Jordan Peterson debate on the Gender pay gap, Campus protests and Postmodernism - General

[QUOTE=srobins;53065559]What does he call for cessation of and what is wrong with his interpretation of C-16?[/QUOTE] For C-16 he origionally interpreted it (I've not come across anything that says he understands he was wrong yet either) as an attack on free speech as it would enforce "compelled speech", punishing those legally who did not use the correct pronouns, etc. and act as a gateway to more invasive "compelled speech" practices. This exact same argument was also spouted by numerous people on these forums who misinterpreted it or got their understanding from questionable sources. This is not the case. The bill can only do so much without interfering with existing human rights legislation. An individual accidentally, or purposefully, misgendering someone isn't going to get them into legal trouble. An individual or group using misgendering as an attack vector for hate speech or the rallying of group hatred however would be punishable similarly to those using homophobic or racial slurs. Actual lawyers (and not psychologists pretending they know legalese) have discussed this point to no end ([url]http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f[/url]). Peterson calls for universities to cease teaching various subjects that he deems are "infested" with that Gods-forsaken "Cultural Marxism" meme the right loves to go on about so much (heh so much for free speech). His only qualifier for a course being "infested" appears to be "does it teach a remotely modern viewpoint on social issues". [quote=https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/11/10/u-of-t-profs-proposed-website-would-target-professors-teaching-womens-and-ethnic-studies.html]He added that women’s, ethnic and racial studies “have to go, and the faster the better.”[/quote] And lets not forget his wish to build a website of so-called "cultural marxists" and "post modernists" that'd basically be a fucking hit-list for alt-right lunatics who follow him lmao ( [url]https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/929187145746542592[/url] [url]https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/929748260121583616[/url] )

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53065672]For C-16 he origionally interpreted it (I've not come across anything that says he understands he was wrong yet either) as an attack on free speech as it would enforce "compelled speech", punishing those legally who did not use the correct pronouns, etc. and act as a gateway to more invasive "compelled speech" practices. This exact same argument was also spouting by numerous people on these forums who misinterpreted it or got their understanding from questionable sources. This is not the case. The bill can only do so much without interfering with existing human rights legislation. An individual accidentally, or purposefully, misgendering someone isn't going to get them into legal trouble. An individual or group using misgendering as an attack vector for hate speed or the rallying of group hatred however would be punishable similarly to those using homophobic or racial slurs. Actual lawyers (and not psychologists pretending they know legalese) have discussed this point to no end ([url]http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f[/url]). Peterson calls for universities to cease teaching various subjects that he deems are "infested" with that Gods-forsaken "Cultural Marxism" meme the right loves to go on about so much (heh so much for free speech). His only qualifier for a course being "infested" appears to be "does it teach a remotely modern viewpoint on social issues". And lets not forget his wish to build a website of so-called "cultural marxists" and "post modernists" that'd basically be a fucking hit-list for alt-right lunatics who follow him lmao ( [url]https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/929187145746542592[/url] [url]https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/929748260121583616[/url] )[/QUOTE] I feel as though the enforcement of C-16 is too subjective and I don't entirely trust the law to properly discern when someone is being "intentionally hateful" as opposed to just disagreeing with a pronoun usage or being plain ignorant, so I still agree with his stance on C-16. As for his moaning about post-modernism and cultural Marxism, I agree, it's incredibly annoying and petty and part of why I don't endorse Peterson despite agreeing with some of what he says (like the OP video).

[QUOTE=srobins;53065559]What is unreliable about them? you don't really explain [I]why[/I] it's wrong of him to reference them in relation to the pay gap.[/QUOTE] As an explanation for the pay gap they are unreliable because they are not a sufficient enough explanation on their own even as one part of a larger group of causes. There's nothing wrong with referencing them but [I]just[/I] referencing them isn't very useful. The Big 5 are a solid starting point but the question that naturally follows is why are women higher in agreeableness than men and if this is a negative for them then how can we best solve the issue? There's nothing wrong with stating facts but Peterson has made an error in failing to expand on them. And based on his other arguments, namely the Male:Female job ratio in Sweden or possibly Poland I can't remember which, it's possible that his failure to expand on the topic is intentional. Peterson seems to view the Big 5 as an inherent genetic mechanism that in part explains the pay gap and is difficult or impossible to overcome and he doesn't seem interested in delving further into the topic. [QUOTE=srobins;53065559]Do you disagree with his stance that the pay gap is largely due to employee choices rather than an unexplained phenomena that we just have to assume is sexism?[/QUOTE] This is a loaded question but I'll try to answer it. I would agree that the pay gap is largely due to employee choices but I wouldn't stop there because that's a surface level explanation that doesn't do service to the issue. Why are women making these particular choices? Is it genetic? It is cultural? Can we explain the massive increases of female representation in certain fields over the past decade or so? Have the past thousands of years of oppression towards women left an impact on them even after they've gained the same rights as men? I don't expect Peterson to have the answers to these questions but I expect him to contend with them beyond saying "That's possible" or "I don't know" if he's going to speak on the topic. [QUOTE=srobins;53065559]And what is defeatist about his attitude? It seems to me, at least in this clip, he's just advocating that women speak up for themselves and fight for raises and high paying careers the same way men do. He doesn't say anything defeatist or fatalist implying that equality is either undeserved or unobtainable.[/QUOTE] Listening to Peterson speak about the Big 5 and the types of jobs that women funnel into, I come away thinking that he views these things as natural decisions with genetic causes that he doesn't have an interest in further examining. I would describe that attitude as defeatist because he acknowledges that the issue exists and I interpret his stance as being that there is very little we can do to solve the issue. [QUOTE=srobins;53065559]what is wrong with his interpretation of C-16?[/QUOTE] His interpretation of C-16 was that he would be compelled by law to refer to people by their preferred pronouns under threat of imprisonment. None of this is true. First, C-16 compels you to not refer to someone by incorrect pronouns. For example, if Peterson were to refer to a transgender female student as a male, that would be against the law. But it isn't against the law to refuse to refer to that person as a female. You can use gender neutral pronouns or just use no pronouns at all. Second, there is no threat of imprisonment. The punishment for breaking the law is a fine. Peterson's argument is that if you refuse to pay the fine then you would be imprisoned. This is ridiculous because at that point you wouldn't be going to jail for referring to someone as an incorrect pronoun, you would be going to jail for refusing to pay a fine the same way you would go to jail for refusing to pay any other fine.

[QUOTE=srobins;53065687]I feel as though the enforcement of C-16 is too subjective and I don't entirely trust the law to properly discern when someone is being "intentionally hateful" as opposed to just disagreeing with a pronoun usage or being plain ignorant, so I still agree with his stance on C-16.[/QUOTE] Are people being rounded up and thrown in the cubes for calling gay people "faggots", black people "niggers" and Jews "kikes" right now? No? Well enforcement of C-16 would follow those precedents. There's plenty of legal precedence for these kinds of things. Just using misgendering as a slur isn't going to get you fined or anything, it'd take you being hateful to a somewhat organised degree by persisting against a single person to a point they feel unsafe or worse for legal action to even be considered. Peterson is wholly incorrect about C-16. It's something way, way out of his field of expertise.

[QUOTE=cbb;53065692]As an explanation for the pay gap they are unreliable because they are not a sufficient enough explanation on their own even as one part of a larger group of causes. There's nothing wrong with referencing them but [I]just[/I] referencing them isn't very useful. The Big 5 are a solid starting point but the question that naturally follows is why are women higher in agreeableness than men and if this is a negative for them then how can we best solve the issue? There's nothing wrong with stating facts but Peterson has made an error in failing to expand on them. And based on his other arguments, namely the Male:Female job ratio in Sweden or possibly Poland I can't remember which, it's possible that his failure to expand on the topic is intentional. Peterson seems to view the Big 5 as an inherent genetic mechanism that in part explains the pay gap and is difficult or impossible to overcome and he doesn't seem interested in delving further into the topic.[/QUOTE] But like I said, his explanation of the pay gap isn't based specifically on the Big 5, he just references them because conversationally they're well recognized and an easy example. The actual debunking of the pay gap myth is done in multivariate studies which he refers to multiple times in this video. Nobody is saying that "because this happens at Google its true everywhere". And he [I]does[/I] expand on the women's agreeableness topic by saying that he suggests women be less agreeable and more aggressive in pursuit of their career (as another note, the reason behind it isn't very complicated, it's a well-tracked personality trait difference in the sexes that is owed largely to hormone differences). I don't really understand your point about the Sweden bit, he made his point very clearly that Sweden has attempted to "equalize" gender in their society and legal systems and the result is that men and women [I]still[/I] sort themselves into traditionally male and female roles overwhelmingly. I don't see what more expansion is necessary. [QUOTE=cbb;53065692]This is a loaded question but I'll try to answer it. I would agree that the pay gap is largely due to employee choices but I wouldn't stop there because that's a surface level explanation that doesn't do service to the issue. Why are women making these particular choices? Is it genetic? It is cultural? Can we explain the massive increases of female representation in certain fields over the past decade or so? Have the past thousands of years of oppression towards women left an impact on them even after they've gained the same rights as men? I don't expect Peterson to have the answers to these questions but I expect him to contend with them beyond saying "That's possible" or "I don't know" if he's going to speak on the topic.[/QUOTE] The contention that women are paid less simply for being women is political fodder and its just not true, and that is what he is replying to and debating. He disproves this claim citing those multivariate studies that control for individual choices. If you want to investigate why women make those choices, that's fine, but it's a separate issue. [QUOTE=cbb;53065692]Listening to Peterson speak about the Big 5 and the types of jobs that women funnel into, I come away thinking that he views these things as natural decisions with genetic causes that he doesn't have an interest in further examining. I would describe that attitude as defeatist because he acknowledges that the issue exists and I interpret his stance as being that there is very little we can do to solve the issue.[/QUOTE] I don't see it as defeatist because he views it as a product of choice. If a woman actually wants to be a software engineer she is more than capable of pursuing that reality, there's no "defeat" here. I think you're misinterpreting the fact that he doesn't see it as a problem as being a sign that he thinks it will never be solved. [QUOTE=cbb;53065692]His interpretation of C-16 was that he would be compelled by law to refer to people by their preferred pronouns under threat of imprisonment. None of this is true. First, C-16 compels you to not refer to someone by incorrect pronouns. For example, if Peterson were to refer to a transgender female student as a male, that would be against the law. But it isn't against the law to refuse to refer to that person as a female. You can use gender neutral pronouns or just use no pronouns at all. Second, there is no threat of imprisonment. The punishment for breaking the law is a fine. Peterson's argument is that if you refuse to pay the fine then you would be imprisoned. This is ridiculous because at that point you wouldn't be going to jail for referring to someone as an incorrect pronoun, you would be going to jail for refusing to pay a fine the same way you would go to jail for refusing to pay any other fine.[/QUOTE] Making it illegal to call a trans person (or anyone) by the incorrect pronoun isn't right imo. It's ignorant and ugly but I don't think it's right to make it illegal. Some people can be mistaken, some people can simply disagree with the designation. I don't think they're [I]good[/I] people, but I also don't think forcing people by law to refer to a biological male as female is right. They [I]should[/I] do it to not be a total cunt, but they shouldn't have to. The lack of a direct threat of imprisonment doesn't really make a difference, a fine alone is still stupid, and if you refuse or cannot pay the fine then (at least in America, I don't know how it works in Canada), you still go to jail. [editline]19th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;53065701]Are people being rounded up and thrown in the cubes for calling gay people "faggots", black people "niggers" and Jews "kikes" right now? No? Well enforcement of C-16 would follow those precedents. There's plenty of legal precedence for these kinds of things. Just using misgendering as a slur isn't going to get you fined or anything, it'd take you being hateful to a somewhat organised degree by persisting against a single person to a point they feel unsafe or worse for legal action to even be considered. Peterson is wholly incorrect about C-16. It's something way, way out of his field of expertise.[/QUOTE] Well, if it really is enforced in that vein then I agree that's reasonable. I'm paranoid about the enforcement of laws like these but it doesn't come from a place of hate, I just principally am alarmed at the concept.

[QUOTE=srobins;53065717]Well, if it really is enforced in that vein then I agree that's reasonable. I'm paranoid about the enforcement of laws like these but it doesn't come from a place of hate, I just principally am alarmed at the concept.[/QUOTE] Didn't the university officer at Laurier University specifically refer to C-16 in support of trying to shut down that woman from playing a Peterson debate, based on it being discriminatory to trans-people? So as far as application goes, we already have an example of someone in authority using C-16 to shut down conversation about the topic.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53064573]Can you link that statement from the first protest at UFT? Because I've seen outright denial to "well if you look like a girl I'll call you a girl", which is why I posted that article because it doesn't mention anything being forced. [/QUOTE] [URL]https://youtu.be/kasiov0ytEc?t=1226[/URL] [URL]https://youtu.be/O-nvNAcvUPE?t=561[/URL] This is the moment i was specifically thinking of [URL]https://youtu.be/O-nvNAcvUPE?t=722[/URL] All three are from the intital "controversy" and i cannot find evidence that he as ever publically expressed a different position. Nor does the provided BBC article contravene that. And all the while, the original statements lines up perfectly with the claim made here. [URL]https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=1397[/URL] [QUOTE]Your using vague descriptors (SJW) and broad topics (the idea of individual identity vs class identity) to connect two groups of people who don't really share any similar goals whatsoever. There is nothing to indicate that a specific group of transgender activists are pursuing a Marxist or Maoist agenda, with all the historical baggage that comes with that (repression, censorship, violence, imprisonment, authoritarianism in general). The argument is just "Well they saw themselves as part of a collective, and these guys see each other as a part of a collective, so obviously they are the same". It's like suggesting that modern day conservatives are acting under the same set of axioms and beliefs as the Nazi Party because both groups are patriotic with a strong sense of national identity. Except worse, because where as conservative actually means something in the modern American lexicon, SJW means [I]nothing[/I]. The claim isn't correct whatsoever, as evidenced by the fact that neither Peterson nor you have any actual evidence that transgender activists align with Maoism or Marxism other than the vague allegation of a desire to break down society and reform it as a collective without hierarchy. It's base fear mongering, and simply a variant of the "cultural marxism" conspiracy theories that have existed for years prior to Petersons rise to fame. [/QUOTE] I use "SJW's" to refer to those who operate under marxist terms with goal of an "equitable" or "fair" or "Inclusive" society, using neo-marxist (IE marxist class power dynamics and philosophy removed from economic classes and re-applied to arbitrarily defineable social/ethnic/miscillanious groups) principals, values, methods and metrics to define, justify, measure and reach their goals, outcomes and claimed issues. As opposed to liberals, who would want a universal morale franchise, and reject the idea of collectivist reasoning, group rights etc, as those are a caste/aristocratic model, and just by the by in this context universally end in some capacity of genocide. And i connected the two quite fucking clearly with intersectionality, which all these activists publically express as their justification/body of reasoning. And again, Bell Hooks who formulated intersectionality as we see before us, happily cites marx, uses marxist reasoning, and publically and happily describes herself and her works as marxist. I provided this information to you, which you've clearly just deliberately ignored. If those said activists (as previously outlined by peterson and the interviewer, defined by the host as "marxist stroke postmodernist activists" operate under intersectionality, they are operating under marxism and in fact do share common end goals, modes of action, bodies of reasoning and philosophical foundations, as both bodies of reason are predicated on marxism, with it's intractable rejection of the validity of hierarchy, and the overt call to overthrow any social structures predicated on higherarchies, which are thereby "oppressive". They do not intractably have a [I]maoist[/I] agenda (though there are those in that group that do, but that's irrelevant), they do have an intractable [I]marxist[/I] agenda. That of equality of outcome/"representation", defined as and justified by group identity as a canonical element, and the hypothetical class dynamics between those groups. Peterson never claimed that they in any way pertained to Maoists, that was the host's doing by conflating the description of them as "authoritarian" to maoism. And peterson obliged by saying that Maoism and intersectional social justice are bedfellows with marxism. [QUOTE] I never argued that white nationalists, conservatives, or right wingers et al couldn't be collectivist, I was arguing that identity politics isn't intrinsically leftist, marxist, or maoist as Peterson claims in this debate.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]what got me was the implication that transgender activists are the vanguards of Maoist repression based on nothing more than the spurious claim that identity politics is inherently leftist and collectivist[/QUOTE] He never made that claim. He said [I]they are[/I] collectivist identiarians, not that that they are, and that this is a phenomena unique to the left. I can only describe your assertion that he made the claim that identitarianism and collectivism is unique to or otherwise intractably "leftist" as an overt lie. [QUOTE]I didn't say anything about the alt-right, I was quoting the host. And no, he doesn't talk about the "small minority of trans activists that fall under the Marxist wing". He just says "activists", and says that they "don't have the right to speak for their whole community". There is no qualifier to whether these activists are far-left Marxists or simply people who want more rights.[/QUOTE] Many times in the interview, they were defined as [URL="https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=570"]"radical feminists"[/URL] [URL="https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=853"]"Radical feminists" again or specifically "Those desiring equality of outcome"[/URL] [URL="https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=301"]"Marxist stroke postmodernists"[/URL] [URL="https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=1484"]"The philiosiphy that guides their utterances is the same"[/URL] [URL="https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=1527"]"That's the fundimental philosiphy of the left wing activists, it's identity politics. It doesn't matter who you are as an individual, what matters is your group identity"[/URL] frequent referrals to the claims that the west is a tryannical patriarchy or that [URL="https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=1582"]"Higherarchies are a sociological construct designed by the western patriarchy"[/URL], which is a claim unique to intersectional social justice based on the marxist assertion of the illegitimacy of hierarchy itself, and most overtly, he literally prefaced that claim of authoritarianism as [URL="https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=1432"]"Only in the broader context of my claims that radical leftist ideologues are authoritarian"[/URL]. That the subject was radical marxist/social justice/feminist activists who are identitarians and believe in equality of outcome as the paramount end goal was quite clearly established, and any reasonable person not desiring to twist words to mean anything would assume that they were talking specifically about those such marxist/feminist/social justice identitarian activists, not an intractable quality of "The left". So the claim that "There is no qualifier to whether these activists are far-left Marxists or simply people who want more rights." is flat out wrong. The people in question were overtly established to Marxists and they were overtly established to be feminists/social justice/equality of outcome types. So you've made another statement i can only describe as an unabashed lie or willful ignorance/confirmation bias [QUOTE]When it comes to politics he is a brazen ideologue. Webster defines ideologue as I'd say Petersons penchant for bundling disparate leftist groups together under the banner of "SJW" and saying that their thoughts and words are lifted from Marxism and Maoism, and implying (but not outright stating) that they are trying to work towards a successful implementation of those ideas qualifies as "blindly partisan".[/QUOTE] if providing evidence, a well articulated argument for and careful constraint in the definition of the given terms is "blind" then god help us all.

Bleugh. Jordan Peterson's grasp on biology is about comparable to 9/11 truthers grasp on physics. His, and his supporters, lack of knowledge about marxism is abhorrent. It's just a boogey-man to them. A buzzword.

[QUOTE=Il Principe;53066229]Bleugh. Jordan Peterson's grasp on biology is about comparable to 9/11 truthers grasp on physics. His, and his supporters, lack of knowledge about marxism is abhorrent. It's just a boogey-man to them. A buzzword.[/QUOTE] He never really made any claims about biology here.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53066236]He never really made any claims about biology here.[/QUOTE] That's not true actually. He countered the marxist claim that higherarchies are a socially constructed concept designed to oppress lower social/economic classes with the fact that creatures that predate trees have the same biological adaptions to living in social hierarchies that we do. And that those neurological systems are so similar that the same drugs we take to treat depression works on lobsters as well. Which means that A) hierarchies are in fact, perfectly natural and predate mammals by a fwe hundred million years and B) we have not "escaped" that reality, so that claim cannot be true [QUOTE=Il Principe;53066229]Bleugh. Jordan Peterson's grasp on biology is about comparable to 9/11 truthers grasp on physics. His, and his supporters, lack of knowledge about marxism is abhorrent. It's just a boogey-man to them. A buzzword.[/QUOTE] You might want to [URL="https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en"]inform those who made the over 9000 citations of his work[/URL] that his understanding of his field is poor then. I'm sure they'd respect the authority of someone like yourself and they wouldn't need to be provided with an argument either.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;53066274]That's not true actually. He countered the marxist claim that higherarchies are a socially constructed concept designed to oppress lower social/economic classes with the fact that creatures that predate trees have the same biological adaptions to living in social hierarchies that we do. And that those neurological systems are so similar that the same drugs we take to treat depression works on lobsters as well. Which means that A) hierarchies are in fact, perfectly natural and predate mammals by a fwe hundred million years and B) we have not "escaped" that reality, so that claim cannot be true[/QUOTE] Okay, so capitalist societal structures aren't constructed to oppress the lower classes because social hierarchies exist in other animals and anti depressants cure lobster depression what

Damn, never seen the ratings on a video so divided.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53066288]Okay, so capitalist societal structures aren't constructed to oppress the lower classes because social hierarchies exist in other animals and anti depressants cure lobster depression what[/QUOTE] The claim that marx made is that hierarchies are artificial, socially constructed inventions specifically designed to oppress the lower classes to assert a hegemonic control over society. And the fact that there are neurological systems in all social animals specifically adapted to function in hierarchies destroys that claim outright. Because they're quite obviously natural, and we have it built into our physiology to operate within hierarchies, meaning that a good society [I]must[/I] integrate hierarchies in a healthy way, because to not do so would fundamentally not represent human nature. And you can't build a human utopia if it isn't built for humans. And or that reason i'd describe his rejection of hierarchy as probably the most fundamental failure of marxism, and i believe the largest contributer to the fact that every society predicated on marxist reasoning has descended into what can only be described as infinitely horrible authoritarian and genocidal regimes, as it is simply antithetical to the most basic nature of the human beings it claims to serve.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;53066274]You might want to [URL="https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en"]inform those who made the over 9000 citations of his work[/URL] that his understanding of his field is poor then. I'm sure they'd respect the authority of someone like yourself and they wouldn't need to be provided with an argument either.[/QUOTE] I don't know if you intended that to be a counter-argument or whatever, but if so it's a poorly chosen one. A citation doesn't mean the author is in agreement, it doesn't even necessarily mean that the authors give Jordan B. Petersons "theories" any legitimacy. That's a huge leap. Secondly, a whole bunch of those citations you talk of are from papers who speak nothing of marxism or biology, and are as such totally irrelevant to JBP:s grasp on those subjects. I mean, of of those on that page is literally about what makes a "morning person". Citations in and of themselves don't say shit. Regarding your personal attack ("the authority of someone like yourself"), I have two things to say. First of all, as far as it comes to biology I probably have more formal education than Jordan B. Peterson (he's a psychologist, right?). Secondly, and more importantly, it's just a weak attempt of [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque[/url]

well then topple his arguments instead of making offhanded dismissals. Here, i'll help you. [URL]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00330.x/full[/URL] Here's a paper to do with the biological relation to personality. have fun.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;53066297]The claim that marx made is that hierarchies are artificial, socially constructed inventions specifically designed to oppress the lower classes to assert a hegemonic control over society. And the fact that there are neurological systems in all social animals specifically adapted to function in hierarchies destroys that claim outright. Because they're quite obviously natural, and we have it built into our physiology to operate within hierarchies, meaning that a good society [I]must[/I] integrate hierarchies in a healthy way, because to not do so would fundamentally not represent human nature. And you can't build a human utopia if it isn't built for humans. And or that reason i'd describe his rejection of hierarchy as probably the most fundamental failure of marxism, and i believe the largest contributer to the fact that every society predicated on marxist reasoning has descended into what can only be described as infinitely horrible authoritarian and genocidal regimes, as it is simply antithetical to the most basic nature of the human beings it claims to serve.[/QUOTE] Even if I ceded that natural social hierarchies among animals are the same as wealth based class structures, and I don't, it wouldn't follow that wealth based class structures are a necessary and healthy thing. You can't extract a moral ought from a biological is. "Humans are inclined to do x" does not mean "Humans ought to do x". If we go along with the assertion that "Humans are inclined to form class hierarchies, therefor class hierarchies are good" then we could also say "Humans are inclined to steal when they think they can get away with it, therefor stealing is good" or "Humans are inclined to follow authority figures, therefor blindly following authority is good". there are a million good arguments against communism, and yet somehow you've found the weakest possible one

[QUOTE=Tudd;53059855]Might have been exactly here. [media]https://twitter.com/Some_BlackGuy/status/953523706373931009[/media][/QUOTE] What an idiotic woman. Pretty sure the right to an education without being bullied and harassed isn't equal to the "right to not be offended." Congrats, lady, on making the cause you supposedly advocate for look as stupid as possible.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;53066297]The claim that marx made is that hierarchies are artificial, socially constructed inventions specifically designed to oppress the lower classes to assert a hegemonic control over society. And the fact that there are neurological systems in all social animals specifically adapted to function in hierarchies destroys that claim outright.[/QUOTE] That hierarchies exist in the wild doesn't mean the hierarchies we built are natural. [QUOTE]Because they're quite obviously natural, and we have it built into our physiology to operate within hierarchies, meaning that a good society [I]must[/I] integrate hierarchies in a healthy way, because to not do so would fundamentally not represent human nature.[/QUOTE] Naturalistic fallacy. That hierarchies exist in nature absolutely does [I]not[/I] imply that human societies must have them as well. If we had to conform to nature then society as we know it wouldn't even exist. [QUOTE]And you can't build a human utopia if it isn't built for humans. And or that reason i'd describe his rejection of hierarchy as probably the most fundamental failure of marxism, and i believe the largest contributer to the fact that every society predicated on marxist reasoning has descended into what can only be described as infinitely horrible authoritarian and genocidal regimes, as it is simply antithetical to the most basic nature of the human beings it claims to serve.[/QUOTE] Considering that your assumption that hierarchies are vital for a healthy society is based on a flawed premise, that conclusion is erroneous as well.

Apologies if I’m oversimplifying things but I fail to see how wanting equality for LGBT people is equal to Marxism and demands for collectivism [editline]19th January 2018[/editline] If I’m a Marxist than I’m a pretty bad one

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;53066333]well then topple his arguments instead of making offhanded dismissals. Here, i'll help you. [URL]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00330.x/full[/URL] Here's a paper to do with the biological relation to personality. have fun.[/QUOTE] A paper of psychologists lightly touching on neuroscience doesn't mean he has a strong grasp on biology. This is just a really pathetic appeal to authority. Prolly should have just defended his arguments in the first place.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53066412]That hierarchies exist in the wild doesn't mean the hierarchies we built are natural.[/QUOTE] I think Trilby and Peterson are referring to hierarchies in an more general, abstract sense rather than specific, possibly currently implemented structures. Natural in that they derive their structure from nature, even though the standing being based on wealth rather then strength, age, etc. is patently unnatural. Take a step back and you're both right, just looking at it differently. [QUOTE=_Axel;53066412]Naturalistic fallacy. That hierarchies exist in nature absolutely does [I]not[/I] imply that human societies must have them as well. If we had to conform to nature then society as we know it wouldn't even exist.[/QUOTE] I agree, human societies do not have to be hierarchical in nature. I would assume the society that is flat or otherwise topologically nonhierarchical, however, would have a hard time when faced with an outside military threat from a more coordinated hierarchical group for a variety of reasons (decisiveness of action, clear authority through chain of command, increased specialization and so on) and be subsumed. It would be useful to have a concrete example of a successful nonhierarchical human nation that did not succumb to a hierarchical group to prove me wrong (I have looked), but it does seem as though we live on a planet dominated by hierarchically structured societies; perhaps hierarchy is simply an emergent property of large social groups that is evolutionarily necessary to the stability and survival of that group. Surely it would be wise to emulate nature where possible, given that she has had a lot longer than us to figure out what works and what doesn't.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeL-Fn0V8iU[/media] this is my favourite j peterson video

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53066834]I think Trilby and Peterson are referring to hierarchies in an more general, abstract sense rather than specific, possibly currently implemented structures. Natural in that they derive their structure from nature, even though the standing being based on wealth rather then strength, age, etc. is patently unnatural. Take a step back and you're both right, just looking at it differently. I agree, human societies do not have to be hierarchical in nature. I would assume the society that is flat or otherwise topologically nonhierarchical, however, would have a hard time when faced with an outside military threat from a more coordinated hierarchical group for a variety of reasons (decisiveness of action, clear authority through chain of command, increased specialization and so on) and be subsumed. It would be useful to have a concrete example of a successful nonhierarchical human nation that did not succumb to a hierarchical group to prove me wrong (I have looked), but it does seem as though we live on a planet dominated by hierarchically structured societies; perhaps hierarchy is simply an emergent property of large social groups that is evolutionarily necessary to the stability and survival of that group. Surely it would be wise to emulate nature where possible, given that she has had a lot longer than us to figure out what works and what doesn't.[/QUOTE] this sort of logic only sounds reasonable when it's being used to back up beliefs you already hold I could easily say "well in the wild the weak dominate the strong so an ideal society is one where anyone who can't defend themselves deserves to have their things stolen" and justify it with the same reasoning "The natural goal of all life is to reproduce. Why shouldn't men rape and impregnate as many women as possible? Nature has given us lust for a reason! A serial rapist isn't a criminal, he's a successful male specimen." just don't use this logic, it's completely worthless and produces pure shit

Trilby, I have no idea where you're getting the notion that opposition to hierarchies is somehow central to Marxist thought. A lot of Marxists would happily use hierarchical means to bring forth the communist revolution. Only anarchism is inherently opposed to hierarchies, and even then a lot of anarchists (myself included) make a distinction between unjustified and justified hierarchies.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53066895]this sort of logic only sounds reasonable when it's being used to back up beliefs you already hold I could easily say "well in the wild the weak dominate the strong so an ideal society is one where anyone who can't defend themselves deserves to have their things stolen" and justify it with the same reasoning "The natural goal of all life is to reproduce. Why shouldn't men rape and impregnate as many women as possible? Nature has given us lust for a reason! A serial rapist isn't a criminal, he's a successful male specimen." just don't use this logic, it's completely worthless and produces pure shit[/QUOTE] You don't seem to be understanding the argument. Let's say some group were to come around an postulate an ideal society void of all physical attraction. We might point out that part of the biological nature of being a human is to have physical attraction. That's not the same thing as saying people should rape as much as possible. In the same way, Peterson is pointing out that we have an inbuilt biology that exists to work with hierarchies. To postulate a society without any hierarchy is to go against what it means to be human. This isn't the same thing as saying we need to have the exact type of hierarchy that we have now. [editline]19th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=UnknownDude;53066906]Trilby, I have no idea where you're getting the notion that opposition to hierarchies is somehow central to Marxist thought. A lot of Marxists would happily use hierarchical means to bring forth the communist revolution. Only anarchism is inherently opposed to hierarchies, and even then a lot of anarchists (myself included) make a distinction between unjustified and justified hierarchies.[/QUOTE] They would use it to bring about the revolution, but the ultimate goal was to abolish all hierarchy.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53066920]You don't seem to be understanding the argument. Let's say some group were to come around an postulate an ideal society void of all physical attraction. We might point out that part of the biological nature of being a human is to have physical attraction. That's not the same thing as saying people should rape as much as possible. In the same way, Peterson is pointing out that we have an inbuilt biology that exists to work with hierarchies. To postulate a society without any hierarchy is to go against what it means to be human. This isn't the same thing as saying we need to have the exact type of hierarchy that we have now.[/QUOTE] You're still stuck on broken is-ought conclusions. The tendency of humans to act certain way is simply an observation, not a premise for the conclusion that humans should act that way.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53066920]You don't seem to be understanding the argument. Let's say some group were to come around an postulate an ideal society void of all physical attraction. We might point out that part of the biological nature of being a human is to have physical attraction. That's not the same thing as saying people should rape as much as possible. In the same way, Peterson is pointing out that we have an inbuilt biology that exists to work with hierarchies. To postulate a society without any hierarchy is to go against what it means to be human. This isn't the same thing as saying we need to have the exact type of hierarchy that we have now.[/QUOTE] And I quote, "Surely it would be wise to emulate nature where possible, given that she has had a lot longer than us to figure out what works and what doesn't." That is not "we should take nature into account when designing societal systems". That is saying that something being natural is an argument that it is good. "Human nature should be taken into account when structuring society" and "society should emulate nature because what is natural is inherently good and/or functional" are two completely different statements. The argument you build off of the first statement is "any functional society should account for the desire for hierarchy". The argument you build off of the second, and the one I take issue with, is "hierarchy is natural, therefor society must have hierarchical systems".

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53066946]You're still stuck on broken is-ought conclusions. The tendency of humans to act certain way is simply an observation, not a premise for the conclusion that humans should act that way.[/QUOTE] It has absolutely nothing to do with an "ought." It has to do with having a realistic society. One may even say that a human society won't work well without hierarchies due to the biology of being human while also saying that it ought to not have hierarchies. They aren't the same thing.

"Human nature" is a meaningless argument. There is no evidence supporting the notion that humans are programmed to act in a certain way. I think human behavior is strongly linked to the material conditions of their environment and society.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;53066834]I think Trilby and Peterson are referring to hierarchies in an more general, abstract sense rather than specific, possibly currently implemented structures. Natural in that they derive their structure from nature, even though the standing being based on wealth rather then strength, age, etc. is patently unnatural. Take a step back and you're both right, just looking at it differently. I agree, human societies do not have to be hierarchical in nature. I would assume the society that is flat or otherwise topologically nonhierarchical, however, would have a hard time when faced with an outside military threat from a more coordinated hierarchical group for a variety of reasons (decisiveness of action, clear authority through chain of command, increased specialization and so on) and be subsumed.[/quote] This is a moot point. Military hierarchy is separate from society at large. You don't need to apply a strict hierarchy to the entirety of the population to have an efficient army. [Quote]It would be useful to have a concrete example of a successful nonhierarchical human nation that did not succumb to a hierarchical group to prove me wrong (I have looked), but it does seem as though we live on a planet dominated by hierarchically structured societies; perhaps hierarchy is simply an emergent property of large social groups that is evolutionarily necessary to the stability and survival of that group.[/quote] This is, again, deriving an ought from an is. That everything uses this system currently doesn't mean it is necessary. Virtually all advanced civilizations used horses as a way to supply mechanical power, from transportation to agriculture. Nowadays, their usage is anecdotal. Despite being widespread in the past, they aren't necessary for society to function. [Quote]Surely it would be wise to emulate nature where possible, given that she has had a lot longer than us to figure out what works and what doesn't.[/QUOTE] Considering that nature didn't come up with cars, rockets, widespread electricity and a ton of other highly useful systems, and that we used to live no longer than 30 to 40 years, I'd say blind admiration towards it is misplaced. Yes, it created systems that are highly efficient and we still don't fully comprehend, but it also has failed to come up with impressive innovations that we created. The argument of "nature does it thus it must be better" thus doesn't stand on its own. [QUOTE=sgman91;53066920]In the same way, Peterson is pointing out that we have an inbuilt biology that exists to work with hierarchies. To postulate a society without any hierarchy is to go against what it means to be human. This isn't the same thing as saying we need to have the exact type of hierarchy that we have now.[/QUOTE] There are plenty of things in society that override our instincts without anything bad resulting from it. Going against instinctual urges [I]is[/I] human nature. You're operating on the baseless assumption that any system that counteracts human instincts is doomed to fail, and conclude that any attempt to counter our intrinsic flaws will be fruitless.