The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: Retireatee1 on November 10, 2021, 03:18:22 PM
-
Jordan Peterson was on Joe Rogan's podcast recently discussing the fantasy of retirement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfDxjcC5Y_U
Peterson is a smart guy, but he resorts to a strawman argument here. I don't think most of us would consider somebody who does nothing but drink on a tropical beach all day a model retiree.
He does sing the praises of "the lifting of a worthwhile burden", which is valid.
A lot of the vague self-improvement rhetoric in the middle doesn't seem to be incompatible with retirement.
By the end of the video, Peterson has lost focus. So he hasn't made his case that it is all a "lie" in my opinion.
-
MMM talked about this in a talk - about how some people fantasize about being in a big bed all day in a mansion. But having communal connection and something fulfilling is what we really need.
-
Jordan Peterson says a lot of shit.
ETA: I'm also really sick of wealthy middle aged white men in positions of significant power and autonomy, who do high level, highly influential work that garners enormous respect and dignity dictating to people that they should want to keep working their shitty, abusive, dehumanizing jobs where they have very little power over their own day to day existence.
Seriously, fuck right the fuck off with that noise.
-
Wow, just reading the wiki page on him. His views on masculinity and chaos being associated with feminism are pretty messed up.
-
The names cited tell me everything I need to know about the content
-
By the end of the video, Peterson has lost focus. So he hasn't made his case that it is all a "lie" in my opinion.
I watched a lot of Jordan Peterson's videos while trying to understand his first premise(s). I sprawled all across the internet, reading up on postmodernism, and political correctness, so I had enough background to understand wtf Peterson was arguing against.
I finally realized that I couldn't grasp Peterson's baseline arguments, because he doesn't have any. He's just another reactionary jerkface, peering around the world and quivering about the asshole as he sees his sect losing their previously enjoyed hegemony.
Fuck that guy, for real.
-
Jordan Peterson says a lot of shit.
ETA: I'm also really sick of wealthy middle aged white men in positions of significant power and autonomy, who do high level, highly influential work that garners enormous respect and dignity dictating to people that they should want to keep working their shitty, abusive, dehumanizing jobs where they have very little power over their own day to day existence.
Seriously, fuck right the fuck off with that noise.
Not sure anyone could have said it better. These are my exact thoughts on him as well
-
I watched the video. I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan because, yes, he says a lot and rambles all over the place. But to be fair, in this video he's not saying retirement in general is bad even though the title implies otherwise. It starts with a coworkers vision of drinking margaritas on a beach in retirement, and he rightfully points out this isn't a plan, or at least not a good one. Nor did he imply that people should keep working shitty jobs, though perhaps that's one of his talking points I'm not familiar with? In any case, the idea of optimizing the common case and having something larger purpose to pursue seems very much in line with the rest of MMM.
It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.
-
It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.
Meh. There's nothing intrinsically more moral about a productive retirement. When I get extended time off I lay on the couch reading fan fiction, cook new and fun things, and take my dog out to experience his best life on a daily basis. Maybe in true retirement I'll start to find that constricting and will look for something new, but maybe that's my best life.
Philosophy aside, Jordan Peterson should still take a long fuck off a short donut.
-
Meh. There's nothing intrinsically more moral about a productive retirement. When I get extended time off I lay on the couch reading fan fiction, cook new and fun things, and take my dog out to experience his best life on a daily basis. Maybe in true retirement I'll start to find that constricting and will look for something new, but maybe that's my best life.
Huh, interesting. I didn't perceive his thoughts on this as moralistic. More philosophical, like what's more or less likely to result in positive outcomes. You know, kinda like https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/15/great-news-early-retirement-doesnt-mean-youll-stop-working/
-
Meh. There's nothing intrinsically more moral about a productive retirement. When I get extended time off I lay on the couch reading fan fiction, cook new and fun things, and take my dog out to experience his best life on a daily basis. Maybe in true retirement I'll start to find that constricting and will look for something new, but maybe that's my best life.
Huh, interesting. I didn't perceive his thoughts on this as moralistic. More philosophical, like what's more or less likely to result in positive outcomes. You know, kinda like https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/15/great-news-early-retirement-doesnt-mean-youll-stop-working/
Yup. The article states it pretty plain. The MMM dogma is centered around a "continuing desire to create," pushing someone towards what MMM/Peterson/Society have deemed pursuits worthy of giving someone life satisfaction. And the sequela that "drinking margaritas on the beach," is not a viable plan because it has zero ability to lead to life satisfaction.
Again, I say meh! A rousing, solid, meh. Grunting forth from the diaphragm.
I may end up with a "continuing desire to create," once I retire. I might not. Either way I'll succeed because I have the ability and maturity to monitor my emotional well being, and adjust as necessary. Maybe margarita guy lacks the same maturity, but just assuming he doesn't, and basing that assumption on a rigid idea of what retirement "should be," is a paternalistic, and paternalism is always based in morals.
-
It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.
................Jordan Peterson should still take a long fuck off a short donut.
On behalf of donuts, back off!
-
I watched the video. I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan because, yes, he says a lot and rambles all over the place. But to be fair, in this video he's not saying retirement in general is bad even though the title implies otherwise. It starts with a coworkers vision of drinking margaritas on a beach in retirement, and he rightfully points out this isn't a plan, or at least not a good one. Nor did he imply that people should keep working shitty jobs, though perhaps that's one of his talking points I'm not familiar with? In any case, the idea of optimizing the common case and having something larger purpose to pursue seems very much in line with the rest of MMM.
It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.
Yeah, someone snipped a section from a rambling podcast and slapped a silly title on it. This isn't really an argument about retirement at all.
He's basically saying that if you are seeking greater satisfaction in life you're more likely to find it by engaging in worthwhile tasks on behalf of the people around you rather than by simply sipping drinks in a trouble-free paradise. The latter is great once in a while but as a lifestyle it's likely a false utopia. Not sure this would be particularly controversial if it wasn't Jordan Peterson saying it.
-
Yup. The article states it pretty plain. The MMM dogma is centered around a "continuing desire to create," pushing someone towards what MMM/Peterson/Society have deemed pursuits worthy of giving someone life satisfaction. And the sequela that "drinking margaritas on the beach," is not a viable plan because it has zero ability to lead to life satisfaction.
Again, I say meh! A rousing, solid, meh. Grunting forth from the diaphragm.
I may end up with a "continuing desire to create," once I retire. I might not. Either way I'll succeed because I have the ability and maturity to monitor my emotional well being, and adjust as necessary. Maybe margarita guy lacks the same maturity, but just assuming he doesn't, and basing that assumption on a rigid idea of what retirement "should be," is a paternalistic, and paternalism is always based in morals.
Is it really paternalistic moralizing, or simply observation? Hedonic Adaptation (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/22/what-is-hedonic-adaptation-and-how-can-it-turn-you-into-a-sukka/) applies broadly to the human experience. It's less about margarita guy being immature (or immoral), than not realizing that chasing the initial feeling of sitting on a beach getting inebriated is scientifically proven to fail* over the long term. Especially as diminishing returns kick in and negative health effects begin to dominate (https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm). I'm not against alcohol and drink in moderation, but it's hard to ignore the long history of related harm.
But I totally get if you just don't believe what I'm saying and you need to experience the post-FIRE life for yourself.
*By 'fail' I mean produce sustained happiness/satisfaction
-
I watched the video. I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan because, yes, he says a lot and rambles all over the place. But to be fair, in this video he's not saying retirement in general is bad even though the title implies otherwise. It starts with a coworkers vision of drinking margaritas on a beach in retirement, and he rightfully points out this isn't a plan, or at least not a good one. Nor did he imply that people should keep working shitty jobs, though perhaps that's one of his talking points I'm not familiar with? In any case, the idea of optimizing the common case and having something larger purpose to pursue seems very much in line with the rest of MMM.
It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.
Yeah, someone snipped a section from a rambling podcast and slapped a silly title on it. This isn't really an argument about retirement at all.
He's basically saying that if you are seeking greater satisfaction in life you're more likely to find it by engaging in worthwhile tasks on behalf of the people around you rather than by simply sipping drinks in a trouble-free paradise. The latter is great once in a while but as a lifestyle it's likely a false utopia. Not sure this would be particularly controversial if it wasn't Jordan Peterson saying it.
Agreed. Also, if you're the type to FIRE, how long can you really sit on a beach?
I plan to retire from my current position in about 9 years, but retirement will be just as full as my working life - teaching and helping with grand kids, if there are any. If not, I'll have 4 adults that I'll (perhaps) have shifted from being a parent to being a peer.
There'll be added travel, maybe volunteering, or joining a sports league......there'll be stuff and some will include sitting on a beach here and there, but just like with meditating, it'll be great, but I'm going to want to get up and do something at some point.
-
If and when I pull the FIRE trigger, I'm going to be margarita guy for at least a week in celebration. Maybe longer. I don't think that will get old after only one week.
-
The internet sucks because only the most outlandishly controversial people or ideas get replicated. Somewhere, there is someone advocating a rational, evidence-backed solution to each of life's issues, and they're talking to the crickets while we talk about a mysterious ramble by Jordan Peterson.
-
take a long fuck off a short donut.
I've always heard this one as "take a flying fuck at a rolling donut."
...Now I want a donut.
-
Meh, I get the patronizing nature of "you'll just be bored if you are not working." Kind of a "don't get too big for your britches" vibe that a foreman overseeing day laborers has.
Otherwise I can't really hate on Jordan Peterson even though I don't always agree with him. Sometimes I think he's too literal and clearly he picks some of the wrong battles, but much of what he says is widely unpopular but also spot on.
-
If and when I pull the FIRE trigger, I'm going to be margarita guy for at least a week in celebration. Maybe longer. I don't think that will get old after only one week.
I'm not sure about the margarita, but for the right I'm right there with you. It's quite possible I'll get bored at some point and need to go do things.
But finding out how much lazying around in the sun it takes before it stops feeling good sounds for me specifically like a pretty worthy experiment in its own right.
-
Seriously, I have to spend my Friday night running around town because another volunteer couldn't be bothered to answer emails to exchange the materials he needs to teach a class tonight. Dude, if I'd wanted to be there, I would have just taught the class myself!
-
take a long fuck off a short donut.
I've always heard this one as "take a flying fuck at a rolling donut."
...Now I want a donut.
I enjoy the version that implies more splatting and death at the end.
-
take a long fuck off a short donut.
I've always heard this one as "take a flying fuck at a rolling donut."
...Now I want a donut.
My only regret about not joining the service when I was younger is that my swearing had never fully developed. I bow to you @Sailor Sam
-
take a long fuck off a short donut.
I've always heard this one as "take a flying fuck at a rolling donut."
...Now I want a donut.
I enjoy the version that implies more splatting and death at the end.
I concede that point, but in my defense, I've always imagined the donut to be rolling on asphalt, so would assume he's likely to wish he were dead afterward.
-
Otherwise I can't really hate on Jordan Peterson even though I don't always agree with him. Sometimes I think he's too literal and clearly he picks some of the wrong battles, but much of what he says is widely unpopular but also spot on.
What parts are right?
-
Otherwise I can't really hate on Jordan Peterson even though I don't always agree with him. Sometimes I think he's too literal and clearly he picks some of the wrong battles, but much of what he says is widely unpopular but also spot on.
What parts are right?
Yeah, I would like to know this, too.
-
Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?
-
Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?
I asked in good faith.
ETA: as in, I’m legit curious which of his arguments you find correct. I’ve read his 12 Rules for Life, and I’ve watched his Identity Politics and the Lie of White Privledge video, plus a few of his debate videos - Slavoj Zizek, the Munk debate with Stephen Fry, and Cathy Newman.
He ended up on my radar because so many of my young men were reading his book, and watching him p’wnn! the internet. To me, he’s got two sets of arguments. The first is to take accountability, where his specific approach speaks to a very specific sect of young men. The second Peterson argument is that identity politics will eventually tear the world apart, which he can’t really back and uses big words to mask the weakness of his suppositions. So, I wondered which of his arguments, or sub-arguments you agreed with.
-
Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?
Yeah honestly if he said “butter pecan ice cream is delicious,” I would think twice before eating it. I have no time for this trifling motherfucker.
-
Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?
Yeah honestly if he said “butter pecan ice cream is delicious,” I would think twice before eating it. I have no time for this trifling motherfucker.
Well that's disappointing. Responses like this (and other posts earlier) make it clear that this will not be a good faith discussion, aka poisoning the well. I don't follow him, but out of curiosity watched some videos/clips. My sense is that I disagree with him on many (most?) issues, yet he's provocative and well spoken, and certainly more thoughtful than most of the stuff on the internet. I'd rather see people debate the merit of his ideas (and even a stopped watch is right twice a day) than make personal attacks.
-
Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?
Yeah honestly if he said “butter pecan ice cream is delicious,” I would think twice before eating it. I have no time for this trifling motherfucker.
Well that's disappointing. Responses like this (and other posts earlier) make it clear that this will not be a good faith discussion, aka poisoning the well. I don't follow him, but out of curiosity watched some videos/clips. My sense is that I disagree with him on many (most?) issues, yet he's provocative and well spoken, and certainly more thoughtful than most of the stuff on the internet. I'd rather see people debate the merit of his ideas (and even a stopped watch is right twice a day) than make personal attacks.
You assume I woke up one day and decide that after consulting my numerology texts, the vibe of the name j-o-r-d-a-n p-e-t-e-r-s-o-n was too iffy?
-
Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?
Yeah honestly if he said “butter pecan ice cream is delicious,” I would think twice before eating it. I have no time for this trifling motherfucker.
Well that's disappointing. Responses like this (and other posts earlier) make it clear that this will not be a good faith discussion, aka poisoning the well. I don't follow him, but out of curiosity watched some videos/clips. My sense is that I disagree with him on many (most?) issues, yet he's provocative and well spoken, and certainly more thoughtful than most of the stuff on the internet. I'd rather see people debate the merit of his ideas (and even a stopped watch is right twice a day) than make personal attacks.
You assume I woke up one day and decide that after consulting my numerology texts, the vibe of the name j-o-r-d-a-n p-e-t-e-r-s-o-n was too iffy?
Please, tell me more about what I assumed :) I'm only going off of your implied assertion that anything he says should be considered suspect, including opinions on desserts. An ad hominem attack is far less interesting and useful than a substantive argument.
-
I have neither interest nor inclination for a detailed essay. Overall, he isn’t a cool guy with interesting input. That is the summary of my review of him.
-
take a long fuck off a short donut.
I've always heard this one as "take a flying fuck at a rolling donut."
...Now I want a donut.
My only regret about not joining the service when I was younger is that my swearing had never fully developed. I bow to you @Sailor Sam
Thank you! It’s my one and only natural art.
-
Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?
Yeah honestly if he said “butter pecan ice cream is delicious,” I would think twice before eating it. I have no time for this trifling motherfucker.
Well that's disappointing. Responses like this (and other posts earlier) make it clear that this will not be a good faith discussion, aka poisoning the well. I don't follow him, but out of curiosity watched some videos/clips. My sense is that I disagree with him on many (most?) issues, yet he's provocative and well spoken, and certainly more thoughtful than most of the stuff on the internet. I'd rather see people debate the merit of his ideas (and even a stopped watch is right twice a day) than make personal attacks.
Yes, this is why I didn't bother with a more specific response. And I actually understand hating someone that much, because "everything he says and does is wrong" is exactly how I feel about Donald Trump.
But I don't feel that way about Jordan Peterson. Several of his videos (mostly his old psychology lectures) have given me advice and perspectives and insights that helped me a great deal with personal matters. And I'm not at all in a "very specific sect of young men," so I don't know what to make of that generalization.
I also understand disliking asshole know-it-all colleagues. I have plenty of those, lol. Just because someone has drawn some incorrect conclusions or comes off as a bit of a jerk in debates, that doesn't mean all of their work is completely flawed. For example, this Joe Rogan clip is fine.
Do you ever wonder how Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were such good friends? It is actually possible to find common ground with someone even if you hold opposite viewpoints on many topics.
-
He and I don’t work together, no need for me to deal with him in any way.
-
It seems sadly common to consider everything 'the other side' has to say on any topic is suspect. Worse it seems these days if a person has ever said anything disagreeable then they are a witch and must be harassed, their means of income disrupted (e.g. attempting to shame their employers or for artists stop venues holding/publishing their works e.t.c.) and if they are female send them threats of violence, rape and even death.
It was once said: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It seems now to be "If I don't agree with what you say, I will do my best to ensure your life is hell."
For Mr Peterson, I've only seen the interview by Channel 4 news where the interviewer went in with a whole load of preconceived notions about his politics and her arguments were handily rebuffed. The interviewers lack of preparation *perhaps* made him appear far more convincing than another interviewer who had actually done their job beforehand. Some of the things he said did make a lot of sense to me, that men do need to stop whining about their lot in life, grow up and take responsibility. They have capacity to do good and well, to be competent in their lives and too many enter adult unready to do that. That doesn't seem to be such a terrible argument to make.
Fact is a lot of people do follow the man, people around you are shaped by his views. You may not agree with them at all but closing your eyes and refusing to listen means a gulf is created that cannot be crossed. Putting different bits of humanity in silos of 'acceptable thoughts' and 'unacceptable thoughts who must never be listened to' doesn't seem like a great future for anyone.
From the book of carl:
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.
-
Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?
Yeah honestly if he said “butter pecan ice cream is delicious,” I would think twice before eating it. I have no time for this trifling motherfucker.
Well that's disappointing. Responses like this (and other posts earlier) make it clear that this will not be a good faith discussion, aka poisoning the well. I don't follow him, but out of curiosity watched some videos/clips. My sense is that I disagree with him on many (most?) issues, yet he's provocative and well spoken, and certainly more thoughtful than most of the stuff on the internet. I'd rather see people debate the merit of his ideas (and even a stopped watch is right twice a day) than make personal attacks.
Yes, this is why I didn't bother with a more specific response. And I actually understand hating someone that much, because "everything he says and does is wrong" is exactly how I feel about Donald Trump.
But I don't feel that way about Jordan Peterson. Several of his videos (mostly his old psychology lectures) have given me advice and perspectives and insights that helped me a great deal with personal matters. And I'm not at all in a "very specific sect of young men," so I don't know what to make of that generalization.
I also understand disliking asshole know-it-all colleagues. I have plenty of those, lol. Just because someone has drawn some incorrect conclusions or comes off as a bit of a jerk in debates, that doesn't mean all of their work is completely flawed. For example, this Joe Rogan clip is fine.
Do you ever wonder how Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were such good friends? It is actually possible to find common ground with someone even if you hold opposite viewpoints on many topics.
Hwy now. I replied in good faith and explained what I was asking you when you had a little porcupine moment. And then you used part of my comment to do an SMH reply to somebody who agreed with you. So that’s a pretty dick move.
-
I am under no obligation to kumbaya with this guy. I’ve heard plenty of his crap. I don’t like it and I don’t like him. You can take tsk about that all you want, but spare me the “cant we all get along” and appeals to the RBG/Scalia friendship. He spouts enough toxic stuff that encouraging others to give more of his content a chance on the tiiiiny possibility that it isn’t all objectionable is just silly, and possibly irresponsible. I won’t give him any view$.
-
^^Sailor Sam, not at all. I'm not a porcupine. I just am not going to justify "What parts are right?" The question alone implies that most of his work is wrong, so I must justify which specific parts are right, and that is not a question in good faith, in my opinion. I am highly practiced in the art of argument and critical reasoning, so I know how these types of exchanges will unfold.
And then you claim that my not bowing to your request to justify myself is a "dick move". Nope. I don't owe you anything. In fact, I answered with exactly which parts of his work that I have found to be helpful in the very response you find a dick move.
The fact that I agreed with and quoted someone else, who clearly understood that sometimes people on this board are just trying to pick a fight about stupid shit, does not make me a porcupine or a dick. On the flip side, name calling is perhaps the lowest form of argument (if it can even be elevated to the standards of making an argument.)
-
You read a tone into my reply that really didn’t exist. It’s a failure of textual conversation that I wish we could solve. Then again, technology is what’s gotten us to this particular cascade, so it’s not like increased technology would help. Maybe there’s no solution, and what we’re witnessing is just the limits of our mental evolution. Dunno.
You seem to have assumed that my primary motivation is to be an asshole, so I guess we won’t be seeing each other around. So cheers.
-
Perhaps we can all agree that Jordan Peterson is a guy who has spent a lot of time reading, thinking about stuff, and publishing his thoughts, and he is entitled to his opinions? Or not? It doesn't really matter. But there's nothing wrong with his assertion that sitting on a beach drinking margaritas for the rest of our waking hours is probably a lousy retirement plan for most people.
Jordan Peterson is famous for a reason. Some people really resonate with some of the things he has posted over the years, and have found aspects of his work helpful. People who have escaped from extremely authoritarian brutality tend to agree with his thoughts on compelled speech, for example. I think he picked the wrong public battle to make his point on that topic, and that he hurt a marginalized group of people he wasn't intending to hurt in the process. Certainly that wasn't the smartest thing he's ever done. On the flip side, some people really make it clear that they hate him for one reason or another. Is he a misogynist? A racist? Perhaps, but I am not so sure. He points out trends and facts and statistics and data from the psychology academic literature that people don't like . . . inconvenient facts.
Sailor Sam, I never called you a name . . . you called yourself that name on my behalf I guess? You asked me a question and I answered, attempting to clarify, by analogy, that we can have differences of opinion and still be friends. And I even pointed out how I understand disliking some public figure intensely to the point that is irrational (my feelings about Trump). Then you responded by calling me a dick and a porcupine. Then, when I replied to that, you said I must be assuming you are an asshole. Covering more body parts in the discussion, I guess, lol.
-
he is entitled to his opinions? Or not? It doesn't really matter.
Opinions, if you want to toss another body part into the ring here, are like armpits
As far as inconvenient statistics, etc… he cherrypicks and ignores context to make his points.
-
Disclaimer: I haven't taken in a lot of JP's writing or podcasts so this assessment is mostly from osmosis
1) Peterson understands that a growing problem in the West, as it becomes more secular, is the lack of meaning in life (Peterson purports to be a Christian but is cagey if pushed on the exact extent and nature of his belief: e.g., on the question does God exist, he replied "No, but I’m afraid he probably exists")
2) For some reason his message resonates with men far more than women. Perhaps it's because of the many men living under ground by the glow of their video games. Someone needs to tell them to get up and make their beds, and that simple act may lead to an incipient feeling of agency which is a stepping stone on the way to meaning
3) To the extent he pulls neck-beard gamers out of their basements and into the world, he is being a force for good. If his message doesn't resonate with you, well, no big deal, right?
4) Since his severe illness and (so it seems) near-death, he does seem more humble and less antagonistic towards his ideological and intellectual rivals, though has not really retreated from his position otherwise (see this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcM3Y8kACo4) for example)
5) For anyone who's at all accustomed to his speaking style, this parody (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BDgQMGs7Mc) nails some of his more absurd qualities; the real JP can occasionally talk himself into ridiculous contortions
On balance, I'm far from captivated by him but I do believe he has a reasonable diagnosis of a couple of the pathologies in society. Weird how polarizing he can be, though, judging by this thread. Maybe someone can post some lobster memes to turn down the temperature.
-
[Removed ginormous pic]
I offer a photo of two of my pets as reconciliation
-
This entire thread was worth it for that parody video, lost_in_the_endless_aisle
-
I find what he says about trans people… lacking in decency, lacking in kindness, lacking in maturity, lacking in humanity. Certainly lacking in facts. So if you think he is a deep thinker, well great, that’s not what I have seen. Is that a personal attack? IDK. I’m not commenting on his hair or his marriage. I am commenting on what he says, but I am judging him from a moral lens.
I’m not trying to destroy his life, burn his house down or torpedo his career. I just don’t like him. I think he is an arrogant asshole. I couldn’t care less what he thinks. Doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong.
-
I find what he says about trans people… lacking in decency, lacking in kindness, lacking in maturity, lacking in humanity. Certainly lacking in facts. So if you think he is a deep thinker, well great, that’s not what I have seen. Is that a personal attack? IDK. I’m not commenting on his hair or his marriage. I am commenting on what he says, but I am judging him from a moral lens.
I’m not trying to destroy his life, burn his house down or torpedo his career. I just don’t like him. I think he is an arrogant asshole. I couldn’t care less what he thinks. Doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong.
Yeah, this is where I am, too. +1.
-
I watched his testimony and never saw him say he doesn't and wouldn't use preferred pronouns . . . instead his objection was to a law that, in his view, compelled speech. Was he being an idiot, doing that? Legal scholars say he was, and that the law change wouldn't actually compel speech. But maybe he's right, and it is a slippery slope?
That somehow launched him into stardom and, because he already had put tons of relatively obscure stuff like splices of his psychology class lectures into the public sphere for people to lap up, a cult-like following. Now he's loaded.
You can dislike him because of some of the conclusions that he draws. That doesn't make every single conclusion he has drawn wrong.
-
I watched his testimony and never saw him say he doesn't and wouldn't use preferred pronouns . . . instead his objection was to a law that, in his view, compelled speech. Was he being an idiot, doing that? Legal scholars say he was, and that the law change wouldn't actually compel speech. But maybe he's right, and it is a slippery slope?
That somehow launched him into stardom and, because he already had put tons of relatively obscure stuff like splices of his psychology class lectures into the public sphere for people to lap up, a cult-like following. Now he's loaded.
You can dislike him because of some of the conclusions that he draws. That doesn't make every single conclusion he has drawn wrong.
Yeah, in one interview he uses preferred pronouns over what one might use as a default... His position is consistent with being entirely against compelled speech, rather than being against all pronouns contrary to XX or XY genetic disposition. Of course, I don't know every thing that he has said and can't and wouldn't defend all of it. Just know that he will use pronouns by request if not required as part of compelled speech.
-
This entire thread was worth it for that parody video, lost_in_the_endless_aisle
Yeah that was great!
-
I am kind of surprised that people here would dislike everything a person says and be proud of it. Seems very short sighted.
I have watched a lot of JP because I have teenagers and young men in my life and some of them do resonate a bit with him. I wanted to be able to have reasonable conversations about it with them.
I love that he always tells people to be the best they can be. His "start with cleaning your room" speech was a very easy way for them to think about it. Clean up your life makes sense. Get yourself focused, etc.
We have been focusing so much on 'girl power' that we have made some boys feel cast aside. Take a look at your local elementary school it is a pink ghetto. We would never allow it to be full of all male teachers but we seem OK with the opposite.
Anyhow, I do not agree 100% with what JP says but I usually go away thinking a bit more about a topic. However, I also don't get up in arms about someone who has a different opinion then mine; rather I usually find those people the most interesting because I am forced to consider their thought.
-
pink ghetto
Can you elaborate about this? Specifically the word ghetto in this context?
-
I am kind of surprised that people here would dislike everything a person says and be proud of it. Seems very short sighted.
I have watched a lot of JP because I have teenagers and young men in my life and some of them do resonate a bit with him. I wanted to be able to have reasonable conversations about it with them.
I love that he always tells people to be the best they can be. His "start with cleaning your room" speech was a very easy way for them to think about it. Clean up your life makes sense. Get yourself focused, etc.
We have been focusing so much on 'girl power' that we have made some boys feel cast aside. Take a look at your local elementary school it is a pink ghetto. We would never allow it to be full of all male teachers but we seem OK with the opposite.
Anyhow, I do not agree 100% with what JP says but I usually go away thinking a bit more about a topic. However, I also don't get up in arms about someone who has a different opinion then mine; rather I usually find those people the most interesting because I am forced to consider their thought.
There's a difference between believing that someone is fundamentally morally reprehensible and wanting nothing to do with them and insisting that every single thing they've ever said is wrong.
Some of the most loathesome people in the world have said correct, intelligent, or insightful things at some point, but that doesn't mean that you have to want to listen to them to have any respect for them.
I, for one, want nothing to do with promoting or supporting Peterson. So no, I have no interest in seeking out the things he's said that might sound reasonable to me. Not when there is a GIANT world of wisdom from people I can actually respect out there. I don't need to further the fame and financial success of someone who I find morally repugnant.
And I *do* seek out to understand opposing opinions and perspectives, but when I come across something that makes my skin crawl and makes me feel ill, that's it, I'm done with wanting to understand that person anymore, especially someone who spouts as much intensely frustrating gibberish as Peterson does.
Also, not in response to you, but to the pp who said that people can get along despite differing positions. I totally agree with this, most of my closest professional friends have opposing political opinions to mine, but you bet your ass I am NOT and NEVER WILL BE friends with people who hold positions and opinions that I feel are morally repugnant and actively dangerous to vulnerable populations.
In my opinion, that's called having moral integrity.
-
pink ghetto
Can you elaborate about this? Specifically the word ghetto in this context?
Sorry, I probably shouldn't have said ghetto...I used to work in health care and the ladies were always referring to it as that! I just meant it is almost all female for the most part. I really think schools should have a good mix of teachers; men, women, all races etc. It is so feminine now it is not a good representation of society. High school seems to be a much better mix.
Anyhow, didn't mean it as an insult. Sorry if I caused any offence.
-
I see what you are saying, but I think there’s more to the story than just a gaggle of women. I think it’s interesting that pink collar jobs like nursing and teaching are notoriously underpaid and employers/society use the “caring” aspect of the job as a tool to manipulate those in those jobs. Would the pay and manipulation be there if the jobs were at least (number pulled from my ass) a 40/60 split?
-
The youtube comments on Peterson's video are interesting. (Here is the link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfDxjcC5Y_U&ab_channel=EvolveYourMind) again so you don't have to go all the way back to the 1st page. :) ) Some people are pro, many are against. The little life stories they post are very interesting... I feel so terrible for the guy that got diagnosed with leukemia at age 58. :(
Setting aside my personal dislike for Peterson, I disagree with his cartoonishly simple views on retirement. What he described might (and that's a big "might") be true for the stereotypical expats (usually men) that move to Thailand and spend all their time drinking cheap booze. Even then, we don't know all the details about their lives. Maybe they write music at night, who knows? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There are so very, very many different flavours of early retirement... His argument is a straw man, since he paints all of us early retirees with a very broad brush. In particular, his comments about fighting with your family after spending more time with them - that sure sounded like he was projecting. O_o
Personally, I've retired 6 months ago, and I'm loving it. :) The very notion of sleeping as much as you want every night, without any alarm clocks... That is amazing. It's free but it feels positively luxurious. Right now, I'm focused on writing, while also slowly working my way through all the books/movies/shows/games I never had time for. (Yes, there is an actual list. :P ) In 9.5 months, I'll join a giant community service organization that requires 12 months of residency first, and that'll be a great adventure. In a couple of years, I'll become a snowbird, spending 6 months per year in fun foreign countries, and that'll be a blast! I do not anticipate ever becoming so bored that I'll turn into a Petersonian carricature...
As the saying goes, "Only the boring are bored."
Jordan Peterson says a lot of shit.
ETA: I'm also really sick of wealthy middle aged white men in positions of significant power and autonomy, who do high level, highly influential work that garners enormous respect and dignity dictating to people that they should want to keep working their shitty, abusive, dehumanizing jobs where they have very little power over their own day to day existence.
Seriously, fuck right the fuck off with that noise.
Not sure anyone could have said it better. These are my exact thoughts on him as well
+1!
-
I don't think most of us would consider somebody who does nothing but drink on a tropical beach all day a model retiree.
without a mutual understanding of what retirement entails, discussing it's merits and pitfalls seems futile
Wow, just reading the wiki page on him. His views on masculinity and chaos being associated with feminism are pretty messed up.
pretty sure he didn't write that wiki page representing his supposed views
-
I don't think most of us would consider somebody who does nothing but drink on a tropical beach all day a model retiree.
without a mutual understanding of what retirement entails, discussing it's merits and pitfalls seems futile
Wow, just reading the wiki page on him. His views on masculinity and chaos being associated with feminism are pretty messed up.
pretty sure he didn't write that wiki page representing his supposed views
Maybe not, but his views said by his own mouth and written by his own hand tend to be viewed as pretty heinous by many. So it's not like he's an uncontroversial figure when representing himself.
-
Jordan Peterson was on Joe Rogan's podcast recently discussing the fantasy of retirement.
Circling back to original post: i believe the most recent podcast would be from 2018.
-
pink ghetto
Can you elaborate about this? Specifically the word ghetto in this context?
Sorry, I probably shouldn't have said ghetto...I used to work in health care and the ladies were always referring to it as that! I just meant it is almost all female for the most part. I really think schools should have a good mix of teachers; men, women, all races etc. It is so feminine now it is not a good representation of society. High school seems to be a much better mix.
Anyhow, didn't mean it as an insult. Sorry if I caused any offence.
I see what you are saying, but I think there’s more to the story than just a gaggle of women. I think it’s interesting that pink collar jobs like nursing and teaching are notoriously underpaid and employers/society use the “caring” aspect of the job as a tool to manipulate those in those jobs. Would the pay and manipulation be there if the jobs were at least (number pulled from my ass) a 40/60 split?
Yeah, our elementary school has 10-15% male teachers (basically, 3), and a male principal.
However, this appears to be a result of the fact that elementary teachers get paid less.
I do not think it is intentional on the side of the schools or the districts.
(Junior high and high school are much closer to 50/50.)
-
I watched the video. I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan because, yes, he says a lot and rambles all over the place. But to be fair, in this video he's not saying retirement in general is bad even though the title implies otherwise. It starts with a coworkers vision of drinking margaritas on a beach in retirement, and he rightfully points out this isn't a plan, or at least not a good one. Nor did he imply that people should keep working shitty jobs, though perhaps that's one of his talking points I'm not familiar with? In any case, the idea of optimizing the common case and having something larger purpose to pursue seems very much in line with the rest of MMM.
It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.
Yeah, someone snipped a section from a rambling podcast and slapped a silly title on it. This isn't really an argument about retirement at all.
He's basically saying that if you are seeking greater satisfaction in life you're more likely to find it by engaging in worthwhile tasks on behalf of the people around you rather than by simply sipping drinks in a trouble-free paradise. The latter is great once in a while but as a lifestyle it's likely a false utopia. Not sure this would be particularly controversial if it wasn't Jordan Peterson saying it.
Agreed. Also, if you're the type to FIRE, how long can you really sit on a beach?
I volunteer as tribute!
-
I watched the video. I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan because, yes, he says a lot and rambles all over the place. But to be fair, in this video he's not saying retirement in general is bad even though the title implies otherwise. It starts with a coworkers vision of drinking margaritas on a beach in retirement, and he rightfully points out this isn't a plan, or at least not a good one. Nor did he imply that people should keep working shitty jobs, though perhaps that's one of his talking points I'm not familiar with? In any case, the idea of optimizing the common case and having something larger purpose to pursue seems very much in line with the rest of MMM.
It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.
Yeah, someone snipped a section from a rambling podcast and slapped a silly title on it. This isn't really an argument about retirement at all.
He's basically saying that if you are seeking greater satisfaction in life you're more likely to find it by engaging in worthwhile tasks on behalf of the people around you rather than by simply sipping drinks in a trouble-free paradise. The latter is great once in a while but as a lifestyle it's likely a false utopia. Not sure this would be particularly controversial if it wasn't Jordan Peterson saying it.
Agreed. Also, if you're the type to FIRE, how long can you really sit on a beach?
I volunteer as tribute!
I'm not great at sitting on a beach, but if I could still walk, then I can kill A LOT of time walking along the water and listening to audiobooks.
-
I've read his two latest books (Twelve Rules and Beyond Order) and I found what I think are some pretty good ideas within. I don't necessarily agree with (or understand) everything he says, but that's ok. I don't understand and agree with everything anyone else thinks, either.
Sorry that his views on some topics seem to be so repulsive to some folks. It strikes me as a bit over-reactive when people call him a repulsive human being, morally reprehensible, etc. Hey, maybe he is, I don't know the guy, but I'm not sure what you saw or read that takes you to that conclusion about someone you don't personally know either.
I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice. It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone.
His thoughts on retirement as taken from that interview are, I think, quite accurate. Maybe most if not all of us think "well, duh", but just as with financial advice, there are a lot of people who need the 'obvious' stuff pointed out.
Of course I haven't read all of the literature and just like almost everyone else I have to defer to authority on lots of things in fields in which I certainly have no expertise. It seems reasonable when he makes the case that human happiness is highly correlated with having some meaningful 'purpose' in our lives. Maybe that's our work, maybe it's something else, but for the vast majority of people it isn't sitting on the beach every day. Is his example simplistic, sure. Sometimes to make a point people use an extreme example. I'm sure there are people who really do picture their retirement like that, just like there are people who think the key to financial security is to hit the lotto numbers.
His writings on social hierarchies is reasonable, in my view. This relates to his rejection of equity of outcome as either a desirable or achievable goal. People are not born with equal strengths or desires. His writing regarding the culture of grievances is equally logical, in my view. There comes a point of absurdity when you follow it to a logical conclusion where virtually everyone is in some sub-sub-category of 'oppressed' or 'marginalized' and we're just all at each other's throats all of the time seeking payback for our oppression.
-
I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice. It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone.
JP says lots of things that are obvious and not terribly original. And that seems to be how he operates. He says things that everyone agrees with and aren't controversial on any level, and everyone nods their heads and agrees. Then he moves onto positions that can only be described as crackpot. His views on atheism for example are just dumb. There is no other way to describe it. There's no high level of understanding here. He just isn't that smart. He's effective in that he always has an answer in his back pocket, but the his answers take a loooooooong time to explain and aren't very compelling when you boil them down. At least on more advanced topics.
If I may make a metaphor, on one of his Joe Rogan appearances, he said that he has a diet of 100% beef, and that diet has eliminated his health issues. But in essence, what he did was an elimination diet, but once he solved his health issues, he didn't start adding foods back in to see what the real culprit is. In his mind everything "not beef" is the problem, when in reality something(s) other than beef is the problem. But he doesn't start adding foods back in to see what the real problem is, he's content with his answer that everything not beef is the problem.
-
I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice. It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone.
JP says lots of things that are obvious and not terribly original. And that seems to be how he operates. He says things that everyone agrees with and aren't controversial on any level, and everyone nods their heads and agrees. Then he moves onto positions that can only be described as crackpot. His views on atheism for example are just dumb. There is no other way to describe it. There's no high level of understanding here. He just isn't that smart. He's effective in that he always has an answer in his back pocket, but the his answers take a loooooooong time to explain and aren't very compelling when you boil them down. At least on more advanced topics.
If I may make a metaphor, on one of his Joe Rogan appearances, he said that he has a diet of 100% beef, and that diet has eliminated his health issues. But in essence, what he did was an elimination diet, but once he solved his health issues, he didn't start adding foods back in to see what the real culprit is. In his mind everything "not beef" is the problem, when in reality something(s) other than beef is the problem. But he doesn't start adding foods back in to see what the real problem is, he's content with his answer that everything not beef is the problem.
Even if your opinions are right, it doesn’t make him a horrible person worthy of the vitriol he seems to get from some quarters. Its not like he’s out there stomping kittens or something.
-
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting animal cruelty charges. I’ve so far only read people who don’t want to give any further attention on any platform and one person (me) who wouldn’t rely on him as a sole contributor for an ice cream decision.
-
I've read his two latest books (Twelve Rules and Beyond Order) and I found what I think are some pretty good ideas within. I don't necessarily agree with (or understand) everything he says, but that's ok. I don't understand and agree with everything anyone else thinks, either.
Sorry that his views on some topics seem to be so repulsive to some folks. It strikes me as a bit over-reactive when people call him a repulsive human being, morally reprehensible, etc. Hey, maybe he is, I don't know the guy, but I'm not sure what you saw or read that takes you to that conclusion about someone you don't personally know either.
I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice. It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone.
His thoughts on retirement as taken from that interview are, I think, quite accurate. Maybe most if not all of us think "well, duh", but just as with financial advice, there are a lot of people who need the 'obvious' stuff pointed out.
Of course I haven't read all of the literature and just like almost everyone else I have to defer to authority on lots of things in fields in which I certainly have no expertise. It seems reasonable when he makes the case that human happiness is highly correlated with having some meaningful 'purpose' in our lives. Maybe that's our work, maybe it's something else, but for the vast majority of people it isn't sitting on the beach every day. Is his example simplistic, sure. Sometimes to make a point people use an extreme example. I'm sure there are people who really do picture their retirement like that, just like there are people who think the key to financial security is to hit the lotto numbers.
His writings on social hierarchies is reasonable, in my view. This relates to his rejection of equity of outcome as either a desirable or achievable goal. People are not born with equal strengths or desires. His writing regarding the culture of grievances is equally logical, in my view. There comes a point of absurdity when you follow it to a logical conclusion where virtually everyone is in some sub-sub-category of 'oppressed' or 'marginalized' and we're just all at each other's throats all of the time seeking payback for our oppression.
If you don't know why some of us find Peterson morally reprehensible, then either you yourself hold opinions that IMO are morally reprehensible, or you aren't aware of the more offensive things he has said, especially about women.
So I don't take kindly to you telling me that I'm over reacting if you don't even know the more controversial positions he holds.
You can't read his most benign work and then say that we're all being ridiculous about the things he says. That's just nonsense.
-
If you don't know why some of us find Peterson morally reprehensible, then either you yourself hold opinions that IMO are morally reprehensible, or you aren't aware of the more offensive things he has said, especially about women.
So I don't take kindly to you telling me that I'm over reacting if you don't even know the more controversial positions he holds.
You can't read his most benign work and then say that we're all being ridiculous about the things he says. That's just nonsense.
OR, you possibly have been presented with an inverted summary of his views. It's quite easy for the internet to quote Peterson and misrepresent his opinions, which happens more than not. I, have not seen anything he's said about trans people as particularly malicious. He hasn't said particularly much about the subject, other than that preferred pronouns were the vehicle for compelled speech that he was worried about (turns out he stood on a hill that didn't exist, but that's another subject)
I am completely open to be proven wrong. I welcome the learning experience in good faith conversation. I've mis-read situations like this before.
I don't particularly like Peterson- his philosophy doesn't make any sense to me and is too melodramatic, although he does present some interesting conversation when in "clinician" mode. But my (anecdotal, perhaps naive) perception is that people who have a particularly seething vitriol toward him have had that view curated for intentionally by dishonest sources.
-
I would not presume that she made her opinions based on second or third hand sources, much less disreputable ones. It’s not like his videos aren’t littering youtube.
-
If you don't know why some of us find Peterson morally reprehensible, then either you yourself hold opinions that IMO are morally reprehensible, or you aren't aware of the more offensive things he has said, especially about women.
So I don't take kindly to you telling me that I'm over reacting if you don't even know the more controversial positions he holds.
You can't read his most benign work and then say that we're all being ridiculous about the things he says. That's just nonsense.
OR, you possibly have been presented with an inverted summary of his views. It's quite easy for the internet to quote Peterson and misrepresent his opinions, which happens more than not. I, have not seen anything he's said about trans people as particularly malicious. He hasn't said particularly much about the subject, other than that preferred pronouns were the vehicle for compelled speech that he was worried about (turns out he stood on a hill that didn't exist, but that's another subject)
I am completely open to be proven wrong. I welcome the learning experience in good faith conversation. I've mis-read situations like this before.
I don't particularly like Peterson- his philosophy doesn't make any sense to me and is too melodramatic, although he does present some interesting conversation when in "clinician" mode. But my (anecdotal, perhaps naive) perception is that people who have a particularly seething vitriol toward him have had that view curated for intentionally by dishonest sources.
Interesting assumption. And clearly, you don't know me.
Entirely incorrect in my case. I sought out Peterson's content with no bias against him. I knew nothing about him except that he was a prof at UofT and I saw some quotes from him that actually seemed somewhat interesting and someone had spoken highly of him, so I sought out to see what he had to say.
My disdain for him comes from listening to a lot of what he has to say, himself, which is something I thought I had previously made clear in this thread.
My disdain for Peterson is earned by him and his words.
So as I said, you either hold the same positions as he does, or you haven't heard a lot of his more offensive content.
But no, I don't just pointlessly get offended by people because someone else told me to and cherry picked and twisted their work to portray them as offensive. I have more intellectual integrity than that. I am tremendously rigorous when it comes to concluding that I think someone is fundamentally offensive. I actively seek out to understand the basis of their position and see the other side, only then do I feel comfortable writing someone off as morally offensive.
So maybe you talk to a lot of people who don't engage in intellectual rigour when they take a position of offense to someone's works, but that's not me.
I do not respect Peterson, and I firmly think the world would be better off without him because ANY value he has ever had in any of his messaging is not particularly original, so the world could easily do without him and still get the same benefit, and it would be spared his much more gross bullshit.
I DO NOT think the world is better off for having Peterson's "wisdom" in it.
-
Entirely incorrect in my case. I sought out Peterson's content with no bias against him. I knew nothing about him except that he was a prof at UofT and I saw some quotes from him that actually seemed somewhat interesting and someone had spoken highly of him, so I sought out to see what he had to say.
My disdain for him comes from listening to a lot of what he has to say, himself, which is something I thought I had previously made clear in this thread.
My disdain for Peterson is earned by him and his words.
So as I said, you either hold the same positions as he does, or you haven't heard a lot of his more offensive content.
I only glanced at the thread, I missed this part and missed the level of thought that you have put into your stance on this matter
But no, I don't just pointlessly get offended by people because someone else told me to and cherry picked and twisted their work to portray them as offensive. I have more intellectual integrity than that.
...
So maybe you talk to a lot of people who don't engage in intellectual rigour when they take a position of offense to someone's works, but that's not me.
My mistake, and yes, many times people that I converse with misrepresent what he says, which is my baseline assumption. Turns out what they say about assumptions is true for me in this case!
-
So many "influencers" just filling air time for 'likes' these days. JP's college lectures are like 98% pure his opinion. If I was a student I would demand a refund. Oh and Joe please do retire, ASAP. I personally know a minion of yours who now has shredded lungs because of you, Joe. Don't care much for either of those fellas.
-
I watched his testimony and never saw him say he doesn't and wouldn't use preferred pronouns . . . instead his objection was to a law that, in his view, compelled speech. Was he being an idiot, doing that? Legal scholars say he was, and that the law change wouldn't actually compel speech. But maybe he's right, and it is a slippery slope?
That somehow launched him into stardom and, because he already had put tons of relatively obscure stuff like splices of his psychology class lectures into the public sphere for people to lap up, a cult-like following. Now he's loaded.
You can dislike him because of some of the conclusions that he draws. That doesn't make every single conclusion he has drawn wrong.
Yeah, in one interview he uses preferred pronouns over what one might use as a default... His position is consistent with being entirely against compelled speech, rather than being against all pronouns contrary to XX or XY genetic disposition. Of course, I don't know every thing that he has said and can't and wouldn't defend all of it. Just know that he will use pronouns by request if not required as part of compelled speech.
I think it was at Harvard - the interviewer was trans, and it was very productive and cordial.
-
............JP's college lectures are like 98% pure his opinion...........
The ones I heard (perhaps the ones I was interested in) were covering other people's work - like "The Gulag Archipelago" and this or that psychiatrist. I thought they were interesting.
I didn't find his Biblical lectures very interesting, and disliked "12 Rules for Life." Not because the rules were bad, but he wrote so many words to say so little. One part of the book I remember liking was when he talked about the treatment of his daughter's auto-immune disorder, and how a mistake in administering her meds (I think she was given 10x the prescribed dose) ended up being the right amount, but if I recall correctly, it might not have even been a page of this very thick book.
-
Agreed. Also, if you're the type to FIRE, how long can you really sit on a beach?
I volunteer as tribute!
I'm not great at sitting on a beach, but if I could still walk, then I can kill A LOT of time walking along the water and listening to audiobooks.
Clock starts......NOW!
-
Not because the rules were bad, but he wrote so many words to say so little. One part of the book I remember liking was when he talked about the treatment of his daughter's auto-immune disorder, and how a mistake in administering her meds (I think she was given 10x the prescribed dose) ended up being the right amount, but if I recall correctly, it might not have even been a page of this very thick book.
I haven't read his books, but I feel like his talks have the same problem. Witness the video in the first post. Basically, he says that it is good to have purpose and focus in retirement. That's non-controversial and should take about 12 seconds to state. Eight minutes later he's still droning on...
-
Not because the rules were bad, but he wrote so many words to say so little. One part of the book I remember liking was when he talked about the treatment of his daughter's auto-immune disorder, and how a mistake in administering her meds (I think she was given 10x the prescribed dose) ended up being the right amount, but if I recall correctly, it might not have even been a page of this very thick book.
I haven't read his books, but I feel like his talks have the same problem. Witness the video in the first post. Basically, he says that it is good to have purpose and focus in retirement. That's non-controversial and should take about 12 seconds to state. Eight minutes later he's still droning on...
Um, have you seen some of the threads on this forum? How many thousands of posts should it take to cover the 4% rule?
-
I had never heard of Peterson until my MIL sent me a video called something like "motherhood vs career: women are being lied to" and it was condescending and slippery and ultimately offensive to me as a mother and woman who works . I watched a few more videos as she sent them and then read most of 12 Rules when she bought it for me for Christmas.
Peterson seems to be really good at making sure he isn't quotable when it comes to sexism or anti-LGBTQA stuff so he can say "I never said that." But then he implies it all day long.
For instance- in the very first video my MIL sent me he says that young women are taught that their careers will be the primary purpose of their life, and "that is a lie." The entire video is motherhood vs. career, so if it is a lie that Career is the purpose for women, then obviously, per the parameters of the video then the "truth" is that Motherhood is the purpose.
But Peterson defenders will also say that Peterson is on the record as saying he doesn't believe that women should only be housewives/mothers. (I've looked for him saying this and can't find it, I can't only find other people saying that Peterson is on record as saying it.)
I mean, the sub-title of his major best-seller is "an antidote to chaos" and chaos is associated with all things female/feminine.
At best, Peterson is someone who wants to uphold the status quo.
Forgive some of us if we don't want to read more of that to find the "good points".
-
I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice. It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone.
JP says lots of things that are obvious and not terribly original. And that seems to be how he operates. He says things that everyone agrees with and aren't controversial on any level, and everyone nods their heads and agrees. Then he moves onto positions that can only be described as crackpot. His views on atheism for example are just dumb. There is no other way to describe it. There's no high level of understanding here. He just isn't that smart. He's effective in that he always has an answer in his back pocket, but the his answers take a loooooooong time to explain and aren't very compelling when you boil them down. At least on more advanced topics.
If I may make a metaphor, on one of his Joe Rogan appearances, he said that he has a diet of 100% beef, and that diet has eliminated his health issues. But in essence, what he did was an elimination diet, but once he solved his health issues, he didn't start adding foods back in to see what the real culprit is. In his mind everything "not beef" is the problem, when in reality something(s) other than beef is the problem. But he doesn't start adding foods back in to see what the real problem is, he's content with his answer that everything not beef is the problem.
Even if your opinions are right, it doesn’t make him a horrible person worthy of the vitriol he seems to get from some quarters. Its not like he’s out there stomping kittens or something.
If JP can insist that it his free speech and intellectual freedom right to use the wrong pronouns for people, no matter how rude, dehumanizing or insulting doing so may be, then I don't see why he or any of his defenders have any ground to stand on to object to people using whatever vitriol they see fit to describe him, that being their free speech and intellectual freedom right.
I don't think Peterson would have any issue with what you state at all... his entire argument against the pronouns thing was about a Canadian law that would have eliminated the free speech and intellectual freedom right by making it a crime to misuse pronouns. IE, compelling speech... which should clearly concern anyone who values free speech.
-
I think his exhortation to improve yourself by just small steps and build upon them every day is great (if not terribly original) advice. It seems to me that there is a big audience that needs to hear this advice from someone.
JP says lots of things that are obvious and not terribly original. And that seems to be how he operates. He says things that everyone agrees with and aren't controversial on any level, and everyone nods their heads and agrees. Then he moves onto positions that can only be described as crackpot. His views on atheism for example are just dumb. There is no other way to describe it. There's no high level of understanding here. He just isn't that smart. He's effective in that he always has an answer in his back pocket, but the his answers take a loooooooong time to explain and aren't very compelling when you boil them down. At least on more advanced topics.
If I may make a metaphor, on one of his Joe Rogan appearances, he said that he has a diet of 100% beef, and that diet has eliminated his health issues. But in essence, what he did was an elimination diet, but once he solved his health issues, he didn't start adding foods back in to see what the real culprit is. In his mind everything "not beef" is the problem, when in reality something(s) other than beef is the problem. But he doesn't start adding foods back in to see what the real problem is, he's content with his answer that everything not beef is the problem.
Even if your opinions are right, it doesn’t make him a horrible person worthy of the vitriol he seems to get from some quarters. Its not like he’s out there stomping kittens or something.
If JP can insist that it his free speech and intellectual freedom right to use the wrong pronouns for people, no matter how rude, dehumanizing or insulting doing so may be, then I don't see why he or any of his defenders have any ground to stand on to object to people using whatever vitriol they see fit to describe him, that being their free speech and intellectual freedom right.
I don't think Peterson would have any issue with what you state at all... his entire argument against the pronouns thing was about a Canadian law that would have eliminated the free speech and intellectual freedom right by making it a crime to misuse pronouns. IE, compelling speech... which should clearly concern anyone who values free speech.
Uh, except that the bill never actually involved any of the limitations on free speech that Peterson was arguing against. The bill is about not discriminating against people on the basis of them being trans.
His entire argument was that if we allow there to be laws protecting trans people from discrimination, then it's a slippery slope towards it becoming illegal to deny them their preferred pronouns, which is a HUGE legal stretch.
But when pushed he says he's not anti trans, and also that he's not against laws that protect trans people? So what is he actually against? Well that's not really clear. But he's totally against being forced to use pronouns that he doesn't want to use. But no one is trying to force him to...so I guess it's a non issue??
What is he actually fighting against in the first place? Wait, who really knows because it's Peterson and he talks in fucking circles.
It would be A LOT like if there was a society and Jews moved in and wanted to be able to practice circumcisions, and some academic started screaming "I don't want my dick cut off!"
Well, the argument that it's bad to cut off dicks is a very valid argument, but the Jews were never trying to cut off anyone's dick, much less this random non-Jewish professor, they just wanted to protect their right to circumcise their children. Because, let's say every time they have a briss, anti-Semites get viciously beat and often kill at least one Jew. So they lobby for a law to make it clear that they are entitled to practice their traditions, and exist without being discriminated against, because the violence has gotten out of control.
So the Jews and Jew-supporters start calling the professor anti-Semitic because he's opposing a law that would allow the Jews to practice their culture more safely, but the prof keeps ranting that he's not at all anti-Semitic, he just believes that circumcision is a slippery slope to HIM and OTHERS being forced to have their dicks cut off. That's not anti-Semitic, that's just reasonable and you are the fucking crazy person for not seeing that. THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR DICKS.
So then all of the people who don't really get Jewish culture or already hate Jews jump on the bandwagon of saying that it's perfectly reasonable not to want your dick cut off, and talk down to the people supporting the circumcision rights saying "how could you think he's an asshole, everything he's saying about cutting dicks off makes perfect to *me*, I don't want my dick cut off and I DO NOT trust the left not to take my balls as well"
Because yes, being an activist against cutting dicks off DOES make perfect sense. But what doesn't make sense is trying to bar Jews from performing circumcisions, and fomenting hatred towards them, because a blathering academic has decided to equate anti-discrimination policies with forced chopping off of gentile dicks, even though that's not even a thing.
All the while he's pugnaciously insisting that he's not and never has ever been anti-Semitic, because in his mind, he isn't.
If Peterson wants to protest a future law that forces him to use pronouns he doesn't want to use, then sure, I think any law like that that comes up should be debated by everyone. But until that day, he isn't opposing limits on free speech, and it's worth looking at exactly it was that he was ACTUALLY opposing to ferociously.
It's one thing to say that you're opposed to having your dick cut off, it's another thing to oppose the right of a group not to be discriminated against.
And that's where being a slippery fuck who talks in circles is so useful for him. He can say really offensive things and bury it under a pile of nonsense so that it no longer can be parsed into its offensive pieces, or be argued with effectively.
-
Uh, except that the bill never actually involved any of the limitations on free speech that Peterson was arguing against. The bill is about not discriminating against people on the basis of them being trans.
His entire argument was that if we allow there to be laws protecting trans people from discrimination, then it's a slippery slope towards it becoming illegal to deny them their preferred pronouns, which is a HUGE legal stretch.
without going to the original source, just wikipedia:
According to legal experts, including law professors Brenda Cossman of the University of Toronto and Kyle Kirkup of the University of Ottawa, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech.[16][17][18]
According to Cossman, accidental misuse of a pronoun would be unlikely to constitute discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but "repeatedly, consistently refus[ing] to use a person’s chosen pronoun" might.[19] Commercial litigator Jared Brown said that imprisonment would be possible if a complaint were made to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched
-
Since language is fluid, how does this cause any meaningful distress for anyone?
-
Uh, except that the bill never actually involved any of the limitations on free speech that Peterson was arguing against. The bill is about not discriminating against people on the basis of them being trans.
His entire argument was that if we allow there to be laws protecting trans people from discrimination, then it's a slippery slope towards it becoming illegal to deny them their preferred pronouns, which is a HUGE legal stretch.
without going to the original source, just wikipedia:
According to legal experts, including law professors Brenda Cossman of the University of Toronto and Kyle Kirkup of the University of Ottawa, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech.[16][17][18]
According to Cossman, accidental misuse of a pronoun would be unlikely to constitute discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but "repeatedly, consistently refus[ing] to use a person’s chosen pronoun" might.[19] Commercial litigator Jared Brown said that imprisonment would be possible if a complaint were made to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched
Oh good grief. The burden to prove a hate crime and discrimination is so high. It's not just a matter of using pronouns, it would have to be that the person was going out of their way to use the wrong pronouns with the purpose of being discriminatory and/or abusive to that person.
So yeah, if Peterson sat a trans man down in his class in front of everyone and started screaming "this is a woman! And SHE will be called a woman in this class because SHE was born a woman and God intended HER to be a woman, so I don't care what surgery SHE has or what pronouns SHE prefers, I will not be grading HER papers or allowing HER to attend MY class until SHE shapes up and starts taking MY class and HERSELF seriously"
Yeah, that would be discrimination and a crime because in Canada we don't have the same free speech that the US does. We already criminalize hate speech, so this isn't the level encroachment on freedom that Americans think it is. There are already TONS of things you can't say in Canada. We've just added trans people to the protected list, because they're actually more at risk of violence than most of the protected groups.
That said, he still wouldn't go to jail, he would likely be mandated to take some cultural sensitivity courses.
But we don't have people being casually convicted of hate crimes, so yet again, this is a non issue, and Peterson is at no risk of being imprisoned for using the wrong pronouns unless he is demonstrably, provably discriminatory and anti-trans.
-
combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched
In addition to what Malcat said: I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.
-
combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched
In addition to what Malcat said: I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.
Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."
-
Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."
I need you to call me Jane on Mondays, Mary on Tuesdays, and Sir the rest of the week. Except during the solstice, then I need to be called God-Queen. If you don't cater to that, then it's you that's being offensive. Don't worry, though, I'll get major institutions, colleges and job postings to list these as options so that everyone knows exactly what level of protected social group I am in (and should help their hiring practices as well!)
The issue is that the burden is starting to become external for much of the people demanding it. I don't mind calling anyone he/she/them/it, but I do find it tedious when I'm expected to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape of pronoun development. I just want to plant my tomatoes in the spring, try to learn more about my career, volunteer at habitat for humanity. Now I'm becoming worried about being doxxed for slipping in the wrong speech just because I don't even really care what pronoun people are called. It genuinely doesn't interest me.
On an individual level I do my honest best to make everyone feel comfortable and accepted.
-
Oh good grief. The burden to prove a hate crime and discrimination is so high.
maybe in the 90s
it doesn't even matter if you're found guilt of anything, the moment you are accused publicly you have an anonymous mob digging for your facebook posts from 2005, sending threats to your family and spamming your employer
-
Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."
I need you to call me Jane on Mondays, Mary on Tuesdays, and Sir the rest of the week. Except during the solstice, then I need to be called God-Queen. If you don't cater to that, then it's you that's being offensive. Don't worry, though, I'll get major institutions, colleges and job postings to list these as options so that everyone knows exactly what level of protected social group I am in (and should help their hiring practices as well!)
The issue is that the burden is starting to become external for much of the people demanding it. I don't mind calling anyone he/she/them/it, but I do find it tedious when I'm expected to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape of pronoun development. I just want to plant my tomatoes in the spring, try to learn more about my career, volunteer at habitat for humanity. Now I'm becoming worried about being doxxed for slipping in the wrong speech just because I don't even really care what pronoun people are called. It genuinely doesn't interest me.
On an individual level I do my honest best to make everyone feel comfortable and accepted.
LOL. That is quite a lot of straw men you packed into that post.
-
Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."
I need you to call me Jane on Mondays, Mary on Tuesdays, and Sir the rest of the week. Except during the solstice, then I need to be called God-Queen. If you don't cater to that, then it's you that's being offensive. Don't worry, though, I'll get major institutions, colleges and job postings to list these as options so that everyone knows exactly what level of protected social group I am in (and should help their hiring practices as well!)
The issue is that the burden is starting to become external for much of the people demanding it. I don't mind calling anyone he/she/them/it, but I do find it tedious when I'm expected to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape of pronoun development. I just want to plant my tomatoes in the spring, try to learn more about my career, volunteer at habitat for humanity. Now I'm becoming worried about being doxxed for slipping in the wrong speech just because I don't even really care what pronoun people are called. It genuinely doesn't interest me.
On an individual level I do my honest best to make everyone feel comfortable and accepted.
LOL. That is quite a lot of straw men you packed into that post.
You may think so, wouldn't you!? years ago i would have said the same
I'm applying for jobs right now. Most of them ask for pronoun/race/nationality/vet status/ect. I have to fill out form after form of non-job related information that makes me a less qualified candidate. Forget my performance, education, temperament, etc. Those are second rate items.
It's exhausting. Why does my orientation matter when the job is physics based? Why are we here? I get the sentiment, but at some point it would be easier for me to make or join a protected class than to actually develop my skillset further. I don't want to be bitter- I want the best opportunity for everyone. But at some point all arrows are pointed in weird directions. I don't understand the end goal. It seems to be to divide us all up and rate our level of oppression on a scale.
I will say that the pronoun thing hasn't caused an issue in a face-to-face interaction for me yet (perhaps why you think this is a straw man). But this is having an interesting effect on major institutions, and not very much good dialogue. Particularly because people are dismissing any conversation like the one I'm having as racist/sexist/genderist/colonizer/ whatever.
-
I'm applying for jobs right now. Most of them ask for pronoun/race/nationality/vet status/ect. I have to fill out form after form of non-job related information that makes me a less qualified candidate. Forget my performance, education, temperament, etc. Those are second rate items.
It's exhausting. Why does my orientation matter when the job is physics based? Why are we here? I get the sentiment, but at some point it would be easier for me to make or join a protected class than to actually develop my skillset further. I don't want to be bitter- I want the best opportunity for everyone. But at some point all arrows are pointed in weird directions. I don't understand the end goal. It seems to be to divide us all up and rate our level of oppression on a scale.
I will say that the pronoun thing hasn't caused an issue in a face-to-face interaction for me yet (perhaps why you think this is a straw man). But this is having an interesting effect on major institutions, and not very much good dialogue. Particularly because people are dismissing any conversation like the one I'm having as racist/sexist/genderist/colonizer/ whatever.
Are you applying for jobs in academia or in the private sector?
-
Are you applying for jobs in academia or in the private sector?
Private sector. But I'm getting a master's right now, so I am seeing quite a bit of the lip service that colleges are giving these days. Much different than 2005 when I was in undergrad.
-
Are you applying for jobs in academia or in the private sector?
Private sector. But I'm getting a master's right now, so I am seeing quite a bit of the lip service that colleges are giving these days. Much different than 2005 when I was in undergrad.
Wow. From the way you described it I was guessing you were applying to faculty positions. I am guessing you're still in a field with lots of applicants for each opening? Having done both, the emotional impact of having a whole bunch of boxes you cannot check feels very different in a job where you figure you start out with a 50/50 shot of getting the job vs one where you feel like you start out with a one in one hundred shot and any little imperfection is probably going to knock you out of contention entirely.
Yeah colleges' approaches and the atmosphere on campus have changed a lot in the last 15 years (particularly in the last five or so). But probably not a fruitful line of discussion.
-
Are you applying for jobs in academia or in the private sector?
Private sector. But I'm getting a master's right now, so I am seeing quite a bit of the lip service that colleges are giving these days. Much different than 2005 when I was in undergrad.
Wow. From the way you described it I was guessing you were applying to faculty positions. I am guessing you're still in a field with lots of applicants for each opening? Having done both, the emotional impact of having a whole bunch of boxes you cannot check feels very different in a job where you figure you start out with a 50/50 shot of getting the job vs one where you feel like you start out with a one in one hundred shot and any little imperfection is probably going to knock you out of contention entirely.
Yeah colleges' approaches and the atmosphere on campus have changed a lot in the last 15 years (particularly in the last five or so). But probably not a fruitful line of discussion.
It's what caught me off guard the most... it's a technical field. I'd not expected it is turning that stuff that was going on "out there" in imagination land of social media into a very eye opening experience on a personal level.
-
Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."
I need you to call me Jane on Mondays, Mary on Tuesdays, and Sir the rest of the week. Except during the solstice, then I need to be called God-Queen. If you don't cater to that, then it's you that's being offensive. Don't worry, though, I'll get major institutions, colleges and job postings to list these as options so that everyone knows exactly what level of protected social group I am in (and should help their hiring practices as well!)
The issue is that the burden is starting to become external for much of the people demanding it. I don't mind calling anyone he/she/them/it, but I do find it tedious when I'm expected to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape of pronoun development. I just want to plant my tomatoes in the spring, try to learn more about my career, volunteer at habitat for humanity. Now I'm becoming worried about being doxxed for slipping in the wrong speech just because I don't even really care what pronoun people are called. It genuinely doesn't interest me.
On an individual level I do my honest best to make everyone feel comfortable and accepted.
LOL. That is quite a lot of straw men you packed into that post.
You may think so, wouldn't you!? years ago i would have said the same
I'm applying for jobs right now. Most of them ask for pronoun/race/nationality/vet status/ect. I have to fill out form after form of non-job related information that makes me a less qualified candidate. Forget my performance, education, temperament, etc. Those are second rate items.
It's exhausting. Why does my orientation matter when the job is physics based? Why are we here? I get the sentiment, but at some point it would be easier for me to make or join a protected class than to actually develop my skillset further. I don't want to be bitter- I want the best opportunity for everyone. But at some point all arrows are pointed in weird directions. I don't understand the end goal. It seems to be to divide us all up and rate our level of oppression on a scale.
I will say that the pronoun thing hasn't caused an issue in a face-to-face interaction for me yet (perhaps why you think this is a straw man). But this is having an interesting effect on major institutions, and not very much good dialogue. Particularly because people are dismissing any conversation like the one I'm having as racist/sexist/genderist/colonizer/ whatever.
Ah, so this argument has evolved from hate crimes to you taking issue with possible affirmative action that your program may or may not be engaging in, since you haven't actually confirmed that these boxes to check are for affirmative action.
Cool, that helps me understand what your position is.
-
Are you applying for jobs in academia or in the private sector?
Private sector. But I'm getting a master's right now, so I am seeing quite a bit of the lip service that colleges are giving these days. Much different than 2005 when I was in undergrad.
Wow. From the way you described it I was guessing you were applying to faculty positions. I am guessing you're still in a field with lots of applicants for each opening? Having done both, the emotional impact of having a whole bunch of boxes you cannot check feels very different in a job where you figure you start out with a 50/50 shot of getting the job vs one where you feel like you start out with a one in one hundred shot and any little imperfection is probably going to knock you out of contention entirely.
Yeah colleges' approaches and the atmosphere on campus have changed a lot in the last 15 years (particularly in the last five or so). But probably not a fruitful line of discussion.
@Stashing Away
As someone who would/will most likely "benefit" from checking several of those boxes, I share your exhaustion. And I wish we could make this a fruitful line of discussion, instead of just shutting it down.
-
Ah, so this argument has evolved from hate crimes to you taking issue with possible affirmative action that your program may or may not be engaging in, since you haven't actually confirmed that these boxes to check are for affirmative action.
Cool, that helps me understand what your position is.
What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose? Honest question.
I believe that you couldn't state my position if your life depended on it. It all gets thrown into that "other" box and dismissed.
-
What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose?
The other reason would be required reporting on the composition of the applicant pool.
-
What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose?
The other reason would be required reporting on the composition of the applicant pool.
Yep. Otherwise known as *the* reason.
-
What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose?
The other reason would be required reporting on the composition of the applicant pool.
If I could be assured that this is the primary driver, I would be a very happy camper.
-
What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose?
The other reason would be required reporting on the composition of the applicant pool.
If I could be assured that this is the primary driver, I would be a very happy camper.
You know, I've been on a lot of hiring committees in my day. A lot. And in pretty much all of those situations, taking demographic information about candidates has been a required part of the procedure. But not once, ever, in all of my professional life, has anyone on any committee suggested that we hire a woman or a person of color or some underrepresented status who is less qualified, over a white, heterosexual man who is more qualified. Never. It has never happened.
Have I been in situations where there were two *equally qualified candidates* -- one a white heterosexual man, and one not -- where the decision was made to hire the person from the underrepresented group? Yes.
Is that wrong? And if you would argue that it is, are you saying that in those situations, the right decision would have been to hire the white heterosexual man?
If so, why?
-
Ah, so this argument has evolved from hate crimes to you taking issue with possible affirmative action that your program may or may not be engaging in, since you haven't actually confirmed that these boxes to check are for affirmative action.
Cool, that helps me understand what your position is.
What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose? Honest question.
I believe that you couldn't state my position if your life depended on it. It all gets thrown into that "other" box and dismissed.
Sure. Okay.
-
Have I been in situations where there were two *equally qualified candidates* -- one a white heterosexual man, and one not -- where the decision was made to hire the person from the underrepresented group? Yes.
I would not argue that's a wrong decision in the slightest. I would agree with your hiring position here and would likely make the same should I be in that position. Mind you, it would be because of the company optics if done the way I would prefer (flip a coin and with 50% chance of not hiring the socially preferable candidate).
I have much more to say about this, but don't feel that it could be approached well in this already derailed thread. My mood has already been soured. I want to think that I'm open to honest discussion but it seems that the lines have already been drawn and there isn't much open discussion on the table. Perhaps this is my fault. Either way, it's time to sign off for awhile.
-
What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose?
The other reason would be required reporting on the composition of the applicant pool.
We (private, for-profit company) are required to ask on our applications, but we are prohibited from basing your hiring decision on any of the answers, and we (and most?) companies do not pass that particular information on to the hiring committee, as it might unfairly bias the hiring process. As an applicant you are both protected and not required to fill that information out.
It was a similar situation for my previous employer (public university) and for the state government for which my spouse works.
Most states have very similar laws prohibiting discrimination based on a large group of protected classes (which almost always include race and gender, and increasingly gender identity).
FWIW there is also an ethnicity question on the US Census form, as well as a question about whether you are from hispanic descent. It is not verified and the form can be considered "complete" even if those pieces of information are left blank. We trained to specifically NOT ask any follow up questions to those questions (e.g. "really? you don't look african-american..." no way.)
For the background as to why this has become common place, its roots is in the 1964 civil rights act. To paraphrase the legal argument, you cannot prove systemic discrimination if you cannot measure differences. All of this is an attempt to do just that.
-
For anyone wondering if he is a morally reprehensible person you can read this to understand why someone that knows him infinitely better than the public thinks he shouldn't have a platform:
https://www.thestar.com/amp/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist
I do tend to question using his own hand-waiving points that intellectual conversation is about giving both sides the same amount of time to speak and the same weight no matter their opinion a little farcical. This leads to having scientists debate flat-earthers, it lends credence to wildly incorrect sides.
Jordan Peterson appears to want to build a cult, if you find yourself following what he says a bit too closely maybe try reading some counter-points so you don't end up in it.
-
For anyone wondering if he is a morally reprehensible person you can read this to understand why someone that knows him infinitely better than the public thinks he shouldn't have a platform:
https://www.thestar.com/amp/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist
I do tend to question using his own hand-waiving points that intellectual conversation is about giving both sides the same amount of time to speak and the same weight no matter their opinion a little farcical. This leads to having scientists debate flat-earthers, it lends credence to wildly incorrect sides.
Jordan Peterson appears to want to build a cult, if you find yourself following what he says a bit too closely maybe try reading some counter-points so you don't end up in it.
I remember reading that article when it came out. Yeah, he is definitely creepy, and his arguments on some of the more controversial positions he takes, to my mind, amount to a flurry of words designed to smokescreen some pretty simplistic and flawed ideas.
By the way, the link you gave is behind a paywall for me. So in case it is for others too, here it is on a non-paywalled site:
https://outline.com/Ef7wGR
-
Don't understand the love for Jordan Peterson. He's a reactionary conservative who wants to keep culture the way it is.
His arguments usually consist of babbling sprinkled with SAT words and either "Archetype" or "category":
You may say, 'Well, dragons don't exist'. It's, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It's a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, 'Well, there's no such thing as witches.' Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn't what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can't help but fall into these categories. There's no escape from them.
He often says mysoginist things:
- "There is something that isn't quite right with women who don't make having babies by 30 their primary desire" Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV2yvI4Id9Q&t=7m30s)
- "Can men and women work together? Things started deteriorating very rapidly once they started working together" Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blTglME9rvQ&t=5m51s)
- "Women who wear makeup in the workplace but do not want to be sexually harassed are hypocritical" Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blTglME9rvQ&t=7m13s)
- "Feminists have a unconscious desire for brutal male domination" Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV4iXfjonqI&t=6m20s)
He calls every threat to the status quo either "cultural marxism" or "postmodernism". But defines neither eloquently.
He is ardently pro free speech until someone says something mean about him, then he busts out the defamation lawsuits.
Despite being super against humanities because they are unscientific, he believes in pseudoscience like quantum mysticism and meat only diets.
-
He is ardently pro free speech until someone says something mean about him, then he busts out the defamation lawsuits.
Do you mean the lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University? I only found one...
-
- "There is something that isn't quite right with women who don't make having babies by 30 their primary desire" Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV2yvI4Id9Q&t=7m30s)
- "Can men and women work together? Things started deteriorating very rapidly once they started working together" Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blTglME9rvQ&t=5m51s)
- "Women who wear makeup in the workplace but do not want to be sexually harassed are hypocritical" Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blTglME9rvQ&t=7m13s)
- "Feminists have a unconscious desire for brutal male domination" Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV4iXfjonqI&t=6m20s)
Well, when bicycles came out it was well known that they would damage women's health, especially their reproductive organs.
And men and women have never in all of human history worked together, of course not. /s
Mascara is society's gift to women with invisible eyelashes.
He should take an ecology course. R type species have lots of babies early and often, because they die young and most of the babies die really young. K type species have babies late and rarely, and put a lot of investment into each baby. In western society now we are K type.
There is a species of grouse where the young inexperienced females mate with the most dominant males on the leks (sorry forget which species). The males are rough. The more experienced females mate with the middle of the road males and do that year after year. It's called learning from experience.
I heard of this guy years ago, didn't impress me then, and he obviously hasn't changed.
-
Or, one could note that, when he is in a position of power, say as a professor with a student, he has the courage of his convictions and stands for his principles to insult and degrade the other person.
Provide one time he did this to an individual. I'll wait.
-
combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched
In addition to what Malcat said: I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.
Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."
The only issue I've had with this is that it rarely has been I'll introduce myself as this name. That's no problem. Instead, it's usually, I've know the person for months/years, and then the name changes. That's challenging for me to remember. Also, I've struggled with pronouns multiple times - mostly either because the person physically looks like the other gender or because they want to use they and calling someone they is never going to be intuitive for me.
All that being said, I've also never gotten yelled at for using the wrong pronoun or name inadvertently, so it's never been an issue.
-
combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched
In addition to what Malcat said: I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.
Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."
The only issue I've had with this is that it rarely has been I'll introduce myself as this name. That's no problem. Instead, it's usually, I've know the person for months/years, and then the name changes. That's challenging for me to remember. Also, I've struggled with pronouns multiple times - mostly either because the person physically looks like the other gender or because they want to use they and calling someone they is never going to be intuitive for me.
All that being said, I've also never gotten yelled at for using the wrong pronoun or name inadvertently, so it's never been an issue.
Sure, but people changing what they are called has been a cultural norm for centuries. People get married and take their spouse’s name. A student becomes a doctor, or a rabbi, or a professor and gains a title. Kids drop their less formal nicknames to sound more grownup (e.g. “billy” decides to go by “william”). Parents split and remarry, leaving the kids with new surnames. A person takes a stage name, or a pen-name (nom de plume). After being released from prison a person wishes to make a ‘fresh start.’ Or a person changes their name to escape the stigma of an unreputible relative. Many change their names when they move to a new country to better assimilate, or because their old name proves difficult to pronounce for the locals.
It seems we accept name changes for so many reasons but for whatever reason this one has become a sticky subject. We don’t seem to mind when Lizzy Smith gets married and chooses to go by Elizabeth Hendricks; why is it so different when Lizzy decides to go by Lenny?
-
combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched
In addition to what Malcat said: I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.
Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."
The only issue I've had with this is that it rarely has been I'll introduce myself as this name. That's no problem. Instead, it's usually, I've know the person for months/years, and then the name changes. That's challenging for me to remember. Also, I've struggled with pronouns multiple times - mostly either because the person physically looks like the other gender or because they want to use they and calling someone they is never going to be intuitive for me.
All that being said, I've also never gotten yelled at for using the wrong pronoun or name inadvertently, so it's never been an issue.
Sure, but people changing what they are called has been a cultural norm for centuries. People get married and take their spouse’s name. A student becomes a doctor, or a rabbi, or a professor and gains a title. Kids drop their less formal nicknames to sound more grownup (e.g. “billy” decides to go by “william”). Parents split and remarry, leaving the kids with new surnames. A person takes a stage name, or a pen-name (nom de plume). After being released from prison a person wishes to make a ‘fresh start.’ Or a person changes their name to escape the stigma of an unreputible relative. Many change their names when they move to a new country to better assimilate, or because their old name proves difficult to pronounce for the locals.
It seems we accept name changes for so many reasons but for whatever reason this one has become a sticky subject. We don’t seem to mind when Lizzy Smith gets married and chooses to go by Elizabeth Hendricks; why is it so different when Lizzy decides to go by Lenny?
All good points. I will say that last name changes aren't quite the same as first name given most people establish identity in their mind based on first name. Also, I struggle with people that change their names in general, and I don't think I'm alone. I know of a couple people unrelated to trans situations that changed what they wanted to be called substantially, and I'm not great about either one of their new names. Also, even though no one has yelled at me about it, there's a certain level of tension that comes with missing a name in this situation that doesn't in the others.
None of this should be construed as complaining. I in no way have it rough or anything. However, I also believe it's not as simple as "just use the new name/ pronoun as it's often presented."
-
combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched
In addition to what Malcat said: I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.
Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."
The only issue I've had with this is that it rarely has been I'll introduce myself as this name. That's no problem. Instead, it's usually, I've know the person for months/years, and then the name changes. That's challenging for me to remember. Also, I've struggled with pronouns multiple times - mostly either because the person physically looks like the other gender or because they want to use they and calling someone they is never going to be intuitive for me.
All that being said, I've also never gotten yelled at for using the wrong pronoun or name inadvertently, so it's never been an issue.
Sure, but people changing what they are called has been a cultural norm for centuries. People get married and take their spouse’s name. A student becomes a doctor, or a rabbi, or a professor and gains a title. Kids drop their less formal nicknames to sound more grownup (e.g. “billy” decides to go by “william”). Parents split and remarry, leaving the kids with new surnames. A person takes a stage name, or a pen-name (nom de plume). After being released from prison a person wishes to make a ‘fresh start.’ Or a person changes their name to escape the stigma of an unreputible relative. Many change their names when they move to a new country to better assimilate, or because their old name proves difficult to pronounce for the locals.
It seems we accept name changes for so many reasons but for whatever reason this one has become a sticky subject. We don’t seem to mind when Lizzy Smith gets married and chooses to go by Elizabeth Hendricks; why is it so different when Lizzy decides to go by Lenny?
All good points. I will say that last name changes aren't quite the same as first name given most people establish identity in their mind based on first name. Also, I struggle with people that change their names in general, and I don't think I'm alone. I know of a couple people unrelated to trans situations that changed what they wanted to be called substantially, and I'm not great about either one of their new names. Also, even though no one has yelled at me about it, there's a certain level of tension that comes with missing a name in this situation that doesn't in the others.
None of this should be construed as complaining. I in no way have it rough or anything. However, I also believe it's not as simple as "just use the new name/ pronoun as it's often presented."
I work in an industry where all of my colleagues and I go by our last names, and changing last names has never been an issue.
Funny story. The only time I've seen someone changing their last name be an issue is when DH took my last name, and some people had full on meltdowns about it. Despite the fact that the name they knew him by was fake, and he had been illegally going by it for decades, lol, and none of them even knew his real name. Long story, not nearly as interesting as it sounds.
-
combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched
In addition to what Malcat said: I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.
Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."
The only issue I've had with this is that it rarely has been I'll introduce myself as this name. That's no problem. Instead, it's usually, I've know the person for months/years, and then the name changes. That's challenging for me to remember. Also, I've struggled with pronouns multiple times - mostly either because the person physically looks like the other gender or because they want to use they and calling someone they is never going to be intuitive for me.
All that being said, I've also never gotten yelled at for using the wrong pronoun or name inadvertently, so it's never been an issue.
Sure, but people changing what they are called has been a cultural norm for centuries. People get married and take their spouse’s name. A student becomes a doctor, or a rabbi, or a professor and gains a title. Kids drop their less formal nicknames to sound more grownup (e.g. “billy” decides to go by “william”). Parents split and remarry, leaving the kids with new surnames. A person takes a stage name, or a pen-name (nom de plume). After being released from prison a person wishes to make a ‘fresh start.’ Or a person changes their name to escape the stigma of an unreputible relative. Many change their names when they move to a new country to better assimilate, or because their old name proves difficult to pronounce for the locals.
It seems we accept name changes for so many reasons but for whatever reason this one has become a sticky subject. We don’t seem to mind when Lizzy Smith gets married and chooses to go by Elizabeth Hendricks; why is it so different when Lizzy decides to go by Lenny?
All good points. I will say that last name changes aren't quite the same as first name given most people establish identity in their mind based on first name. Also, I struggle with people that change their names in general, and I don't think I'm alone. I know of a couple people unrelated to trans situations that changed what they wanted to be called substantially, and I'm not great about either one of their new names. Also, even though no one has yelled at me about it, there's a certain level of tension that comes with missing a name in this situation that doesn't in the others.
None of this should be construed as complaining. I in no way have it rough or anything. However, I also believe it's not as simple as "just use the new name/ pronoun as it's often presented."
I work in an industry where all of my colleagues and I go by our last names, and changing last names has never been an issue.
Funny story. The only time I've seen someone changing their last name be an issue is when DH took my last name, and some people had full on meltdowns about it. Despite the fact that the name they knew him by was fake, and he had been illegally going by it for decades, lol, and none of them even knew his real name. Long story, not nearly as interesting as it sounds.
When my BIL got married they decided to hyphenate their last name. As in - both took the new surname. When he went to the town clerk to make the name-change official the older woman had a minor fit about it, and there was a minor kurfluffle before she relented and admitted that he had the legal right to do so.
Five years in and they love their shared surname. I’m not aware of anyone complaining besides that one town clerk who couldn’t get past a man changing his last name.
-
combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched
In addition to what Malcat said: I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.
Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."
The only issue I've had with this is that it rarely has been I'll introduce myself as this name. That's no problem. Instead, it's usually, I've know the person for months/years, and then the name changes. That's challenging for me to remember. Also, I've struggled with pronouns multiple times - mostly either because the person physically looks like the other gender or because they want to use they and calling someone they is never going to be intuitive for me.
All that being said, I've also never gotten yelled at for using the wrong pronoun or name inadvertently, so it's never been an issue.
Sure, but people changing what they are called has been a cultural norm for centuries. People get married and take their spouse’s name. A student becomes a doctor, or a rabbi, or a professor and gains a title. Kids drop their less formal nicknames to sound more grownup (e.g. “billy” decides to go by “william”). Parents split and remarry, leaving the kids with new surnames. A person takes a stage name, or a pen-name (nom de plume). After being released from prison a person wishes to make a ‘fresh start.’ Or a person changes their name to escape the stigma of an unreputible relative. Many change their names when they move to a new country to better assimilate, or because their old name proves difficult to pronounce for the locals.
It seems we accept name changes for so many reasons but for whatever reason this one has become a sticky subject. We don’t seem to mind when Lizzy Smith gets married and chooses to go by Elizabeth Hendricks; why is it so different when Lizzy decides to go by Lenny?
All good points. I will say that last name changes aren't quite the same as first name given most people establish identity in their mind based on first name. Also, I struggle with people that change their names in general, and I don't think I'm alone. I know of a couple people unrelated to trans situations that changed what they wanted to be called substantially, and I'm not great about either one of their new names. Also, even though no one has yelled at me about it, there's a certain level of tension that comes with missing a name in this situation that doesn't in the others.
None of this should be construed as complaining. I in no way have it rough or anything. However, I also believe it's not as simple as "just use the new name/ pronoun as it's often presented."
I work in an industry where all of my colleagues and I go by our last names, and changing last names has never been an issue.
Funny story. The only time I've seen someone changing their last name be an issue is when DH took my last name, and some people had full on meltdowns about it. Despite the fact that the name they knew him by was fake, and he had been illegally going by it for decades, lol, and none of them even knew his real name. Long story, not nearly as interesting as it sounds.
Fair enough. Perhaps the problem in my recent situation, which I'm thinking of, is that I've had 4 or so people in the span of a couple of months change names/pronouns, and I have missed them several times unintentionally not through lack of trying. All of this is to say that I've not been consistent but not because I'm not trying.
-
Fair enough. Perhaps the problem in my recent situation, which I'm thinking of, is that I've had 4 or so people in the span of a couple of months change names/pronouns, and I have missed them several times unintentionally not through lack of trying. All of this is to say that I've not been consistent but not because I'm not trying.
That's the thing, there's making mistakes and there's purposefully disrespecting people.
My first name gets mistaken all the time. It's rare and similar enough to a common name that people will literally read it off of paper as the more common name. It's no big deal, I just respond to both.
But if someone *intentionally* started calling me by the wrong name after repeated requests not to, I would be fucking livid. And my name has nothing to do with a serious mental health condition like gender dysmorphia, which comes with ENORMOUS risk of death. Gender dysmorphia is currently one of the deadliest diagnoses in existence, and disproportionately deadly for young people.
When we look at it that way, that this is a life and death matter for children...seems kind of insane to get butt hurt about protecting them.
If I were in a workplace and someone were purposefully going out of their way to use the wrong name for me with malicious intent, I would have grounds to lodge a harassment complaint against them. But if an older, somewhat forgetful or dyslexic staff member could just never get my name right, I would have no case. In fact I had a boss who never, not once in 7 years got my name right, and we were really close friends.
When it comes to the law, intent matters
-
.... a serious mental health condition like gender dysmorphia, which comes with ENORMOUS risk of death. Gender dysmorphia is currently one of the deadliest diagnoses in existence, and disproportionately deadly for young people.
Whilst you may feel you are defending trans folk, you are really doing them no favours here. For years trans folk and their supporters have been trying to stop trans status being considered a mental health condition. Even the slow, lumbering bureaucracy of the WHO changed their stance here a couple of years ago https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48448804 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48448804)
Such a diagnosis is not deadly for young people, cancer, heart defects, parental abuse and many more are far, far bigger killers of young people in absolute terms. Don't frighten those coming out with fake news.
-
Fair enough. Perhaps the problem in my recent situation, which I'm thinking of, is that I've had 4 or so people in the span of a couple of months change names/pronouns, and I have missed them several times unintentionally not through lack of trying. All of this is to say that I've not been consistent but not because I'm not trying.
That's the thing, there's making mistakes and there's purposefully disrespecting people.
My first name gets mistaken all the time. It's rare and similar enough to a common name that people will literally read it off of paper as the more common name. It's no big deal, I just respond to both.
But if someone *intentionally* started calling me by the wrong name after repeated requests not to, I would be fucking livid. And my name has nothing to do with a serious mental health condition like gender dysmorphia, which comes with ENORMOUS risk of death. Gender dysmorphia is currently one of the deadliest diagnoses in existence, and disproportionately deadly for young people.
When we look at it that way, that this is a life and death matter for children...seems kind of insane to get butt hurt about protecting them.
If I were in a workplace and someone were purposefully going out of their way to use the wrong name for me with malicious intent, I would have grounds to lodge a harassment complaint against them. But if an older, somewhat forgetful or dyslexic staff member could just never get my name right, I would have no case. In fact I had a boss who never, not once in 7 years got my name right, and we were really close friends.
When it comes to the law, intent matters
I agree it's a serious issue, and I'm not butt hurt about it or anything (hope I'm not coming off as that). As long as the narrative remains on, "How does it hurt you to try to do it? Just do your best" I'm great with it. This has not always been the case with people who have accused me of being transphobic for using someone's old name by accident. Ironically, it has never been by trans people, who have been appreciative of my efforts. Again, not trying to be butt hurt or claim I'm in any way a victim here. I do know, though, that comments like what were made to me are not helpful to the overall cause.
-
.... a serious mental health condition like gender dysmorphia, which comes with ENORMOUS risk of death. Gender dysmorphia is currently one of the deadliest diagnoses in existence, and disproportionately deadly for young people.
Whilst you may feel you are defending trans folk, you are really doing them no favours here. For years trans folk and their supporters have been trying to stop trans status being considered a mental health condition. Even the slow, lumbering bureaucracy of the WHO changed their stance here a couple of years ago https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48448804 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48448804)
Such a diagnosis is not deadly for young people, cancer, heart defects, parental abuse and many more are far, far bigger killers of young people in absolute terms. Don't frighten those coming out with fake news.
I didn't say being trans was a mental health issue, I said gender dysmorphia is, which by definition, is only a pathology when it significantly negatively affects someone's life, something can't be a pathology if the person is functioning well, which many trans people do. I'm going by what I've learned in clinical counselling. But you are entitled to disagree.
Never ever would I say that being trans is a pathology. Nor does the psychological community in my country.
-
Thought I’d drop this here:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/heart_stopping_texts.png)
-
Thought I’d drop this here:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/heart_stopping_texts.png)
Every day someone is famous on twitter. And the absolutely best we can each hope for is to never EVER be that person.
-
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but I think a new gender-neutral pronoun for one person, singular, should be introduced into the English language. My internal grammar police goes into overdrive when an individual wants to be referred to as "they".
-
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but I think a new gender-neutral pronoun for one person, singular, should be introduced into the English language. My internal grammar police goes into overdrive when an individual wants to be referred to as "they".
I understand the use of singular "they" but also agree it would be nice to have an easy gender-neutral singular pronoun. I wish we had a singular equivalent for "you". We lost "thee". "Zir" or whatever else was suggested was too contrived.
Oh well, English is a flexible language, we will survive.
We loose as well as gain when words change meanings, too. I saw an old ad recently that used "gay" in its last usage (sort of cheerful and light-hearted) and the ad was really weird for modern usage. I can just see parents explaining word changes to their kids when they watch "South Pacific". Why is this gay nurse dating a man? ;-)
-
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but I think a new gender-neutral pronoun for one person, singular, should be introduced into the English language. My internal grammar police goes into overdrive when an individual wants to be referred to as "they".
Yes, I admit to struggle with "they" followed but a singular conugation of a noun. Or is that not what we are supposed to do? (I legitimately don't know.) "They is coming to dinner." Or is the preferred usage still, "They are coming" even if it is a single person? Either way, I'm working to retrain my brain, because it doesn't feel natural, but I recognize that as *my* issue to resolve, and I want to be able to be effortlessly respectful to people's choices and identities.
-
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but I think a new gender-neutral pronoun for one person, singular, should be introduced into the English language. My internal grammar police goes into overdrive when an individual wants to be referred to as "they".
I wanted to use a singular non-genderized pronoun back when I wrote my book. Turns out that "they" was perfectly appropriate according to the dictionary, so that's what I used.
Didn't get a single complaint about it from the book editor at the major book publisher either.
Oh, and I checked the dictionary in 1995 and I'm sure it was published well before then.
-
I am kind of surprised that people here would dislike everything a person says and be proud of it. Seems very short sighted.
I have watched a lot of JP because I have teenagers and young men in my life and some of them do resonate a bit with him. I wanted to be able to have reasonable conversations about it with them.
I love that he always tells people to be the best they can be. His "start with cleaning your room" speech was a very easy way for them to think about it. Clean up your life makes sense. Get yourself focused, etc.
We have been focusing so much on 'girl power' that we have made some boys feel cast aside. Take a look at your local elementary school it is a pink ghetto. We would never allow it to be full of all male teachers but we seem OK with the opposite.
Anyhow, I do not agree 100% with what JP says but I usually go away thinking a bit more about a topic. However, I also don't get up in arms about someone who has a different opinion then mine; rather I usually find those people the most interesting because I am forced to consider their thought.
Agree. A friend of mine is a male elementary teacher, and I feel so glad that he is because of the kind of person that he is. Boys particularly at that age benefit from having an integrous, strong, gentle, emotionally healthy man as one of their teachers. Some of them effectively have no Dads, or have Dads who are dysfunctional in their parenting, and for those kids especially having a good male teacher can be trajectory-changing.
Also, the role and influence of men in boy's lives can't be replaced by women. The importance of men to boys is generally diminished in our society, and we still accept culturally the abdication of male responsibility towards children and parenting. Culturally, its something we expect women to own.
And I see this even in men who are parents and feel strongly that they hold as much responsibility as their wives for child care.
Because when push comes to shove, when daycare fails or kid gets sick, the woman stays home. Even if she makes more $. (There's a study that confirms this but I'm not going to try to find it now.) It doesn't need to be her, the kids aren't breast-feeding any longer. But almost always, its her.
There's all kind of reasons for that, but I want to point at the cultural one. No matter how on-board a Dad is with having kids as high-priority, it will be way less comfortable for him to call work and say he's staying home to watch his kids, than it is for his wife. Because child-care is still a low-status job, and its the cultural responsibility of women still, no matter how we like to pretend we're equal and share equally.
If child-care was really owned by men and Dads as a group, culturally and historically over the last several decades, the way it is owned by women, every big accounting or law firm would have built in day-care. It would be a no-brainer, and a pretty important piece for keeping firms competitive in the hiring market.
-
I spent almost 40 years of my life doing crazy shit in the Canadian Arctic, so sipping margaritas on a tropical beach sounds like a solid plan to me. That's pretty much my retired life right now in Mexico, minus the margarita since I don't drink alcohol.
-
For anyone wondering if he is a morally reprehensible person you can read this to understand why someone that knows him infinitely better than the public thinks he shouldn't have a platform:
https://www.thestar.com/amp/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist
I do tend to question using his own hand-waiving points that intellectual conversation is about giving both sides the same amount of time to speak and the same weight no matter their opinion a little farcical. This leads to having scientists debate flat-earthers, it lends credence to wildly incorrect sides.
Jordan Peterson appears to want to build a cult, if you find yourself following what he says a bit too closely maybe try reading some counter-points so you don't end up in it.
I remember reading that article when it came out. Yeah, he is definitely creepy, and his arguments on some of the more controversial positions he takes, to my mind, amount to a flurry of words designed to smokescreen some pretty simplistic and flawed ideas.
By the way, the link you gave is behind a paywall for me. So in case it is for others too, here it is on a non-paywalled site:
https://outline.com/Ef7wGR
He sounds like he's bipolar with a messiah complex.
-
Personally I don't drink any alcohol ever. Don't care for it. I always feel worse afterwards than before. And I don't need to drink it to feel good. My liver and wallet thank me.
-
For anyone wondering if he is a morally reprehensible person you can read this to understand why someone that knows him infinitely better than the public thinks he shouldn't have a platform:
https://www.thestar.com/amp/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist
I do tend to question using his own hand-waiving points that intellectual conversation is about giving both sides the same amount of time to speak and the same weight no matter their opinion a little farcical. This leads to having scientists debate flat-earthers, it lends credence to wildly incorrect sides.
Jordan Peterson appears to want to build a cult, if you find yourself following what he says a bit too closely maybe try reading some counter-points so you don't end up in it.
I remember reading that article when it came out. Yeah, he is definitely creepy, and his arguments on some of the more controversial positions he takes, to my mind, amount to a flurry of words designed to smokescreen some pretty simplistic and flawed ideas.
By the way, the link you gave is behind a paywall for me. So in case it is for others too, here it is on a non-paywalled site:
https://outline.com/Ef7wGR
He sounds like he's bipolar with a messiah complex.
I'm glad this was posted. My views on Peterson are quite quickly changing, aided by his recent absurd comments about climate change.
-
I tried to listen to him talk. But I couldn't take him seriously because all I heard was "Kermit the Frog" voice. Never heard him before. I feel bad saying it, and I know it's rude of me, but I didn't agree with what he was saying and kept hearing that frog.
-
I see most criticisms of JP as a kind of "truth hurts" moment.
Sounds like you have joined the cult. That is the kind of non argument that stuffs the ears against criticism.
I thought that some of his ideas made sense - back before he went for rehab in eastern Europe. Since he returned he's almost completely whacky.
A summary of current Jordan Peterson:
Damn the Canadian government. They aren't making COVID decisions based on science.
And minutes later:
The government shouldn't allow the medical community to make all the COVID decisions. They should consult with the medical community, but make the decisions themselves
The man no longer makes sense. I don't know what happened to him in eastern Europe, but it can't have been good.
-
The man no longer makes sense. I don't know what happened to him in eastern Europe, but it can't have been good.
His recent climate change statements, mentioned above, were...humorous. He's ultimately an anti-postmodernist but his "climate is everything" comment is a very postmodern thing to say.
-
Here's the thing about Jordan Peterson: His brand is staking out controversial opinions. Nothing wrong with that. But if he comes across information that is in conflict with his opinion, he won't change his mind because it conflicts with his brand. His opinions could be correct, but I don't trust him to be a fair actor. Because I don't trust him, I dismiss his opinions and look for more trustworthy sources.
-
Here's the thing about Jordan Peterson: His brand is staking out controversial opinions. Nothing wrong with that. But if he comes across information that is in conflict with his opinion, he won't change his mind because it conflicts with his brand. His opinions could be correct, but I don't trust him to be a fair actor. Because I don't trust him, I dismiss his opinions and look for more trustworthy sources.
I think there *is* something wrong with making your brand about staking out controversial opinions, for all the reasons you then list. It’s fine to have a coherent philosophy which leads you to some controversial opinions, but quite another to seek out contrarian ideas to form your opinion.The cart shouldn’t lead the horse.
Unfortunately too many people have decided its the controversy which matters, not the substance.
-
Here's the thing about Jordan Peterson: His brand is staking out controversial opinions. Nothing wrong with that. But if he comes across information that is in conflict with his opinion, he won't change his mind because it conflicts with his brand. His opinions could be correct, but I don't trust him to be a fair actor. Because I don't trust him, I dismiss his opinions and look for more trustworthy sources.
I think there *is* something wrong with making your brand about staking out controversial opinions, for all the reasons you then list. It’s fine to have a coherent philosophy which leads you to some controversial opinions, but quite another to seek out contrarian ideas to form your opinion. The cart shouldn’t lead the horse.
Unfortunately too many people have decided its the controversy which matters, not the substance.
he's a Flip-Flopper. His work consists of click-bait headlines, no substance.
All hat, no cattle.
-
All hat, no cattle.
yup, you distilled my point into four words.
-
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but I think a new gender-neutral pronoun for one person, singular, should be introduced into the English language. My internal grammar police goes into overdrive when an individual wants to be referred to as "they".
Yes, I admit to struggle with "they" followed but a singular conugation of a noun. Or is that not what we are supposed to do? (I legitimately don't know.) "They is coming to dinner." Or is the preferred usage still, "They are coming" even if it is a single person? Either way, I'm working to retrain my brain, because it doesn't feel natural, but I recognize that as *my* issue to resolve, and I want to be able to be effortlessly respectful to people's choices and identities.
Just adopt "Y'all". Solved. It has worked for a century or more in my part of the country. ;)
-
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but I think a new gender-neutral pronoun for one person, singular, should be introduced into the English language. My internal grammar police goes into overdrive when an individual wants to be referred to as "they".
Yes, I admit to struggle with "they" followed but a singular conugation of a noun. Or is that not what we are supposed to do? (I legitimately don't know.) "They is coming to dinner." Or is the preferred usage still, "They are coming" even if it is a single person? Either way, I'm working to retrain my brain, because it doesn't feel natural, but I recognize that as *my* issue to resolve, and I want to be able to be effortlessly respectful to people's choices and identities.
Just adopt "Y'all". Solved. It has worked for a century or more in my part of the country. ;)
It's often fun to tell people that "Y'all" is singular while "y'alls" is plural
...and then there's "all y'alls" for addressing a whole mess of people.
:-)
-
Now combine "dude", "whoa", "y'all" and the f-bomb. All very versatile words...
-
Now combine "dude", "whoa", "y'all" and the f-bomb. All very versatile words...
[scene: guy is blindsided when his boss calls him into his office to fire him]
“Whoa! F- y’all, dude!”
(…No extra words needed)
‘
-
It's often fun to tell people that "Y'all" is singular while "y'alls" is plural
...and then there's "all y'alls" for addressing a whole mess of people.
:-)
In the upper midwest we use "yoose" (singular) and "yoose guys" (plural, and is gender neutral despite the use of 'guys'). Midwesterners are generally distrustful of large groups as a whole so do not have a word that directly translates to "all y'alls".
-
It's often fun to tell people that "Y'all" is singular while "y'alls" is plural
...and then there's "all y'alls" for addressing a whole mess of people.
:-)
In the upper midwest we use "yoose" (singular) and "yoose guys" (plural, and is gender neutral despite the use of 'guys'). Midwesterners are generally distrustful of large groups as a whole so do not have a word that directly translates to "all y'alls".
Here in Southern Calif it's just "Dudes" - which is gender-neutral. As in "Dudes! That dude on the MMM forum is, like, one of the gnarliest dudes who hangs there amongst all the other rad gnarly dudes who, like, ya know, like ...um... something something... um... pot...
I have to say "y'all" is in the lead. The whole concept of referring to women with male pronouns is going the way of all those early 20th century books talking about "mankind" where if any hypothetical person wants to do something "he" by default does it. And then there is "man" the naked ape, who does "his" best as a hypothetical stand-in for the entire human species.
-
It's often fun to tell people that "Y'all" is singular while "y'alls" is plural
...and then there's "all y'alls" for addressing a whole mess of people.
:-)
In the upper midwest we use "yoose" (singular) and "yoose guys" (plural, and is gender neutral despite the use of 'guys'). Midwesterners are generally distrustful of large groups as a whole so do not have a word that directly translates to "all y'alls".
Here in Southern Calif it's just "Dudes" - which is gender-neutral. As in "Dudes! That dude on the MMM forum is, like, one of the gnarliest dudes who hangs there amongst all the other rad gnarly dudes who, like, ya know, like ...um... something something... um... pot...
I have to say "y'all" is in the lead. The whole concept of referring to women with male pronouns is going the way of all those early 20th century books talking about "mankind" where if any hypothetical person wants to do something "he" by default does it. And then there is "man" the naked ape, who does "his" best as a hypothetical stand-in for the entire human species.
Yeah, if you believe "dude" is truly gender neutral, ask a straight male dude how many dudes he's slept with. Then you'll find out just how not neutral "dude" actually is.
-
Dude is not gender neutral, it is just another example of the masculine being used for a group. While the exclamation "Dude" might be used to anyone, if you refer to "that dude," even in SoCal folks are going to look around for some who presents as male.
-
MMM talked about this in a talk - about how some people fantasize about being in a big bed all day in a mansion. But having communal connection and something fulfilling is what we really need.
yeah mmm has put alot more work and thought on this subject than JP has. Why do some people feel.jp is the expert on all topics? I don't get it.
-
It's often fun to tell people that "Y'all" is singular while "y'alls" is plural
...and then there's "all y'alls" for addressing a whole mess of people.
:-)
In the upper midwest we use "yoose" (singular) and "yoose guys" (plural, and is gender neutral despite the use of 'guys'). Midwesterners are generally distrustful of large groups as a whole so do not have a word that directly translates to "all y'alls".
. I'm a relocated Midwesterner and still say "hey you guys" even when mixed, or heck all female groups. However what's popular here is saying "folks" or "people" as well as they as both singular and plural gender neutral. I would be ok with bringing back "thee", or even ze. Just tell me what to do.
-
It's often fun to tell people that "Y'all" is singular while "y'alls" is plural
...and then there's "all y'alls" for addressing a whole mess of people.
:-)
In the upper midwest we use "yoose" (singular) and "yoose guys" (plural, and is gender neutral despite the use of 'guys'). Midwesterners are generally distrustful of large groups as a whole so do not have a word that directly translates to "all y'alls".
Here in Southern Calif it's just "Dudes" - which is gender-neutral. As in "Dudes! That dude on the MMM forum is, like, one of the gnarliest dudes who hangs there amongst all the other rad gnarly dudes who, like, ya know, like ...um... something something... um... pot...
I have to say "y'all" is in the lead. The whole concept of referring to women with male pronouns is going the way of all those early 20th century books talking about "mankind" where if any hypothetical person wants to do something "he" by default does it. And then there is "man" the naked ape, who does "his" best as a hypothetical stand-in for the entire human species.
Out of curiosity, what is the takeaway from this, though? I use "you guys" all the time to refer to a group of people. I feel like language has evolved somewhat for some of these things. Bruh, for example, is clearly used by the younger generation to refer to pretty much everyone - well in fairness it's used as a catch all for about everything. It links back to bro, I'd imagine, but the meaning as used has changed considerably. I have been told in a class or two that I've taken that using "you guys" is sexist, but I just see it as an evolution of the language and not a big deal.
-
Yeah, if you believe "dude" is truly gender neutral, ask a straight male dude how many dudes he's slept with. Then you'll find out just how not neutral "dude" actually is.
LOL true. In reality I generally use they/their/s unless I know the preferred gendered pronoun the person uses. Never had an issue with it myself but can see how it can be confusing.
"How many y'all's slept with?"
"How many you's have you slept with?"
"How many they's have you slept wiht?"
I think any pronoun in this sentence sounds weird, so putting dude in it doesn't really prove much.
-
Yeah, if you believe "dude" is truly gender neutral, ask a straight male dude how many dudes he's slept with. Then you'll find out just how not neutral "dude" actually is.
LOL true. In reality I generally use they/their/s unless I know the preferred gendered pronoun the person uses. Never had an issue with it myself but can see how it can be confusing.
"How many y'all's slept with?"
"How many you's have you slept with?"
"How many they's have you slept wiht?"
I think any pronoun in this sentence sounds weird, so putting dude in it doesn't really prove much.
Well, yes, pronouns are weird in that sentence. You couldn't ask "How many shes have you kissed" without the grammatical oddity calling attention, either.
"Dude," however, is generally a noun, & only extended to use as a pronoun in limited, colloquial circumstances, the same under which you'd see "bro," "man," or "girl" used as a pronoun - e.g. "Pull yourself together, man!" or "Girl, get out of here" operating in the same mode of direct address as "Dude, check out this car."
"Dude" as a countable noun is no more strange than other nouns in that query - its frequent distaff counterpart "chick," or on to "lady," "fella," "gal," "guy," "girl," "boy."
Whether dude is gendered or not, especially as a collective plural is regional & generational, if not even more specifically situational. My generation's media was filmed in (& idealized) southern California, so 'dudes' reads largely as gender-agnostic to me in the same way a mixed-gender collective in French is always "ils" - because personhood carries a notional default masculine gender in both those cultures. Once you raise the specificity of the context, however, such as by asking how many dudes a dude has slept with, that default masculinity can come to matter. (Or not, if they truly embrace dudehood as I learned it in my youth. Be excellent to each other.)
If you're not sure of reception with collective plural pronouns and don't have "y'all" or "yinz" in the local vernacular, it's pretty easy to substitute "Hi guys!" or "Hi dudes!" with "Hi everybody!"
-
"How many you's have you slept with?" sounds the same as "How many ewes have you slept with?" which sounds like the start of a bad joke about someone from New Zealand...
-
Yeah, if you believe "dude" is truly gender neutral, ask a straight male dude how many dudes he's slept with. Then you'll find out just how not neutral "dude" actually is.
LOL true. In reality I generally use they/their/s unless I know the preferred gendered pronoun the person uses. Never had an issue with it myself but can see how it can be confusing.
"How many y'all's slept with?"
"How many you's have you slept with?"
"How many they's have you slept wiht?"
I think any pronoun in this sentence sounds weird, so putting dude in it doesn't really prove much.
This isn't really a grammatically correct use of pronouns. "Dudes" is a generic gendered plural noun. For comparison, a gender-neutral plural noun would be appropriate: "How many people have you slept with?"
I think that some people make this more complicated than it needs to be.
-
"How many you's have you slept with?" sounds the same as "How many ewes have you slept with?" which sounds like the start of a bad joke about someone from New Zealand...
Finally a post in this foam that makes sense!
I have lived in a lot of places, and have evolved to using “folks” as my go to. Still toss out some y'alls and guys here and there, but try to go with folks.
-
"How many you's have you slept with?" sounds the same as "How many ewes have you slept with?" which sounds like the start of a bad joke about someone from New Zealand...
(http://[/url)
Finally a post in this foam that makes sense!
I have lived in a lot of places, and have evolved to using “folks” as my go to. Still toss out some y'alls and guys here and there, but try to go with folks.
Unfortunately, calling certain people “folks” will get you killed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_Nation]many you's have you slept with?" sounds the same as "How many ewes have you slept with?" which sounds like the start of a bad joke about someone from New Zealand...
[/quote]
Finally a post in this foam that makes sense!
I have lived in a lot of places, and have evolved to using “folks” as my go to. Still toss out some y'alls and guys here and there, but try to go with folks.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, calling certain people “folks” will get you killed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_Nation
-
Unfortunately, calling certain people “folks” will get you killed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_Nation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_Nation)
Better killed than canceled….
Edited to fix messed up tags
-
The wikipedia article you linked to describes two rival gang alliances, one called "Folk Nation" the other "People Nation".
Is it also your view that calling certain people "people" would get a person killed?
-
Better killed than canceled….
huh??