School protests - sex education

[gregs656]

PorkRind said:

Fire me up a url and ill check it out. Thanks.

Google it. There is a reasonable amount out there.

Do you not think it is a waste of time to object to something which isn’t part of the course?

Sa Calobra said:

Are you a parent or not?

I said ‘as I don’t’ (have children).

[PorkRind]

Davos123 said:

PorkRind said:

No you're right, he didn't. He merely didn't buy into their plethora or ridiculous pronouns. Which is fair enoigh, who's going to rememeber all 20 plus pronouns and use them correctly? It's just not practical or even a real thing. Ha

That's not what happened. He said he'd deliberately misgender people because transgenderism was made a protected class in Canadian human rights law

This is what he said.

https://youtu.be/s_UbmaZQx74

[skwdenyer]

PorkRind said:

I'll be sure to check it out.

Checked it out. I'm not phobic of lgb, but i am. Concerned about T. Theres. No. Phobia about it whatsoever and I think I've every right to control what my child learns at school. Call me a tin foil hat type but who controls ofsted, what tests and due diligence have they done and proven that this education won't affect a child negatively, they probably haven't..as for it being government approved, how on esrth can you say that you approve of everything our government has ever done has been sensible and for the best of the people. There are countless foulups our governments have made over the years and just because they're in power doenst make it or them right. Or do you just blindly follow authority figures without thinking for yourself?!
It's probably some government board who have decided that this is OK and the new normal. Transgender as I've stated in other posts I believe to be an exceptional difference to the norm, its the sort of thing that should come up in gcse biology and psychology. Imo.

Edited by PorkRind on Sunday 23 June 03:27

Edited by PorkRind on Sunday 23 June 03:32

Edited by PorkRind on Sunday 23 June 03:36

You don’t - and shouldn’t - have the right to decide what your child learns at school.

My child is only a little older, and I have no problem with any of this. Children have to learn about the world as it is, and parents don’t get to pick and choose - otherwise no progress will be made in fighting intolerance.

[andy_s]

Davos123 said:

He willfully misinterpreted a minor change in hate crime law and used it as an excuse to stoke transphobia. .

Are you wilfully misinterpreting or just not au fait with what he says?

[R Mutt]

Did anyone ask the women or is it just the usual case of accommodating .001% over the 50%?

[gregs656]

andy_s said:

Are you wilfully misinterpreting or just not au fait with what he says?

Peterson does not accurately represent the Canadian law in what he says. The law is publicly available information of course so it is easy to check. I suspect many people take his word on what the law says (straw man) and therefore are willing to follow him down the rabbit hole with the rest of what he says.

I don't know if you have read his book but if you have I am sure you noticed it is full of other people's ideas

He is making his popularity pay the bills though so good for him I suppose.

[andy_s]

gregs656 said:

andy_s said:

Are you wilfully misinterpreting or just not au fait with what he says?

Peterson does not accurately represent the Canadian law in what he says. The law is publicly available information of course so it is easy to check. I suspect many people take his word on what the law says (straw man) and therefore are willing to follow him down the rabbit hole with the rest of what he says.

I don't know if you have read his book but if you have I am sure you noticed it is full of other people's ideas

He is making his popularity pay the bills though so good for him I suppose.

He objected to compelled speech, that's the crux, and he's never said anything or intimated that he is any way against transsexuals or indeed against addressing them in a way they prefer out of normal politeness on an individual basis. He's also described as 'alt-right' - which again is a mischaracterisation.

His book stiches several peoples thoughts together, his whole career is based on other peoples thoughts, being a clinical psychologist and teaching professor and all, however he articulates and presents the whole very well and includes quite a few original interpretations that make sense in a modern context, in my opinion anyway. It/he can get a bit ranty though - some of my criticisms are that he tends to the cataclysmic too easily and can extrapolate into political critiques that aren't necessarily wholly true, in my view, but I rarely have an issue with the intellectual bedrock.

My sense is that he's doing more good than harm in the world, and if he's become a lightening rod in terms of making some sense of the world to otherwise lost people then fair play, he deserves what he gets. Far more make far more for far less.

Anyway, we digress.

On all this issue above - Teach kids to treat others how they would want to be treated themselves.

[gregs656]

andy_s said:

He objected to compelled speech, that's the crux, and he's never said anything or intimated that he is any way against transsexuals or indeed against addressing them in a way they prefer out of normal politeness on an individual basis.

I know exactly what he did because I have listened to him for hours and hours on this subject and others, and there is no question that he misrepresents the bill.

This is a pretty good article on the subject - https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-peterson...

[Davos123]

andy_s said:

He objected to compelled speech, that's the crux

Please quote the part of the Canadian law which compels speech or the case which sets precedence.

[andy_s]

D&G - First of all note my comment on 'catastrophisation' in respect to Peterson, secondly note the arena in which he operates which seems to be pervaded to a degree with ultra-fringe types that can and have taken innocuous remarks and escalated them to disproportionate levels - I'm sure we are familiar with the student showing a video of Peterson, the Evergreen State issues, the Damore vs Google case etc.

Now look at the law - which indeed doesn't make not using certain words illegal [criminal] but does make the refusal to use them [a chosen pronoun] able to be used in discriminatory/harassment cases in state [federal?] places that are then themselves interpreted by a tribunal who can in turn impose a sanction.

Peterson himself said he wouldn't normally put himself in that position, because he would use preferred pronouns, but bearing in mind the above and the fact that non-compliance could be interpreted as 'harassment' and you could fall foul of a human rights tribunal. Petersons concerns also centred around free speech principals, in that it was a big step to impose what you had to say rather than what you couldn't say. I would also think that 'good faith' that these issues wouldn't be weaponised wasn't far from his mind, again, bearing in mind the first para. IIRC lawyers have tracked the possible paths and concluded the same.

IIRC the main thrust of arguments that Peterson was wrong was that it wasn't criminalised (that's true, you can't be arrested) but that misses the point, as above. Also, and again IIRC, if you go down a worse case scenario route, there is potential for contempt of court etc that could possibly criminalise as an indirect result.

'Compelled speech' was easier than going through the above 3 paras., apols for brevity.

[gregs656]

andy_s said:

'Compelled speech' was easier than going through the above 3 paras., apols for brevity.

You are making a different argument from Peterson now. He makes a compelled speech argument, which relies on a misrepresentation of the law.

What I find slightly curious about his argument is that he hasn't reformulated it in light of new knowledge. At some point he made the decision to carry on with his argument in spite of, I would hope, reviewing the criticism of it.

I actually think there is a reasonable conversation to be had on the subject, particularly in Canada, but I don't think he is interested in having it.

[Davos123]

If Peterson's concern was free speech, why wasn't he kicking off about the law protecting race, religion, sex, age and disability in exactly the same way?

[Davos123]

gregs656 said:

I actually think there is a reasonable conversation to be had on the subject, particularly in Canada, but I don't think he is interested in having it.

I agree with this and I actually don't like the law regardless of minority group. Peterson, however, made it purely about transgenderism and made it his hill to die on. It isn't close to the biggest restriction on free speech Canada faces and it isn't just about transgenderism. Him going off about it suggests transphobia more than anything else. If you're concerned about free speech, there are far more pressing concerns.

[gregs656]

Davos123 said:

If Peterson's concern was free speech, why wasn't he kicking off about the law protecting race, religion, sex, age and disability in exactly the same way?

Indeed. An amendment of a law from 1977 - I don't recall Peterson saying that if he called a straight person gay or a gay person straight that he could go to prison for it. Because he would be laughed at.

[andy_s]

Davos123 said:

gregs656 said:

I actually think there is a reasonable conversation to be had on the subject, particularly in Canada, but I don't think he is interested in having it.

I agree with this and I actually don't like the law regardless of minority group. Peterson, however, made it purely about transgenderism and made it his hill to die on. It isn't close to the biggest restriction on free speech Canada faces and it isn't just about transgenderism. Him going off about it suggests transphobia more than anything else. If you're concerned about free speech, there are far more pressing concerns.

I think he saw it as the thin end of the wedge more than anything and was about transgenderism as the other aspects had been long established. I still don't particularly think he's a 'phobe though specifically.

It is a good thing to have a conversation about, it's quite hard to judge the line sometimes (and I don't feel myself that this was such a big infringement as you say) when you have freedom of expression bounded by legislation - there's always a factor of the govt. of the day introduce in good faith but it is misused, misinterpreted or built upon by the next, perhaps less good faith, govt., all those Orwellian things with which I'm sure we're all familiar.

[Sorry if I argued differently to him above - it's been a while!]

[j_4m]

Davos123 said:

gregs656 said:

I actually think there is a reasonable conversation to be had on the subject, particularly in Canada, but I don't think he is interested in having it.

I agree with this and I actually don't like the law regardless of minority group. Peterson, however, made it purely about transgenderism and made it his hill to die on. It isn't close to the biggest restriction on free speech Canada faces and it isn't just about transgenderism. Him going off about it suggests transphobia more than anything else. If you're concerned about free speech, there are far more pressing concerns.

Peterson sells books and lectures based on his 'outrage' at the Post-Modernists(TM). He's not going to get as much money if he backs down his position.

[Davos123]

andy_s said:

I think he saw it as the thin end of the wedge more than anything and was about transgenderism as the other aspects had been long established. I still don't particularly think he's a 'phobe though specifically.

I don't buy the thin end of the wedge argument. The law hasn't changed significantly, it's a minor amendment to include transgender in the already existing laws which already included sex. It's a nothing change for anyone except transgender people.

Peterson has lived with this law almost his entire life. He has never (to my knowledge) kicked up a huge fuss about it before. To not only complain about it publicly but state that you would refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns as a result of it is transphobic for me. Why isn't he saying he'll refuse to acknowledge people's race, sex or religion? Surely if he objects to this law on the basis of it dictating what he can and can't say to others, he's going to be as outraged at all the other classes as well? But no, Peterson is saying that he's going to deliberately single someone out in his classes and refuse to treat them with dignity and respect because he doesn't like this law. That he has said he'd have otherwise used correct pronouns is ridiculous because for years he's been teaching religious people, gay people and minorities without feeling the need to single them out because of a law which protects them in exactly the same way.

They included transgender and he kicked off because he doesn't like transgenderism. It's that simple.

[gregs656]

andy_s said:

I think he saw it as the thin end of the wedge more than anything and was about transgenderism as the other aspects had been long established. I still don't particularly think he's a 'phobe though specifically.

You can’t on the one hand make a thin end of the wedge argument and on the other say that he isn’t concerned about the real thin end of the wedge which is a decades old law.

Have you read how he speaks about trans people? Firstly he thinks it’s a modern phenomenon which is incorrect, but he also often speaks about them having a personality disorder.

In my opinion he is another one who, if he was born earlier, would be making what we now considered to be irrational arguments about black people, gay people and women.

Prefacing everything he says with ‘well, you know, I’m just a normal guy...’ has worked marvellously for him.

[andy_s]

D&G - Points taken, I'm sure when you zoom out you can see things like that.

My interpretation was that he wasn't anti-trans specifically but that issue happened to be wrapped up in the more militant and fringe SJW elements that had taken out colleagues and students by levering or hyperbolising relatively minor things disproportionately by weaponising what on the surface is a seemingly egalitarian politic but underneath can be quite toxic. He didn't like the way the ideology was affecting university life and probably felt some of the things he said could be used in a similar way - as they have. I can see things from his point of view, and I can also see why you would think what you do.

As an aside, when he gets off this specific subject (a subject he's been forced on to as much as promoted himself to be fair) he makes a lot of sense and I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater completely. If you look at it (which I know you have) he actually offers a lot of insight into how to deal with difficulty in life which is perhaps pertinent to people that struggle with identity issues, and he's been told as much.

[gregs656]

He could have made his point without ever mentioning gender, I suppose that is the point, either he has this problem with the law in principle or he has it in relation to gender. He doesn't make the point in principle, he makes it in regards to gender.

As for the rest of what he says, having listened to him share his ideas for many many hours on all kinds of subjects I do not find him to be particularly insightful. I hinted to it previously but what I find difficult about him is that he doesn't appear to be aware of the genesis of his ideas, or if he his he doesn't often reference people who his ideas owe a lot to.

When I hear him talk about allegory for example I genuinely think he thinks he is the first person to appreciate that stories are not just superficial and can convey great meaning and teach us all lessons.