Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris on Truth

That isn’t my assumption. My view isn’t that there can’t/shouldn’t be more complex or different paradigms of pronoun use, it’s that the state shouldn’t be policing it.

The difference is that libel and slander laws basically impose a measure of restraint but don’t force any specific speech, whereas the pronoun additions force you to publicly agree with and adopt whatever anyone wants to be their pronoun, at any time they desire.

For instance, some people feel that their gender identity is animal in spirit. My understanding of the new law in Toronto is that you would be obliged address them as an animal if they wish it. You would be obliged to address them differently from day to day if they wish it.

Ha, you would say that, you authoritarian mods [-(

Regulating expression may not immediately impact individual opinion, but overzealous regulation and control of speech will impoverish discourse and necessarily impact the development of opinion over time.

The difference is that libel and slander laws basically impose a measure of restraint but don’t force any specific speech, whereas the pronoun additions force you to publicly agree with and adopt whatever anyone wants to be their pronoun, at any time they desire.

For instance, some people feel that their gender identity is animal in spirit. My understanding of the new law in Toronto is that you would be obliged address them as an animal if they wish it. You would be obliged to address them differently from day to day if they wish it.
[/quote]
This sounds extreme, and usually things that sound that wrong aren’t what they’re portrayed as, so I had a look into the law. It just adds trans/non-binary genders to the list of protected categories, so that federal employees can’t discriminate against them as part of their role, and they’re covered by hate speech laws as a threatened group in terms of incitement/genocide calls.

sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-n … un-misuse/
vice.com/en_ca/article/no-t … ree-speech

Now, “hate crime” law is controversial in itself (I’m not a fan of hate speech laws myself, and wary of the weaponisation of protective legislation). But given that it’s a Thing, extending it to trans people is not such a weird move when things like religion and colour are already covered. It’s pretty weird to me to complain that “I can’t even call my Vietnamese colleague a gook any more without him taking it to a tribunal” on free speech grounds, or worry that maybe someone’s being oppressed because they can’t call for the euthanisation of transsexuals.

Given that criminalisation only applies to extreme incitement, it’s fair to say that much of the discourse that’s regulated by it is the sort of discourse that is already pretty impoverished, though, isn’t it?

I don’t think that’s given, and I don’t think Peterson’s argument boils down to the desire to call Vietnamese colleagues gooks.

From your first link, this is what Peterson is afraid of:

And yet Peterson has been threatened in writing by the University twice for his disagreement over the above law and might not have kept his professorship if it weren’t for the attention he’s received by the media, who he says have very much supported his cause for free speech.

I’ve followed Peterson for some time now, and nothing I’ve seen him say can be construed as extreme incitement. Yet, he has come close to losing his job, still may yet, and, by the University’s own account, he could be tried through the courts and Human Rights Tribunals. Shutting down a voice like Peterson’s is exactly the sort of impoverishment of public discourse I’m talking about.

I pretty much agree on all counts. Harris opened a poll about whether they should attempt a second discussion where they focus on some of the subjects they didn’t get to, like religion and morality. A lot of Harris’s audience are actually eager to hear Peterson’s perspective on those things.

O_H,

Check out 4:18 - 17:00 in the video above if you haven’t because Peterson lays out his understanding of the law, his opinion of it, and how his situation has played out at the University of Toronto and in the media. Perhaps there are details I skipped that could be important to our conversation.

So someone decides to cut off their genitals and pump themselves full of hormones because they actually can’t accept what their gender and sex are, and even more so they tell me there is no such thing as biological gender or sex, and I’m supposed to pretend that’s normal? I can’t even point out how pathological and fucked up that is?

We have the mindrape that is transsexual ideology, enforced by fascist political correctness, and it is affecting children now. Kids are now becoming confused about their own gender and sex because of this normalization of mentally ill people who want to cut off their dick and balls and walk around calling themselves Nancy or whatever, and no one seems to care… sure let’s just form a society that fucks with the minds of our children from day one, so they don’t even form a coherent identity, and then we can make even more transgender retards. I suppose that is probably what these mentally ill people want, to expand their ranks.

Normalizing mental illness makes more mental illness.

I’ve never had someone explain to me why I have to accept that transgender is normal. I’ve asked people to explain it, but they can’t. Maybe someone here can do it.

Because so far all they have is trying to use the force of law and political correctness to force everyone else to accept that it’s normal. That’s what Peterson is fighting back against: if you can’t convince me that it’s normal, or that it’s ok, then don’t try to force me to act as if you have convinced me. You haven’t, and apparently you can’t. So the fault is on you.

I’m happy to accept transgenders and use their made-up pronouns so long as someone actually convinces me it is a good idea to do that. Where are the arguments, the sound reasoning, the impassioned and truthful appeals to fight for what is right? WHY THE FUCK CAN’T YOU ARGUE FOR YOUR OWN SIDE?? Hint: if you can’t coherently and rationally defend your own position then you may want to reconsider it, rather than grab a gun and try to force everyone else to your side.

I’m talking about criminalisation; you can of course lose your job or face a tribunal over all sorts of non-criminal activity. If your colleague Tom decides he’d rather be called Tina and addressed as a female, why do you feel that as a burdensome legal obligation rather than a matter of courtesy?

And I’m very much against the weaponisation of protective legislation, as I said, but that’s an artifact of the current institutions, especially in the US. When the executive is uninterested in engaging with the population, the voters become separated from the political process. The judiciary can still step in, though, so people go through supreme courts rather than working at a local level. The US civil rights movement was an early example of this, and since then it’s grown on both sides of the political divide.

Wyld - you seem very emotional about what other people do with their genitalia. Why does it bother you so much? Given that we live in diverse societies these days I’m not sure why accepting people and behaviour is something you need to be argued into to doing, rather than argued out of.

Sure go ahead and chop off your dick and call yourself a woman, I’m not going to stop you. In your case I might even encourage it. But don’t try to tell me I have to accept that is somehow normal, ok, healthy, or good, because it isn’t. It’s fucking insane.

How about this:

You have a right to do what you want to your genitals, and I have a right to call you a fucking retard and psychotic weirdo for doing it.

I think we can all live with that.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hgU8N9MqG0[/youtube]

Yeah, that is some seriously fucked up shit. And we are normalizing this now, which will only make more of it.

Perhaps not criminalization (although I haven’t thoroughly looked into all of the relevant legal code), but still a high price to pay for say having an academic disagreement about gender identity theory as it becomes enshrined in law. Look if at this point in our conversation you think this is simply about reserving the right to be an asshole to people, I don’t know what I can say to complicate that view for you.

That’s pretty much the way things are, isn’t it? And people have the right to call you a bigot if you do that, and everyone’s happy and world understanding is advanced. It’s a bit precious to claim your mind is being raped by the effort.

You could explain in what contexts beyond being an asshole (or making a point for the sake of it, which may or may not be the same thing) it’s important to, say, keep calling a transgender colleague by their birth name and using their birth gender pronouns to refer to them. Or in what way it’s burdensome to you not to do so.

For example: for a doctor, it may be important to know their biological sex in planning surgery or prescribing drugs. I am fairly sure the law doesn’t prevent doctors from asking such questions.

The world is insane.

40 years ago, they wouldnt hire transgenders and it was illegal to be transgender.

Nowadays, its illegal to bully or insult a transgender even on accident.

The world is fucking insane.

When will we just be reasonable and just hire people based on their ability to do a job?

I would even hire a woman or a nigger if she or the nigger could do the job right.

So maybe you’re getting it?
Yet realize that you are a part of it all?

Yep.

Shock, the idea of hiring people based on merit??

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

then how would women and minority immigrants get jobs???

UNFAIR!

Ucci said i have to edit my post, but i dont see an edit button anywhere.