Jordan Peterson | Cambridge Union

(Steven) #61

That’s evidently not what I support, biology and social constructivism must work together, without any kind of problems :slightly_smiling_face:
But in the same time, you must understand that some things like ‘being obese’, even though it’s not really healthy biologically speaking, must not necessarily mean it cannot be considered beautiful by social standards.
I must say there are individuals who definitely do not like the idea that being obese or anorexic is not healthy, and still radically cling to their ideas of beauty, and so forth, but reality has it that they die earlier than anyone out of these conditions. It’s a pity, but it’s their choice of life, such as euthanasia / PAS. From my honest point of view… it’s a regrettable loss of human lives, but we’ve come to that point in history where we can have those freedoms. And especially, the freedom of not being discriminated against based on those biological differences.

I support universities having courses related to gender studies, because it’s their right to do so. When the Catholic reform came in Europe, they gradually lifted the censorship on scientific studies. But before that, christians condemned any kind of ‘heretical’ theories before even going to practice, same thing might go here.

I don’t believe the academic standards would limit such gender studies, imho. I’ve seen a lot of gender studies which are proven to be quite interesting and truly social constructive, while respecting also academic standards. But then again, why would JP retreat his campaign anyway?

Rofl, I know of these trolls. This is where / when the radical part kicks-in, and hypocrisy kicks-in also!

(Steven) #62

Oh, forgot to mention that almost anyone accepts people that drink and smoke cigarettes, nobody discriminates them, but it’s crystal clear that they die waaaaaaay earlier than any other category.

So, this is another question that ponders my brain a bit: Why mainly no one is discriminating the smokers / heavy-drinkers, but discriminate the obese / anorexic peeps? Now this is what I call real hypocrisy.

(Andrew Downing) #63

I don’t think you are correct about that.
Maybe in your country, but here in Sydney, smokers are ostracised now.
You should see the looks they get, just smoking in public.

Drinking is still way too common for that to happen.

(Steven) #64

Well, maybe smoking is not really a good example due to the fact that it may damage others’ peeps lungs while you’re around them (smokers)
People are smoking less in my country also, but it’s pretty common and no real discrimination is implied. They don’t even ask you if you smoke when you get employed, they just ask if you have some harmful habits to keep them for yourself.
Being obese / anorexic is harmful only to self, not to others, and it’s hugely more discriminated than smokers / drinkers. ( Edit, personal note: I have never understood why peeps are discriminating based on this. It feels so damn strange, and is not my style. )

(pip linney-barber) #65

Fucking bullshit, Andrew. C16 never threatened to enforce anything. It protected trans-gender people from hate speech. Here’s the legislation.

He’s a fucking conman. His fame is built on bullshit. His words are unfalsifiable bullshit. He is a misogynist reactionary pig rolling in the largesse of his acolytes.

(Geoff Rogers) #66

If you’re only now discovering the well-defined tactic of the Gish Gallop, then I find it curious that you seem to feel competent to opine upon the value of Peterson’s argumentation. He’s no less a charlatan than William Lane Craig or Deepak Chopra, both of whom use the same sleight-of-thought methods to gull the rubes and get obscenely rich, obscenely.

Tell people what they want to hear, and they’ll laud you for it. Do so with confidence and pandering to their biases, and they’ll sell their Grandma for the privilege of lauding you for it. And if they’re clever enough and you pander enough, they’ll bend all their will toward creating apologetics on your behalf.

(Steven) #67

Not only trans, but kinda everyone identifiable to a group, from what I see here in the law: “incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of”

I kinda feel it’s a good equality protection law. Hope it cannot be abused, though, and let people identify as chainsaws, lol. @PLB are abuses treated anywhere by the law?

(pip linney-barber) #68

I’m not sure, i would hope so but i’m not Canadian, so i don’t know. The point though, is that JP made a name for himself over ghost of his imagination.

(Andrew Downing) #69

That’s a silly statement. Laws are there to be enforced.
I understand what it is purported to do. Totally not the point.
Did you listen to the lawyer at the senate enquiry that talked right after Jordan?
He explained directly to the senate committee, exactly how failure to comply would land you in prison, and submitted that as a brief to the committee.

Also worth noting, from,

Repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), ensuring that pre-existing common law protections are sufficient to manage all cases of intimidation and harassment.

That is the PPAU policy, based upon a vote put to the full membership of the party.

You’re getting kind of obnoxious now. Hateful even. Imagine if there was a law …

(Steven) #70

@PLB , @AndrewDowning I understand from what this is coming, meaning that hateful speech should not be criminalized. It all goes down to this point. Are we willing to incriminate hateful speech? Or we just don’t know what hateful speech is, in fact.
Disapproval / contradictory heated speech / debate should not be incriminated, but who decides if it’s hateful or not?

It all goes down on how the law is interpreted, but I believe all of the states have such law of no-hateful speech. Mainly, as Pirates we always were for something like combat the hate, not censor it, but in the end hate-abuse will always happen. What will we do then? When hate turns to action?

I believe the law should make it more clear on this perspective to make some balance between these factors, even though it sounds pretty good on paper.

(Andrew Downing) #71

That’s already well covered in law.
Actual discrimination in action is illegal.
Even incitement to illegal action is illegal.
Not to mention the various defamation laws.

(Steven) #72

Apologies, agreed on that. I must confess I cannot walk through this subject of hate-abuse too much

I have never gave it a thought, since I’ve always been for the combat the hate, not censor it style, since literally I feel very confident of my arguments / ideas /etc.
I still ponder on how the not-really-confident people feel about combating the hate. It’s about protecting the weak, in the end, and about protecting the weak minorities in the end.

@AndrewDowning What I see here is a clear gap in how we think this counter hate speech tactic, since the unprotected groups would cling to censoring hate (evidently) rather than combat the hate. How can we help them on this?

(Andrew Downing) #73

Consider the language we use in even talking about addressing it.
Just look at the words that flowed from your fingers above “combat the hate”.
I’m not trying to pick on you there, it’s just so natural for most people thinking about it to express such things in a combative way. Got something bad? Let’s have a war on that, or combat it or fight it.
Why all the adversarial thinking, when familiarity, connection and cooperation is the cure?

(Steven) #74

That’s the thing: not-so-confident people don’t want wars / combat / fight, but still want their voices to be heard. And still are not ready for a direct confrontation. I’m speaking about the weak people, and the weak minorities.
They need protection, not combats. It’s not a warfront everywhere anymore, weak people don’t feel confrontation like a real noble challenge, they’re not born anymore with it, especially they’re not ready to fight hate.

Also, young peeps nowadays feel confrontation like bringing a rapist face 2 face with the victim, while they feel they’re the victims. I’ve seen young people pass through that, and traditional confrontation doesn’t work anymore until they feel more empowered and mature, then they burst-out.

It feels like a locked-race, like a endless loop.
Edit: They’re not emotionally mature as per old standards, meaning that they feel heated debate as hate, and confrontation as hate just as much. That’s why the adversarial ideology kicks-in.

(Andrew Downing) #75

Well, another of Peterson’s talking points has been about how over protection stunts development.
You get to be strong and resistant by facing incrementally greater challenges.
If kids don’t have to deal with challenges to their character and beliefs while they’re in school, then they end up needing safe spaces in university, and then they get out into the workplace, and their employers are all “WTF?”

The “familiarity, connection and cooperation” concepts are things that I expect you’d want to do as an ongoing thing, rather than just waiting for an event to handle. I mean, kindy and primary schools are like a socialising with training wheels.

(Steven) #76

But in the end, it’s their choice.
While these stuff are quite obvious to us, they feel they require special status or favoritism in order for them to evolve, while in the same time feeling that exact favoritism as equally beneficial to all parties [just as I saw that anti-hate speech law]. They feel it’s an actual fight between them and their oppressor(s) in speech.
This is what society is confronted with right now. And hence the need for safe spaces, like what happened to Linux Kernel recently.
These are the new ‘social norms’ that everyone expect to adhere. It’s also due to peace time and not getting any other causes that could visibly and understandably endanger their life.

Long ago, I somehow saw something like this would happen. While I personally don’t feel endangered by the fact that I have to ‘by law’ forcibly respect and not confront them, it’s clearly not free-speech anymore.
It’s hard to tell what will happen with the current generations. I see a lot of Post-Meritocracy sign-ups.

Anyhow, I’m not the one who does heated combat anymore. It just feels strange that we have to forcefully restrain, it’s like putting a leash on a dog that never barked just to be sure it won’t bark, lol [ because biting is already naturally restricted by law ]

(Andrew Downing) #77

Ermagurd, don’t even get me started on that nonsense.
Could “Post Meritocracy” be any more analogous to “Postmodernism”?

The Post Meritocracy Manifesto basically just conflates competence with corruption, and then everyone just signs up for it and then naturally they accept the new Code of Conduct in the Linux Kernel group. Superficially, the CoC looks reasonable, but as it’s been agreed, the author is tweeting away gleefully about how she can’t wait to see Linux Kernel nerds running away in fear, and within a couple of days, the witch hunts begin through data mining of the entire history of Linux Kernel group emails.

I much preferred Richard Stallman’s approach - The “GNU Kind Communications Guidelines”:
Things like:

Please assume other participants are posting in good faith, even if you disagree with what they say. When people present code or text as their own work, please accept it as their work. Please do not criticize people for wrongs that you only speculate they may have done; stick to what they actually say and actually do.

This is actually a classic demonstration of the difference in approach that I would advocate.
The Linux CoC sets out rigid rules where one fault destroys you.
The GNU Kind Communications Guidelines sets out guidelines for how to collaborate well.
It’s a different philosophy.

Notably, the latter approach expects you to behave in a mature and sophisticated way.

(Steven) #78

The author is not using Linux, but this was clearly a pun intended, don’t worry :stuck_out_tongue:
The effect would be quite opposite.

Yes, the GNU Kind Comm focused more on rehabilitation than punishment, something that’s lacking in young developers’ perception, due to the fact that corruption has been widespread and oppressing, and especially in the white male dominated FOSS IT sector. Let’s not imagine discrimination never happened in communities where identities are known, the outburst against it is a clear side-effect.

The author of CoCV, though, has a blindspot on one thing and that stands as the basis of the author’s CoCV: Anonymity of the contributors. The CoCV author cannot understand that concept, demonstrated here:
Quote: “What’s more, hiding behind an anonymous account, a gender- or racial-neutral pseudonym, or otherwise hiding one’s true identity can have a materially negative effect on building the kind of reputation and open source track record that many employers look for in potential hires.

Which basically means the CoCV author does not understand why anonymous contributions happen. It’s a U.S. style capitalist blindspot, whereas in truth the reason the anonymous contributions happen is mainly a lack of interest of showing private things to the public, like photo, gender, sexual orientation, etc., while not really caring about being hired by a private business.

Even though the author of CoCV stands for kindness, we clearly see that sort of burst that I was talking about right here:

And I have a few other examples where the author clearly stated that “I am not kind anymore

(Steven) #79

Anyhow @PLB , @AndrewDowning

I don’t personally know what would be the best course of action on hate speech or lack-of-kindness speech.
But prohibiting such a generic right to suffice the safe spaces will clearly lead to outbursts.

One thing is not certain: Are we prohibited to hate institutions, political parties, communities through that proposed law? Or just individual people groups?

(pip linney-barber) #80

He was wrong. Pronouns were never an issue and violating the human rights code can only be punished with fines or remedial action, according to University of Toronto professor Brenda Cossman, and unpaid fines would not lead to jail.

Your apparent disinclination to engage with Peterson’s bat shit crazy in order to recline in the soft comfort of free speech warrior has been noted.

This coming from a Peterson defender is amusing.

Ok, so what you are running with here, along with Peterson, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Jonathan Haidt, and the rest of the intellectual dark web is a ‘kids these days,’ argument. So what’s wrong with that? Well, Andrew, we’ve been having this argument for 2500 years, since Plato actually, although thats just because he was the first to record one. It probably goes go back to the dawn of the agricultural revolution and even our nomadic hunter ancestors may have grumbled about how their youth spend too much time worrying about their pointless cave art and where’s it all going to lead.

‘If kids dont have to deal with challengers to their [spear quality and proper spear maintenance] while they are [young] then they end up needing [clean rock face everywhere they go] and then they get out into [the real world] and their [prey] is like WTF.’

I can easily imagine an actual conversation like that having taken place 50,000 years ago. It’s a refuge for old men, a middle aged marquee where we of the lost youth can gather together and bemoan what the students are doing and how we never acted like that and how its going to ruin civilisation as we know it. For 2,500+ years some knob has been saying this and for 2500+ years they have been completely fucking wrong.

I toss my hat in with youth, this old mans tent stinks of rust, decay and intellectual laziness.