I don't get it.
It was, also from what I gathered on Peterson's view, never about transgendered people being able to be called by their preferred pronouns.
Once asked, Peterson would gladly oblige out of common decency - he claimed so himself.
It's the attempt to turn misgendering into a criminal offense on the level of harrassment - it's dangerous because if the legislation is mishandled then the law can be abused simply based on the fact that the preferred gender and pronoun is arbitrary and cannot be inferred from the person's appearance and biology.
Does this mean that transgenders' preferred pronouns are always just arbitrary and whimsical, devaluing their process and identity? No. It means that the law itself could be problematic as it gives too much control to the offended and is hard to prove or disprove in court. In that sense, it does serve to set an Orwellian precedence.
If a person misgenders someone repeatedly just for the sake of offending them, then that's already harrassment. Why this extra law?
Many of the views people pointed out that Peterson holds, I never heard him say or concluded as part of his beliefs. Certainly not the "everyone should be christian" part and the "Women should go back to their 50s roles" part. I'd love to see sources on the matter because I never held Peterson on a pedestal to begin with, but I also never understood the hate.
Because, like hate crime, its targeting a person's livelyhood in the harassment. Its the same as degrees of murder, or the difference between manslaughter and homicide. It adds penalites to hateful intent. The law wouldn't be for people who accidentally misgender, its for people who go above and beyond to misgender on purpose to be transphobic. It is harassment to call people names repeatedly, but if the person is using ethnic slurs its an hate crime. All these things have been in lawbooks for years, its just that lgbt people want the same protection. This also applies to using slurs against them.
His scaremongering with "this law can be written bad and then can be led to no free speech!" Is absolutely absurd and relies on slippery slope theory. All laws can be tricky and cause unintended effects with regulating them, thats why you have people who's entire career is studying law and making sure that doesn't happen.
I understand that. The intentions are good. But how then are you supposed to prove that someone misgendered by accident or on purpose, and that it's with intent for transphobia?
The problem isn't exclusively for transgenders anyhow, and it's completely legitimate to worry over the specific legislation. One just has to look at Scotland and what happened to Count Dankula to see that hate speech legislation can definitely be mishandled.
If we are going to talk about C-16 does anyone have that bigass post someone made in one of these Peterson threads about how he was wrong about the consequences of the bill? Google isn't helping
I really feel like you didn't even watch the video, or at the very least didn't pay much attention to it. She doesn't "disagree" with the phrase "post-modern neo-Marxism", she outright and quite articulately breaks down why it's not only meaningless but made up of ideas that inherently contradict each other. The point isn't that a single post-modern feminist is reasonable, it's that Jordan Peterson himself wouldn't look out of place amongst post-modernists themselves, which she explicitly says. Petersons entire argument against the left is predicated upon this concept of post-modern neo-Marxism; that modern day trans-activists, LGBT activists, feminists, progressives, liberals, neoliberal Democrats, corporations, and pretty much everything to the left of Petersons brand of traditional conservatism all comes from a post-modern interpretation of Marxist thought. Contrapoints explains why this can't possibly be true. If you think this is really just semantics you should re-watch the video.
Theres a massive difference if bill yells at a trans person calling them sheman/tranny, than ted who says sir and gets corrected. Intent is the key word, its not that hard to understand. Laws like that have always been there. The dankula case was just bullshit with the judges themselves saying the law didnt affect him, but they still did it anyway. Besides, that was the state going after him, not a person accusing him.
I'd have a lot more respect for the Peterson fans who talk about free speech and individual liberty if they would even pretend like they give a shit when people on their own side were illiberal, but I guess that's tribalism for you.
What about the difference between Bob who calls a trans-man "bitch" and Gary who calls a trans-man "fucker"? Did Bob say bitch on purpose because the trans-man was born biologically female? How should these cases be mishandled? Is it just harassment from a conflict we don't know the context of? Is it transphobia, and thus hate speech?
It's not enough to look at the easy to differentiate cases.
AFAIK it's been a law for awhile now and this hasn't happened yet.
While I can respect a person not going Cathy Newman on JP it doesn't help this video actually does talk past Peterson's points on his use of Post-modernists and Neo-Marxists.
Here is a video where JP has specifically pointed out the logical contradiction.
And a short video here.
And literally a whole series of videos that goes into the historical backdrop he is functioning with.
I do appreciate some of Contra's other point, but this was absolutely major that she actually never tackled Peterson's actual argument and only functioned off a premise as if Jordan Peterson has never tackled the contradiction of the two terms.
Also gotta represent those Lobster hierarchies. They are real.
Then, like any court case, you need evidence that proves it had malicious intent just like hate crimes or literally any crime/law.
That kinda falls flat when he also lumps all lgbt protection laws as some marxist bullshit. The canadian law so far has been mostly rightwingers saying that suddenly people will sue for using the wrong pronouns. Its as absurd as the bathroom laws here where they said it allowed men to dress like women and peek at women using the restroom. Both require evidence and intent to prove they broke the law. All it is, is a bunch of scaremongering that is thinly veiled trans/homophobia.
This is the only one I've watched because you promised it was short but this doesn't solve the contradiction at all. His response is simply that they are incoherent and that when the post-modern narrative doesn't suffice they are nested within Marxism, which is just circular logic. It's, ironically, a version of the "But it wasn't real socialism" argument that the right likes to make towards socialists communists; "they aren't *real* post modernists. Peterson has already made the conclusion that they are Marxists and has to work backwards from there.
AFAIK it wasn't changed at all.
This seems really intellectually lazy to me because C-16 is nothing like the Communications Act of 2013.
You really need to watch the first video I linked. It isn't that much longer.
Here is another criticism of Peterson (which I admit I have no finished because it's quite long). It takes some lengthy quotes from his book which I think make one thing that Contra mentions quite clear: Peterson's beliefs are kept extremely vague so it's hard to tackle the core ideas.
Now that I'm reading and seeing more of him, my impression is that he's a run-of-the-mill pseudo-intellectual who has happened to reach a wide audience. You can find tons of them in college, but most don't make it to professor or even PhD status, but I think being in psychology probably allowed that. I don't think he'd have made it through a philosophy degree, but now he has a platform to spread his philosophical ideas.
Okay I watched that one and I have to repeat that it seems painfully simple to me. He simply makes the assertion that the post-modernists (all of them, or just the ones who think gay people should have equal rights with straight people?) turn to Marxism because they don't know how to apply a philosophy that says there are are no practical applications for post-modern philosophy. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter is true because thats a bit out of my wheelhouse but it really seems to me that Peterson is saying that there is no conflict just because he says there isn't one while Contrapoints names specific post-modernists who not only aren't Marxist but seemingly diametrically oppose both actual Marxist thought, and what Peterson considers Marxist philosophy.
I think it's also a problem when your critiques are all through the lens of a philosophy which is a garbled mess. Which, in fairness, most of our philosophies probably are to some degree. But I don't publish self-aggrandizing books about how smart my beliefs are which make it painfully clear that I couldn't communicate directly to save my life.
The fact that that one of them is an amendment to a bill that is entirely different in just about every aspect to the other is a pretty big irreconcilable difference. The only comparison is that they are both regulations on what you are allowed to say (contrary to Petersons claims that the Canadian Human Rights Act compels speech).
I mean the burden is on you. you're trying to bridge the gap between the two, you have to make the bridge.
The Communications Act is a lot more vague and gives prosecutors an almost infinite berth to quantify how a communication can cause offense. I generally oppose hate speech laws and don't have a problem criticizing them but they should be criticized on their own merits, and frankly the Communications Act of 2003 is uniquely terrible. I've seen no indication that the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act will lead to the same sorts of prosecutions we have seen from the UK.
I don't think he compares remotely to either of them in comprehensibility.
I don't mean offense but the "lazy" comment comes from the fact that you don't even consider the context. You are just trying to convince people that one is the same as the other cuz Nazi pugs and Snoop Dog and I just don't find the argument compelling based on what I already know about both laws.
Sorry to keep adding more and more to my response to this, but I think you've really missed the point entirely, too. It's not just about having easily summarized philosophy, it's about having inherently vague ideas and rambling arguments. Those are very different issues.
What I find interesting about the point Peterson makes in this video is that it is a clear break from a monolithic postmodern neomarxist ideology he lampoons elsewhere, he rather decides to say that there is a very clear contradiction between the terms and that they have no real ideology but are simply confused (a turn from calling people like Derrida the main theoreticians behind pomo neomarxism) and adopt either outlook whenever they hypocritically please, which is a lot more logical as postmodernism is by its nature entirely destructive. This, however, contradicts how he usually uses the term.
Why do people care about the words so much? From what I've heard, his underlying points seem pretty clear.
This is the calling card catchphrase of every single one of his greatest fans.
None of us are currently calling him out on his psychology (yet!)Certain reports may be pointing to a problem in his professional ethics here however.
Instead it's as soon as he jumps out of psychology that we jump on.
For non-psychology, he doesn't say nothing. He says plenty and then when it's time to own up to it he's "said nothing".
It's good that you got elevated out of whatever pit you are in but the road you are on will lead you to being mean in the libertarian sense, intellectually lazy and incredibly misinformed.
Have this instead, that way you don't get brainwashed like trilby harlow by accident.
This is pretty funny to read because it's the biggest word salad you've created yet- trying to warp reality with words and it's all done for the benefit of someone who's against free speech.
You can waffle about all you want about postmodernity, nobody can actually touch you there, you'll just squirt another glob of virtual ink in our faces but when you come up and try to touch the real world I'm here with the mallet.
For all Jordan Peterson's cries, this is not what C-16 says.
Bill C-16 would also amend the Criminal Code to include gender identity or gender expression in the definition of hate crimes
and as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
Hate crimes target both individuals and their communities. Canada does not track crimes targeting transgender persons.
What we do know is that hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation are more likely than other hate crimes to be violent.
The Toronto Police report that hate crimes against the LGBTQ community increased in 2015 to make up 22% of all occurrences.
Canadian Bar Association, binch.
When literally the highest and best and brightest lawyers say you're wrong and you keep going, you're doing feels over reals.
I know that you're about to bring up Laurier U, so let me preemptively say that nobody was sentenced or arrested under the law and that the HR department bringing her in and citing C-16 is Jordan Peterson's fault.
in my opinion It appears your Beloved Saint set up a self-fulfilling prophecy where he shouted from the rooftops, from the television, newspaper, radio, podcasts, his fans repeated and repeated that C-16 was bad, that it would stop free speech and he successfully convinced people to treat C-16 like that's what it did and now there's a bunch more people who are wrong in the world.
I'm saying I don't think her explanation of why "this can't be true" is sufficient. At a surface level, post-modernism and Marxism may be at odds with each other, but that doesn't prevent people from employing opposing philosophies as tools to understand the world and reason about it anyway. Do you really not believe someone can employ post-modernism in order to question the value of current structures, and then want to rebuild society in a way that draws heavily from Marxist collectivism and authoritarianism? This seems like a fairly simple concept that, while you may say is hypocritical or philosophically inconsistent, is still entirely possible and I think to a degree accurate. It feels to me more like you just want to accept ANY attempt at refuting JBP regardless of how valid it is.
As for the mega post about C16, people seem to continue citing those arguments as though they definitively settle the issue when they don't. The bill allows for someone to be charged, fined and jailed for misgendering someone in protected areas. This is what Peterson has an issue with. Even if you think it's unlikely someone will be jailed for such an offense, it's up to the courts subjective opinion about a complaint to decide. There are documented cases of the HRC making some questionable rulings on similar issues so I don't see why it's so outlandish to think that they might enforce the bill as it is written. Existing definitions of hate speech and discrimination (the basis for prosecution under C16) already include misgendering, so I think the case is pretty clear that you certainly can be prosecuted for misgendering someone.
And finally, again there is my complaint that even if you were to agree with her semantic argument about whether post-modern neo-Marxism is an accurate description or not, it fails to address the actual issues JBP is raising about that term. To me it feels like arguing about whether "alt-right" or "white nationalism" is a valid descriptor but ignoring the actual issues we are referring to by that name. There's no real argument about the substance of Peterson's arguments other than a really misleading Cathy Newman example.
if you'd spent the time you took typing out that question to take a cursory glance at her channel or her twitter then you wouldn't have had to ask it. she is a transgender woman.
Yeah contra is transgender. It was a bit of a journey since in the early videos will imply that contra is just some crossdresser until contra decided to fully transition.
Most transgender people can achieve a pretty good feminine voice but it is a LOT of work over a long period of time. (as in, perhaps an hour a day for 6 months.) In the middle period what tends to happen is they have a voice that sounds very forced and awful. I'd actually rather contra use her male voice because I find her voice in the newer videos hard to understand, but there's probably dysphoria related reasons not to.
Also hormonal therapy doesn't really do much for the chin, that's your bones, and bones especially change less the older you get before starting hormonal therapy. What's "off" is probably that and the facial planes, but that is what it is unless you've got a lot of money.
Also yeah I agree, one problem many contrapoints videos have, especially lately, is that they seem to get a bit lost in the skits and humor that points and evidence can often get drowned out or are relatively nonexistent. I wouldn't say this video falls victim to that though, the substance felt like it was there.
Wy doesnt everyone around you call you bitchboy, its just words bitchboy.
What, lol? I have no idea how that's relevant.
Imagine missing the point this hard just to make le epic insult joke
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
