfluid, he will not respect their wishes.

[NewGuy2005 53]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

Right.  So if he thinks the person is NOT trans, just genderfluid, he will not respect their wishes.

You really are determined.  I did not say gender fluid nor did I imply it. I said lying, as in lying to him just for sport, or to test him. 

Look, I really don't want to be his mouthpiece, I'm just telling you my interpretation of what I've heard him say.  I don't care what you think of him, I just object to how reluctant you are to hear what I'm saying.

[normiss 800]

5 hours ago, NewGuy2005 said:

You really are determined.  I did not say gender fluid nor did I imply it. I said lying, as in lying to him just for sport, or to test him. 

Look, I really don't want to be his mouthpiece, I'm just telling you my interpretation of what I've heard him say.  I don't care what you think of him, I just object to how reluctant you are to hear what I'm saying.

You didn't have to.

HE did. Peterson won't recognize nor address a person based on their preference.

Only his.

[billvon 2,991]

5 hours ago, NewGuy2005 said:

You really are determined.  I did not say gender fluid nor did I imply it. I said lying, as in lying to him just for sport, or to test him. 

Look, I really don't want to be his mouthpiece, I'm just telling you my interpretation of what I've heard him say.  I don't care what you think of him, I just object to how reluctant you are to hear what I'm saying.

Sorry, it's not fair to ask you to defend that.  If you see a link to the original I'd appreciate it.  Apparently he's said a few conflicting things.

[NewGuy2005 53]

2 hours ago, normiss said:

You didn't have to.

HE did. Peterson won't recognize nor address a person based on their preference.

Only his.

I have heard him discuss the topic a few times and have not heard him say this.

[NewGuy2005 53]

He has, for sure, but If I were to speak publicly for hundreds and hundreds of hours on a limited scope of topics, I'm sure I would also.  Regardless, the responsibility is his to put together a consistent message.

I think his strong suit is his message to younger people that life is difficult and chaotic and the best way to get meaning from it is to take on as much responsibility as you can handle and try to make your small part of the world as better as you can make it.

Another topic he is known for are his lectures on the Old Testament as an archetypal story as well as the prevalence and importance of other archetypal stories in our culture.  As he became known for this, he was frequently asked to declare whether or not he believes in God.  His responses were always evasive, as earlier stated by The Plummeter and Yobnoc.  This evasiveness reached a crescendo in a recent lecture which I think he intended to lay the matter to rest.  I thought it was was a big disappointment.  It's always been clear to me that he does not believe in God and his attempt to avoid saying it was a big disappointment.

[sundevil777 102]

On 8/11/2019 at 10:52 PM, Coreece said:

Yep, that pretty much sums up this thread.  All these paraphrases but no one can be bothered to post at least one link to any sources to back up anything they've said.

I still have no idea who the fuck this guy is.  I guess we're just left here blue-balled and have to figure it out for ourselves, thanks.

This is a reasonable starter:

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

So when did this guy get appointed judge of whether or not someone is 'sincere' about their gender preference or 'testing him'?

[winsor 236]

On 6/30/2019 at 9:54 PM, brenthutch said:

Does anyone disagree with any of his points?

Since my only exposure to his work is via Wikipedia, it's hard to say.  That he does not appear to be on board with political correctness is OK with me.

I have known rather a few people who lived as the other sex, which is fine.  When people claim to BE the other sex,and insist that their choice be universally accepted, that's where I call bullshit.

If I was to self identify as Chihuahua Apache or Mandingo, I would not expect much of a buy in.  The whole lesbian trapped in a man's body is part of a comedy routine, and I reserve the right to treat it as a joke (even though I know people who have undergone the transition on that basis).

Thus, I am sure that my standpoint would differ with Jordan's on many points, I applaud his resistance to the SJWs.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[sundevil777 102]

The 30 minute video I posted covers a wide range of topics, not just those mentioned in the title. He even gets challenged on the comparison to socialist regimes that have killed millions. It is a positive that so many leftists demonstrate the awareness of this socialist tendency to kill so many of their own citizens. It would be even better if they didn't think it an anomaly.

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

I have known rather a few people who lived as the other sex, which is fine.  When people claim to BE the other sex,and insist that their choice be universally accepted, that's where I call bullshit.

When a woman changes her last name after she is married, do you call bullshit on that too?  After all, she is claiming that her name IS different now, and is no longer the name she was born with - and is demanding you call her by the new name.

[brenthutch 444]

https://southpark.cc.com/clips/154792/dolphinoplasty

[pchapman 279]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

When a woman changes her last name after she is married, do you call bullshit on that too?  After all, she is claiming that her name IS different now, and is no longer the name she was born with - and is demanding you call her by the new name.

That's about an somewhat arbitrary language label applying to a person, rather than a label that relates to actual physical characteristics.

(And it involves still "playing by society's longstanding rules" regarding naming conventions. Which might be different other cultures.)

Of course one can argue what defines someone's sex, and the categories to use.

But traditionally, the word 'male' did encompass a bunch of physical characteristics of which primary sexual characteristics (their junk) are a crucial component.  Whether or not the term "man" might mean something somewhat different in 50 years, for now, many people will say that a person with male genitalia, with a female name, in a dress, with some hormonal or surgical changes, no matter what their internal subconscious gender self-concept is, no matter what their chromosomal characteristics may be .... is still a man. Or at least more so in that category when using a traditional 2-category system in our culture.  People may not have any problem with that person living their life as they choose, but aren't ready to change what they understand to be the proper use of terminology.

Society does have issues to deal with when portions of it try to redefine words (for whatever reason). So one gets the debate about "what a person IS" vs. "what a person is attempting to be".

 

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, pchapman said:

Whether or not the term "man" might mean something somewhat different in 50 years, for now, many people will say that a person with male genitalia, with a female name, in a dress, with some hormonal or surgical changes, no matter what their internal subconscious gender self-concept is, no matter what their chromosomal characteristics may be .... is still a man.

?? You stated above that the problem was using "a label that relates to actual physical characteristics."  But the above example is an example of a person who looks just like a woman to anyone who sees them in public.  So it's not a label that refers to visible physical characteristics, but a label that refers to genitals and genetics - and those things are not visible.

Quote

but aren't ready to change what they understand to be the proper use of terminology.

Yes, that's the big problem.  We heard a lot about this when gay marriage became legal.  "How are you going to introduce them?  Mr. and Mr?  That's stupid."  But people adapt.

[brenthutch 444]

6 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

The 30 minute video I posted covers a wide range of topics, not just those mentioned in the title. He even gets challenged on the comparison to socialist regimes that have killed millions. It is a positive that so many leftists demonstrate the awareness of this socialist tendency to kill so many of their own citizens. It would be even better if they didn't think it an anomaly.

When I posted initially, I was referring to the 99% that was not the trans hot button issue that obviously animates many on the left.

[jakee 1,489]

19 hours ago, brenthutch said:

When I posted initially, I was referring to the 99% that was not the trans hot button issue that obviously animates many on the left.

No you weren’t.

[brenthutch 444]

7 minutes ago, jakee said:

No you weren’t.

Watch the video Sundevil linked to and get back to me 

[jakee 1,489]

27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Watch the video Sundevil linked to and get back to me 

What does Sundevil's video have to do with what you said in your OP?

[brenthutch 444]

I asked what the folks on SC what they thought about Peterson. 

[jakee 1,489]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I asked what the folks on SC what they thought about Peterson. 

Right, so you weren’t referring to the 99% that wasn’t the hot button issue, you were referring to everything. 

 

And since you knew knew there was a hot button issue, what did you think you would get responses on if you didn’t say otherwise? You’re not that stupid.

[brenthutch 444]

To be honest, I was more interested in his views on the gender pay gap, equality of opportunity vs opportunity of outcome, hierarchy, identity politics and personal responsibility.  For me, the trans thing was just an example of governmental overreach, political correctness and the excesses of the Thought Police, which he then, correctly, linked back to communism.

“We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.”

J Stalin
 

Edited August 16, 2019 by brenthutch