Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sly Botts

Dr. Jordan Peterson

Recommended Posts

I'm curious if Matt is aware of this man and what he thinks about him.  If Matt hasn't researched any of his work (ie; maps of meaning, or his views on post modernism) or listened to his interviews with Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin, I think he would find it interesting and I would love to hear his opinion on this professors views.  I personally think Dr. Peterson is brilliant. His self Authoring tool has helped many people get themselves "sorted out" and improve their lives.

 

Here is a random interview done.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC1pvjyKYr4
 

Edited by Sly Botts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it so fascinating that you posted this because I just finished watching him on Joe Rogan.

It's such a shame what has happened to him & his career, let alone the countless others who are considered "controversial" or "alt-right" for having basic opinions or core values that most people tend to agree with. Those same "controversial" opinions 10 years ago were considered common sense & the norm, today leads to you being labeled disgusting names like (bigot, sexist, racist, xenophobic, white supremacist). We used to live in a time where you couldn't call someone any of those names without hard evidence to back it up, now it matters on if the person attacking you disagrees with your viewpoint. The biggest problem with that also is we used to be able to have civilized debates, now it's very custom to bring air-horns into an auditorium and mute the opposition or pulling fire alarms & large groups of people assaulting students trying to enter auditoriums to see these "controversial" speakers express their views in the first place. When did it become okay to mail Mein Kampf to Jewish republicans or death threats to legitimate professors with degrees because you disagree with their studies backed by facts & science.
"Stalin had the right idea for socialism but just needed to tweak some things" Um what?

We live in a very odd time, where a situation like Bret Weinstein at Evergreen would have ended in all those aggressive students expelled in a heart beat, but a kid wearing a red ball cap is somehow more disgusting & newsworthy. I consider myself "left" but with no real political party, I just have basic values like treat everyone equal, don't hurt anyone, freedom of speech & expression. But to watch my "side" eat itself & act worse than a toddler not getting their way has twisted my arm & millions others to turn to people like Ben Shapiro, Sargon, Milo (unfortunately), Gavin & Joe Rogan to try to understand what is happening between this current war of the Left vs the Right. Even worse is the very people that are labeled "Alt-Right" tend to be more left than the far-left censoring & physically/verbally attacking innocent people.

One of my favorite youtubers Philip Defranco constantly deals with these attacks as well, I'd suggest checking out his interview on Joe Rogan's podcast if you haven't already Mike. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really love how he promotes responsibility.  He really knows his stuff. He is an amazing speaker and so much of what he says resonates with me.  People are actually making their lives better because of him.  I can go on and on about the guy but people really need to listen to his stuff.  His lectures on Christianity are actually changing atheists views on religion and it's place in society.  The man is gifted.

Edited by Sly Botts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mrtrufflepig I totally agree with you, great post.

 

Haven't gotten into Peterson's work beyond his trans pronoun controversy.  I see both sides of it, but i agree it can be dangerous for the government to legislate pronouns as illegal discrimination that can be prosecuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't heard or seen much of his stuff outside of the trans pronoun controversy, either.  The debate surrounding it has valid points on both sides, however, as a teacher, I would make a different argument with regards to the whole thing.

 

To me, I think it's unconscionable that he would refuse to refer to one of his students as anything other than what they want.

 

Number one, as a lecturer at a public university, he has to abide by codes of conduct that include respecting students - if my students want to be referred to as a zebra, I'll let them do so and refer to them accordingly. He has made his personal choice for another person, and I do not believe that this speaks to the professionalism needed to be a post-secondary educator. Number two, I do not believe it speaks to the mindset needed to be a teacher of young people. Let's keep in mind university students start when they are 18 years old - their brain is still developing, and having your teacher seemingly not accept you for who you are due to some sort of need to be "right" is asinine. 

 

Universities are supposed to be places where you talk about ideas, and you disagree, but there are healthy ways to frame a debate instead of ramming that idea down your students' throats. I firmly believe that. I do also agree with others in that I am wary of government legislating what pronouns should be used. That said, given that I work in a very similar profession, Peterson at the very least is unprofessional, at the most wholly unsuited to interacting with young people. Peterson has not been muzzled; ultimately, he has been asked to act with more professional discretion and he has been punished for it. There are very, very few jobs where you can do whatever you want to do at all times - there are codes of conduct and standards of professionalism all the way up from McDonald's cashier to Neurosurgeon. 

 

As such, in my view, this has never been about free speech. It has been about one man trying to justify his unprofessional behaviour using the current lightning rod of censorship on university campuses to do so. He saw an opportunity to save face and he's exploiting the hell out of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY GENDER!?!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, I see where you're coming from but I think there should be a responsibility on the teacher to keep order in the classroom. If the highest power of authority in the room accepts a student to be called a Zebra then does that mean other students should be punished if they personally don't believe someone can be a Zebra or don't want to call them Zebra? It's a slippery road to go down. We know the human mind is still developing at 18, but that doesn't really mean it's acceptable for an authority figure to enable crazy thoughts or ideas (only referring to your zebra comment). 

I just know if the teachers I grew up with let me get away with alot of the stuff I tried pulling & even things I truly believed when I was 15-18 then I would be a pretty messed up adult today. I think there's a responsibility for adults to properly evolve kids/teens until they are fully developed to make choices on their own. LGBTQ have the highest suicide rate out there, it's past the point of chalking it up to "People just don't understand them" as the main reason it's happening. There's groups of therapists & doctors who sign off kids as young as 12 to be "mentally & emotionally prepared" to start hormones, that doesn't mean by the time they reach 18 or 24 they feel the same way they did at 14. 

 

I don't think a Neurosurgeon can walk around asking to be called a dentist & a Mcdonalds cashier start claiming he's the manager. A job title is in no way the same as a person's emotions/gender but I believe students have an equal responsibility of professionalism when they are in a classroom, they are the students and the professors are the professors at the end of the day. If you dismiss the entire Evergreen incident as "emotional undeveloped students speaking their opinions & should be applauded" then they will continue their lives doing the same disgusting actions they pulled in that school because they never saw any consequences. If you give the students the power then there will be chaos, there's countless stories of it happening in American campuses with students calling for "No White's Day" or mass protests/riots against other students who don't share the same political opinions. I've seen & experienced more censorship from fellow students than teachers.

I just don't get how there's this change of knowledgeable grown adults being treated like babies by teens somehow acceptable today. I will forever choose sitting in an empty classroom to listen to a professor teach facts than a safe space between students basing things off feelings & will censor you as soon as your opinion differs.

Edited by mrtrufflepig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, I see where you're coming from but I think there should be a responsibility on the teacher to keep order in the classroom. If the highest power of authority in the room accepts a student to be called a Zebra then does that mean other students should be punished if they personally don't believe someone can be a Zebra or don't want to call them Zebra? It's a slippery road to go down. We know the human mind is still developing at 18, but that doesn't really mean it's acceptable for an authority figure to enable crazy thoughts or ideas (only referring to your zebra comment). 

 

I just know if the teachers I grew up with let me get away with alot of the stuff I tried pulling & even things I truly believed when I was 15-18 then I would be a pretty messed up adult today. I think there's a responsibility for adults to properly evolve kids/teens until they are fully developed to make choices on their own. LGBTQ have the highest suicide rate out there, it's past the point of chalking it up to "People just don't understand them" as the main reason it's happening. There's groups of therapists & doctors who sign off kids as young as 12 to be "mentally & emotionally prepared" to start hormones, that doesn't mean by the time they reach 18 or 24 they feel the same way they did at 14. 

 

I don't think a Neurosurgeon can walk around asking to be called a dentist & a Mcdonalds cashier start claiming he's the manager. A job title is in no way the same as a person's emotions/gender but I believe students have an equal responsibility of professionalism when they are in a classroom, they are the students and the professors are the professors at the end of the day. If you dismiss the entire Evergreen incident as "emotional undeveloped students speaking their opinions & should be applauded" then they will continue their lives doing the same disgusting actions they pulled in that school because they never saw any consequences. If you give the students the power then there will be chaos, there's countless stories of it happening in American campuses with students calling for "No White's Day" or mass protests/riots against other students who don't share the same political opinions. I've seen & experienced more censorship from fellow students than teachers.

 

I just don't get how there's this change of knowledgeable grown adults being treated like babies by teens somehow acceptable today. I will forever choose sitting in an empty classroom to listen to a professor teach facts than a safe space between students basing things off feelings & will censor you as soon as your opinion differs.

 

This doesn't have anything to do with order being kept. This has to do with what the teacher thinks about their students. You have to do your job, and part of your job is to treat people with respect.

 

I'm not really sure I understand your position on LGBTQ suicide, with all due respect. I mean, not being understood/validated is a huge causal factor. Whether or not they've been medicated or treated at too young an age is a completely separate, unrelated issue - I agree with you on that point.

 

I'm not saying that McDonald's cashiers are walking around claiming they're dentists - that's a straw man fallacy in action. Fluid gender identity is something that, while I admit there is more study that needs to be done to examine the reasons it occurs, is something very real that people feel or are attuned towards. To compare it with McDonald's cashiers claiming they're dentists calls into question the conscious experience of many people. Peterson's main contention is that he is a psychologist, and what he has come across so far has not been proven to be a naturally occurring state - all of those things were said about same-sex couples about 40-50 years ago. As we continue to become a more sexually liberated/permissive society, we are going to see people that are comfortable enough to speak out about their experiences as a result. We are going to learn a lot more about ourselves because ultimately society is progressing in a direction that allows us to have more frank discussions. As such, no one is "enabling crazy thoughts", they're acknowledging a person's self conception. I agree that there are some limits, and perhaps I should not have used an absurd example to elucidate this notion, but I do not think we have reached that limit in this case.

 

As for your final comment (I just don't get how there's this change of knowledgeable grown adults being treated like babies by teens somehow acceptable today. I will forever choose sitting in an empty classroom to listen to a professor teach facts than a safe space between students basing things off feelings & will censor you as soon as your opinion differs.) - I agree. It's just that that is not what has happened here - teaching is different from referring to your students in the way that they would like to be referred. I completely agree that there's a tangent of far left wing political correctness that is stifling meaningful conversation on college campuses. It's a thing. Absolutely. However, it is not even approaching the same thing in this case. As I maintain above, I believe Peterson to be exploiting this issue in order to make up for his own unprofessional actions. No one has censored him. He chose to say what he did, and now he doesn't like the backlash. Those are two very, very different things. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've wavered back and forth on this issue for the last year now.  Trans people have an extraordinarily high suicide rate, so with that said, even you don't agree with the pronouns or whatnot, for the sake of these people who many are going through extremely difficult times trying to sort out their own identity & acceptance, given the very high suicide rate I say just call them by the pronoun they want even if you disagree & you're just humouring them because at the end of the day it will make their day that much less difficult if they are struggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 As I maintain above, I believe Peterson to be exploiting this issue in order to make up for his own unprofessional actions. No one has censored him. He chose to say what he did, and now he doesn't like the backlash. Those are two very, very different things. 

 

 

He has said on multiple occasions that he has no issues with trans students or even calling a trans male a she or trans female a he. He's against the government forcing him to use the language they think he should use, because of how the bill was worded and its implications. He is very anti-marxist and anti-post modernist and he see's this as an ideological issue.  Most of his work and significant following, has nothing to do with the trans issue. He's been uploading his lectures and series on youtube since 2013, he has over 500 hours worth of content.  I don't see anything unprofessional about what he did other than speaking his mind in a youtube video about the HR department in the U of T forcing their employee's to take unconscious biased training and his opposition to bill c-16 and the human rights tribunal.

 

Have you watched the videos that caused the controversy?

 

Bottom line:

He is very highly cited and considered an expert in his field of study. He is no slouch.  He knows what he's talking about and has years of clinical experience as well of 30-40 years worth of experience researching the topics he discusses.  He's not one to exploit the issue.  I've watched many of his videos (particularly his biblical lectures).  He gives good advice to people about how to be better people and do good in the world.  Many people have actually changed their lives for the better after using his self authoring programs.

I'm not really sure I understand your position on LGBTQ suicide, with all due respect. I mean, not being understood/validated is a huge causal factor. Whether or not they've been medicated or treated at too young an age is a completely separate, unrelated issue - I agree with you on that point.

 

 

I think the issue here is that there is an underlying mental health issue which leads to these suicides.  (Not talking about Gender dysphoria) but depression, or some other mental health issue which contributes. Studies indicate (and its widely accepted) that 90% of suicide victims have a diagnosable psychiatric illness.  This (IMO) would explain the causal factors. The difficulties and personal struggles of being LGBT would only add to this.

 

Why is it so high in the Trans population though?  This is also accurate for those despite receiving gender reassignment therapy.  I don't think we really know that yet.

Edited by Sly Botts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has said on multiple occasions that he has no issues with trans students or even calling a trans male a she or trans female a he. He's against the government forcing him to use the language they think he should use, because of how the bill was worded and its implications. He is very anti-marxist and anti-post modernist and he see's this as an ideological issue.  Most of his work and significant following, has nothing to do with the trans issue. He's been uploading his lectures and series on youtube since 2013, he has over 500 hours worth of content.  I don't see anything unprofessional about what he did other than speaking his mind in a youtube video about the HR department in the U of T forcing their employee's to take unconscious biased training and his opposition to bill c-16 and the human rights tribunal.

 

Have you watched the videos that caused the controversy?

 

Bottom line:

He is very highly cited and considered an expert in his field of study. He is no slouch.  He knows what he's talking about and has years of clinical experience as well of 30-40 years worth of experience researching the topics he discusses.  He's not one to exploit the issue.  I've watched many of his videos (particularly his biblical lectures).  He gives good advice to people about how to be better people and do good in the world.  Many people have actually changed their lives for the better after using his self authoring programs.

I think the issue here is that there is an underlying mental health issue which leads to these suicides.  (Not talking about Gender dysphoria) but depression, or some other mental health issue which contributes. Studies indicate (and its widely accepted) that 90% of suicide victims have a diagnosable psychiatric illness.  This (IMO) would explain the causal factors. The difficulties and personal struggles of being LGBT would only add to this.

 

Why is it so high in the Trans population though?  This is also accurate for those despite receiving gender reassignment therapy.  I don't think we really know that yet.

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.3786140/i-m-not-a-bigot-meet-the-u-of-t-prof-who-refuses-to-use-genderless-pronouns-1.3786144

 

"Carol Off: Professor Peterson, why have you said you don't recognize another person's right to determine what pronouns you use to address them?

Jordan Peterson: That's right. I don't recognize that. I don't recognize another person's right to decide what words I'm going to use, especially when the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language and they are constructs of a small coterie of ideologically motivated people. They might have a point but I'm not going to say their words for them."

 

"CO: Professor Peet would like to be addressed by the pronoun "they" — do you accept that? 

 

JP: The mere fact that professor Peet would like to be addressed by a particular pronoun does not mean that I am required to address him by that pronoun. That doesn't mean that I deny his existence or the existence of people who don't fit neatly in binary gender categories. I reserve the right to use my own language and I'm perfectly willing to take that to its conclusion. If it's the case that I can't use my language the way that I see fit, because I'm using my language to formulate and articulate the truth in the clearest manner I can possibly manage and if that lands me in legal trouble — well, so be it."

 

It's all right there. The article mentions Bill C-16 elsewhere, sure, but his unvarnished views independent of the bill are reinforced several times here. I'm sorry, but if you need to try to make his argument for him, perhaps he is not making his case very effectively. 

I read this interview awhile back, and I think his attitude is arrogant and dismissive. That does not make me want to check out any of his other work. I will not go as far as other people in saying he is bigoted; his views independent of the way that he refuses to call people as they wish to be called are not subject to the same standard. Espousing an opinion in the abstract is much different than treating colleagues and students without respect. 

 

Frankly, he's a provocateur. He sticks his foot down his throat - and then acts all shocked and incensed when people do not like what he has to say. As much as I do not like the censorship occurring on university campuses, I think sometimes people (not saying you, but out in the world) misconstrue censorship for backlash. In so many of the cases, the person in question isn't being censored - they're being criticized after the fact. Just because they may *feel* like they are being censored, they have not been physically restricted from speaking or threatened with consequences if they do so. There are, however consequences - of the intellectual kind. People don't agree with their position and they are forced to justify it, and instead, so many cry "free speech" so as to obscure the context of their comments. I'm not saying that happens all the time, or even a minority of the time, but there does seem to be an increasing tendency towards it.

 

Re: suicide, if that's what was meant with the initial comment, I tend to agree with that as well. I just did not understand the way it was initially phrased. 

 

I certainly respect the fact that you enjoy him, and I hope that you continue to do so in the future. I apologize if by responding to another poster's reference to the pronoun controversy I derailed your initial intent - I get excited to share someone I admire with others, as well. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, just to clarify because reading back I was pretty vague with my comparisons. I wasn't comparing job titles like Mcdonalds cashier to a gender, I meant the rank in a work force. Cashier still has to follow the bosses rules & stay in a certain lower position just like a student isn't the principal or teacher. I completely agree with you on humans becoming more experimental that society has started to learn to accept people for who they are. Bisexuality is on a dramatic rise which is great for people who feared expressing those emotions/curiosities. 

LGBTQ suicide is a scary topic when you look into the statistics of it, my point is something that drastic of a growing epidemic can't be chalked up to what I've personally seen from the media as "they are committing suicide because people don't understand them" which surely can be the case for a good chunk but can't be marginalized as all anymore, the government really needs to spend time looking deeper into this because it will only grow. We both agree society is moving towards more people being free with themselves but if that very society still looks upon those new genders/pronouns as jokes then things like bullying or being treated like an outcast will still play a major factor in the suicide rate skyrocketing. My biggest problem is we are constantly being shown the struggles undeveloped/developed adults in the LGBTQ go through when transitioning or just trying to figure out who they truly are and yet we now can start children on transitions as young as 12 before they (children) or we (adults) even know what exactly they are feeling & how we can make sure it's the easiest process possible. 

 I just don't see civilization & society moving forward every time we think we finally have a grasp on what we need to do as a group to make other people feel comfortable, the checker piece gets moved in a completely different direction. It's up to the adults again to help grow these children, but when it's undeveloped minds making the rules and expect adults who in their own teen years 20-40 years ago never dealt with the long list of pronouns & genders currently today, you can't expect them to "get it" without being taught first. It doesn't help that the government is passing vague dangerous bills one after another handicapping parents/adults to either get with the times or be punished. Bill 89 especially, very dangerous line of helping kids now but potentially ruining their lives in the future. 

We both bring interesting things to the table with your perspective as the teacher and mine as the student, I see it more from my current peers and even the inner fighting within the LGBTQ community on how far is too far with the new pronouns & new genders. If it wasn't clear I fully support the LGBTQ and absolutely don't generalize it as some sort of "mental illness" or "freak show" that a sad chunk of people do. But even someone like me is confused when I'm asked to refer to someone as "Nobody" without being explained why. 

We both basically agree on alot of positive things & I'd like to say that it's a joy to participate in healthy debates like this. Only thing I would suggest Andrew is giving Peterson a shot and hear his side of the story, you may not agree with his stance in the classroom but the "backlash" he faced with massive threatening protests & death threats is beyond disturbing.  

Just because they may *feel* like they are being censored, they have not been physically restricted from speaking or threatened with consequences if they do so. < That basically is what has happened to the man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=169s

Not sure if this would be more appropriate in the Politics or Open discussion part of the forum at this point.

Edited by mrtrufflepig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God this makes me so mad. I'm glad they got the stupid panel event in Toronto shut down. Call people what they need to be called. You don't get a say in someone's identity and no one is asking to be called Zebra. Like fuck off. He. She. They. Ze. People are fucking people. Who cares what one goes by?? Reinforce your support of individuals by respecting how they wish to exist. It's really not asking much. Adjust with the times. Promote inclusion. Are you going to kill youself because you feel forced into using language? Probably not. But purposely using the wrong pronouns and adding to the stigma and oppression that surrounds the LGBTQ* community and that they face everyday? Come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing any event shut down due to “risk of violence and vandalism" is sad within itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing any event shut down due to “risk of violence and vandalism" is sad within itself.

This is true.  The polarization of American politics and identity politics is bleeding over into Canada.  Identity politics is PATHOLOGICAL. 

 

"If you want to beat the radicals on both sides, don't play their game. Don't play identity politics, it's *pathological*. Instead of playing the collectivist game (and that would include alt-right identity politics), play the individualist game by getting your act together. Live a stalwart, meaningful and high quality individual life. That's also the pathway that requires the most responsibility and sacrifice. It's the most honourable and least self deceptive."  -JP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, just to clarify because reading back I was pretty vague with my comparisons. I wasn't comparing job titles like Mcdonalds cashier to a gender, I meant the rank in a work force. Cashier still has to follow the bosses rules & stay in a certain lower position just like a student isn't the principal or teacher. I completely agree with you on humans becoming more experimental that society has started to learn to accept people for who they are. Bisexuality is on a dramatic rise which is great for people who feared expressing those emotions/curiosities. 

 

LGBTQ suicide is a scary topic when you look into the statistics of it, my point is something that drastic of a growing epidemic can't be chalked up to what I've personally seen from the media as "they are committing suicide because people don't understand them" which surely can be the case for a good chunk but can't be marginalized as all anymore, the government really needs to spend time looking deeper into this because it will only grow. We both agree society is moving towards more people being free with themselves but if that very society still looks upon those new genders/pronouns as jokes then things like bullying or being treated like an outcast will still play a major factor in the suicide rate skyrocketing. My biggest problem is we are constantly being shown the struggles undeveloped/developed adults in the LGBTQ go through when transitioning or just trying to figure out who they truly are and yet we now can start children on transitions as young as 12 before they (children) or we (adults) even know what exactly they are feeling & how we can make sure it's the easiest process possible. 

 

 I just don't see civilization & society moving forward every time we think we finally have a grasp on what we need to do as a group to make other people feel comfortable, the checker piece gets moved in a completely different direction. It's up to the adults again to help grow these children, but when it's undeveloped minds making the rules and expect adults who in their own teen years 20-40 years ago never dealt with the long list of pronouns & genders currently today, you can't expect them to "get it" without being taught first. It doesn't help that the government is passing vague dangerous bills one after another handicapping parents/adults to either get with the times or be punished. Bill 89 especially, very dangerous line of helping kids now but potentially ruining their lives in the future. 

 

We both bring interesting things to the table with your perspective as the teacher and mine as the student, I see it more from my current peers and even the inner fighting within the LGBTQ community on how far is too far with the new pronouns & new genders. If it wasn't clear I fully support the LGBTQ and absolutely don't generalize it as some sort of "mental illness" or "freak show" that a sad chunk of people do. But even someone like me is confused when I'm asked to refer to someone as "Nobody" without being explained why. 

 

We both basically agree on alot of positive things & I'd like to say that it's a joy to participate in healthy debates like this. Only thing I would suggest Andrew is giving Peterson a shot and hear his side of the story, you may not agree with his stance in the classroom but the "backlash" he faced with massive threatening protests & death threats is beyond disturbing.  

 

Just because they may *feel* like they are being censored, they have not been physically restricted from speaking or threatened with consequences if they do so. < That basically is what has happened to the man.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=169s

 

Not sure if this would be more appropriate in the Politics or Open discussion part of the forum at this point.

 

Thanks for this response, Tony. You've clarified your positions such that I understand what you're getting at now, and I think we can get to a place of agreement on certain parts of this as you have pointed out. 

 

The one thing I would point out is with your final coda; any threats made against him are a reaction to what he said, not a censorship of his views. Even so, violence or threats are so below any serious discussion that they're not even worthy acknowledging seriously because it gives them power, agency. It should go without saying that no one should advocate violence or personal threats, especially given that the people protesting his behaviour fashion themselves protectors of others. Certainly no one is doing that here - and I acknowledged above that the debate itself has become muddled and frankly, stupid. The argument i make, is in my opinion, a more effective/pointed argument than the ones actually being made by students on campus. Certainly, it's one that is much easier to enforce in terms of getting him to alter his behaviour and treat his students and colleagues with respect. 

 

I have a friend who enjoys some of Peterson's work and I am happy to listen to him if I come across him - as I suggested before, I do not think he is necessarily bigoted on this question, just being inflexible to the point of causing unnecessary harm.

 

Also, Emma, no one is suggesting that anyone wants to be referred to as a zebra. I was originally using that as an example to essentially agree with your position - that no matter how outlandish a person's identity may seem to another person, a that matters is that this person feels this way. As I have maintained the entire time, there is incredible harm caused by not accepting a person for who they are regardless of any personal opinion on the matter. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing any event shut down due to “risk of violence and vandalism" is sad within itself.

 

I think that while not in all but a good deal of cases in terms of university speakers that are "offensive" to your typical liberal university student it is a failure of the police to maintain law & order.  If you're disturbing the peace, you need to be arrested, and the person that offends your political leanings deserves a right to speak.

 

Protesters are winning with their tactics because all they need to do is cause a big outrage-fest outside of an event or even inside & the people they want censored are indeed so, and the event shut down.  Many of these people are 21st century version of book-burners. I have no problem with peaceful protests of any speaker,  but the key is "peaceful".

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Now that quote comes with reasonable limits, like threats of violence, harassment etc., but in general I agree with it.  Peterson deserves to speak even if many don't agree with his ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I was originally using that as an example to essentially agree with your position - that no matter how outlandish a person's identity may seem to another person, a that matters is that this person feels this way. As I have maintained the entire time, there is incredible harm caused by not accepting a person for who they are regardless of any personal opinion on the matter. 

 

 

I really truly get what you're saying here, especially if its in a situation such as teacher/student,  but at some point it becomes ludicrous. How far does this go?  At some point, people need to accept the fact that not everyone is going to like them, be nice to them or respect them. That's being an adult and living in the world.  It sucks when people don't like you, offend you, or insult you.  Hey we've all been there. But in a free society you don't really have a right to demand that people accept you socially.  You can't force people to like or accept you, it's an individual choice.  (I'm speaking socially here).  Obviously you do have the right to be free from discrimination, but that's not the same thing. I'm speaking on a 1x1 personal level. If someone offends you in some way, you can ignore them, Insult them, be violent with them, try to talk it out, or walk away.  I don't expect to be accepted everywhere I go. It's not realistic and it's an impossible standard to hold.  Would it be nice?  Sure it would. Should people try to at least do some good in the world and avoid offending people? Sure that would be nice too, and I get that you're basically saying "how hard is it to be nice? Spare them some grief, they already have it bad enough".  But if you want to live in a free society, you have to accept the fact that people can't and shouldn't be forced to accept people they don't want too.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not justifying hate or discrimination.  I am simply saying you can't go around expecting never to be offended by people.  I personally harbour no ill will towards any individuals.  (Though I do know people I don't really like and would not socialize with).

Edited by Sly Botts
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really truly get what you're saying here, especially if its in a situation such as teacher/student,  but at some point it becomes ludicrous. How far does this go?  At some point, people need to accept the fact that not everyone is going to like them, be nice to them or respect them. That's being an adult and living in the world.  It sucks when people don't like you, offend you, or insult you.  Hey we've all been there. But in a free society you don't really have a right to demand that people accept you socially.  You can't force people to like or accept you, it's an individual choice.  (I'm speaking socially here).  Obviously you do have the right to be free from discrimination, but that's not the same thing. I'm speaking on a 1x1 personal level. If someone offends you in some way, you can ignore them, Insult them, be violent with them, try to talk it out, or walk away.  I don't expect to be accepted everywhere I go. It's not realistic and it's an impossible standard to hold.  Would it be nice?  Sure it would. Should people try to at least do some good in the world and avoid offending people? Sure that would be nice too, and I get that you're basically saying "how hard is it to be nice? Spare them some grief, they already have it bad enough".  But if you want to live in a free society, you have to accept the fact that people can't and shouldn't be forced to accept people they don't want too.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not justifying hate or discrimination.  I am simply saying you can't go around expecting never to be offended by people.  I personally harbour no ill will towards any individuals.  (Though I do know people I don't really like and would not socialize with).

 

Mike, I agree that it CAN (caps for emphasis) get ludicrous, but given the original parameters of this situation, we truly haven't reached that point. University campuses are a place to have your worldview challenged, sure. For myself, for instance, I had my opinion on Canadian history as a whole shaped and challenged while I was there - but, it happened in tutorial. That a university should not have a spirit of openness in the marketplace of ideas is not my position - that's what many of the opponents at U of T are trying to stifle. As I say above, I take a different approach. On a one to one level, I'm going to disagree : it's part of your job to be respectful in your interactions. Students are governed by a code of conduct, and so are professors. Professors, in fact, should be held to a higher standard.

 

So, while Dr. Peterson is entitled to his opinion, and if he wants to go on podcasts and television talk shows as a private citizen and promote his opinion - all of that is great for debate and discussion and all of that stuff. However, when he has a colleague or a student in his office asking for help or input or whatever - as a public servant, as an employee bound by a code of professional conduct, and as an educator who is interacting with teenagers (many kids start university when they are 17 these days - I was part of the first cohort who did, back in 2003), it behooves him to be more responsible with the words he uses. I'll employ some of your rhetoric when it comes to that - it may be nice to think that we live in a free country and you can say anything you want at all times, but at a job where you deal with vulnerable/developing people, it is not appropriate to stubbornly insist upon using his own words for how a person sees themselves. It literally does not hurt him to do it, but it hurts them if he doesn't do it - and that should be enough. 

 

And again, I'd stress that I am not making the argument that people should be shielded from offence. A marketplace of ideas is good. Just call someone how they want to be called. Openness doesn't mean bad behaviour should be tolerated, and in my opinion, that is Peterson's greatest miscalculation here. 

 

The other thing is, truly effective educators don't tell other people what to think or what to believe. The best profs I had both times I was in university helped you learn how to think for yourself. The way to do that, while avoiding obvious false equivalencies or logical fallacies, is to present legitimate arguments and have students utilize and apply them as they see fit. I went to school with Reaganites (including one dude who actually wore Reagan quote T Shirts to class), Marxists, George W. Bush loving stalwart neo-cons, card carrying Liberal Party of Canada members, members of the campus Conservatives etc. and I can tell you that tutorial was a magical place that involved a lot of spirited debate.

 

The difference is, it was never personal. This was, and is. And I think that's where the line should be drawn.

Edited by andydanger85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is, it was never personal. This was, and is. And I think that's where the line should be drawn.

I like everything you said (I just didn't want to quote your whole response).  Though I would have to say I wasn't trying to be rhetorical or use rhetoric. I was saying how I feel personally.  I can see how I came across that way though.  I really like what you said though man. Nice stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like everything you said (I just didn't want to quote your whole response).  Though I would have to say I wasn't trying to be rhetorical or use rhetoric. I was saying how I feel personally.  I can see how I came across that way though.  I really like what you said though man. Nice stuff.

 

 

Thanks! To clarify, I meant rhetoric to refer to the fact that I was employing your words not to mock it, but to illustrate the point. I don't mean you were using formal rhetoric. 

 

Good discussion :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still be really interested to see what Matt thinks of Dr. Peterson. I am assuming he would do some research on the guy first (which really is a must in this case) because aside from the pronoun issue, he is doing a lot of great things for people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating new video up of both Peterson & Bret Weinstein.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=327s

Unrelated but Andrew I've been meaning to pick your brain about this, not sure if you've read up on it. What's your opinion about this professors "Stress Reduction Policy", it's been getting alot of backlash. 

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/35274/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im downloading this now. Looking forward to listening while I do my daily chores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating new video up of both Peterson & Bret Weinstein.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=327s

 

Unrelated but Andrew I've been meaning to pick your brain about this, not sure if you've read up on it. What's your opinion about this professors "Stress Reduction Policy", it's been getting alot of backlash. 

 

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/35274/

 

 

Well, this goes in the opposite direction. There's a movement in teaching towards more 'holistic' methods, but this is out to lunch on several fronts. In teaching there are two types of changes you typically make for students - accommodations and modifications. This is all Ontario specific, but as you will see, what is done in practice is much different from the above link. Accommodations are when you change the conditions or environment for a student with a stated exceptionality - so, more time to finish tests than others for those with stated problems with reading comprehension, "word banks" on fill in the blanks sections if there are stated/identified learning disabilities that interfere with memory recall. These are quite common. Modifications are when you actually make discretionary changes to curriculum expectations and usually occur only in cases of extreme learning or behavioural disorders/problems. Usually someone has to be on what is called an "Individual Education Plan (IEP)", which usually involves several meetings with administration and sometimes also psychiatric professionals. 

 

So, basically, changes in practice are not made lightly. 

 

I strongly disagree with the methodology practiced above. It's a lazy adherence to politically correct modes of "harm reduction" that actually DO more harm than good. You're supposed to teach and support the "whole student" - meaning academically, emotionally, and socially. Sure, that can and should involve flexibility - however, a teacher's first and only stated duty is to "teach the courses assigned to him/her by the principal", according to the Education Act. The problem with universities is that they often do not have standardized curricula, or any expectation of how the information itself should be taught. In so many ways, they are behind high and elementary school level professional practice. This is largely because the focus for the universities is not their students, but research that yields prestige and acclaim for the faculty, alumni, and administration. When I went there, U of T had a minimum quota for every prof where they had to produce X number of academic articles per year to maintain their tenure. As such, the focus is not on teaching. It's never been on teaching. You learn much more in tutorial from teaching assistants that are paid just north of minimum wage than you do from the professors themselves. The lack of standards in this case has skewed the other way though - towards politically correct, easy, drama free.

 

Honestly, it's almost like the prof in question threw up his hands and surrendered to all of the helicopter parents he no doubt gets dozens of calls from a week. That's the real insidious part of this issue that is so often underreported or unmentioned. Helicopter parents are the worst development of the last 10 years. They expect 95+ on every assignment, but also want the kid to be stress free and for the marks to be assigned based on some sort of mythical grade scale they invent in their head because their kid is a perfect angel who always has perfect sentence structure, grammar, and ability. Anyways ... won't go too far down that rabbit hole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.