Maybe because you don't experience people calling you horrible shit often. I know its hard for your brain to comprehend that others might have it worse than you, but you can be less of a dick and act like it doesn't matter.
Maybe I'm the one misunderstanding this but I'm pretty sure when sgman said "who cares about the words, his points are clear" he's referring to the fact that Contra spent 30 minutes disagreeing with the semantics of "post-modern neo-Marxist" without ever actually addressing the points he was making about that movement?
i thought it was a response to the pronouns bit above, that everyone was arguing about.
This one by any chance?
https://forum.facepunch.com/f/videos/bonzk/Jordan-Peterson-debate-on-the-Gender-pay-gap-Campus-protests-and-Postmodernism/2/#postcoskzu
For C-16 he originally 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 (http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f ).
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".
Fairly sure there's been more in depth explanations of C-16 since I made this post mind. But yeah, Peterson purposefully misleads people about how "compelled speech" laws actually work because he's a fuckin lunatic.
In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by
the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates
individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression
Does this not mean that it will constrain misgendering if that misgendering is considered humiliating? I'd just like if there were a good legal analysis that would flat out say "misgendering is not illegal".
Right on the button.
I finally had a chance to watch the entire video, and she really only takes the two terms, post-modernism and Neo Marxism, without any of the context that Peterson gives them, and argues that the way she sees them doesn't make a lot of sense. The problem with that analysis is that Peterson has given a ton of context and greater definition of those terms within his own world view. She also makes a semantic argument about the whole idea of the West, and whatever isn't considered the West, as if it has anything to do with the point that Peterson is actually making. If you want to argue about the use of the term the West, that's fine, but don't pretend like it's actually addressing Peterson's greater argument. She also fails to give an example of what she would see as a legitimate hierarchy. If you take out all hierarchies of race, class, sex, economic, Etc., then what's left?
I don't I don't see how this video really addresses anything that Peterson believes.
Unless you literally believe the Canadian Bar Association (real lawyers) is wrong then there's 0 reason to believe a university psychology prof over them.
You say that like Peterson is the only person on the planet worried about the bill.
Yes I do agree. Government intervention is not required for this to happen.
https://www.cba.org/News-Media/News/2017/May/CBA-position-on-Bill-C-16
https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f
I write on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) to urge Senators to pass Bill C-16,
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, without amendment.
The CBA is anational association of 36,000 lawyers, Québec notaries, law professors and students,
with a mandate to promote improvements in the law and the administration of justice.
For those compelled to speak and act in truth, however unpopular, truth is included in those defences.
Nothing in the section compels the use or avoidance of particular words in public as long as they are not used in their most "extreme manifestations"
with the intention of promoting the "level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection" that produces feelings of hatred against identifiable groups.
No.
As for "most extreme manifestations", the bar I've seen set for this is distributing anti muslim pamphlets with graphic images of a girl's bloody decapitated head on them, and the case against that one was so contentious that it had to go to the supreme court.
There have been plenty of people to argue otherwise, and in a much more comprehensive fashion. Here just one quick example: Bill C
If you know of a response to the arguments presented, let me know.
While I agree with the rest of your post, of course the terms he use matters when he relies on connotation of totalitarianism as much as he does and his use of the terms is far from the common usage and warps the minds of listeners from seeing the academically appropriate uses of terms because for some reason many people don't feel like educating themselves after listening to somebody talk authoritatively about a subject. Not to mention the context he gives for the use of the terms in lectures as they stand alone are in many ways either lacking or outright incorrect, when the only way to get what way you mean to use your terms is to watch several more lectures and perhaps some interviews you might have a real problem in communication.
For a person concerned about meaning, he sure seems to have no trouble distorting it.
I really don't think they're as off as people try to make them seem. He isn't claiming that the people in question embrace the entirety of either postmodernism or neo-marxism, but that they hold a mish-mash of the two, and they do. Some parts of their ideology are postmodern by nature, and some are neo-marxist.
So it is up to the will of the person? Would you say that speech to inflict harm should be unlimited then?
This is childishly simple.
D. Jared Brown was there at the senate hearing. He is Jordan Peterson's friend and his argument was well-known before and after the senate hearing and before the Canadian Bar Association finished its ruling.
https://i.gyazo.com/0586020954682865606efe3d55c8ad7a.png
What an unfortunate frame to pause on for that lady, oops.
His argument was presented in full before the senate (it's literally jbp's argument) and my document came way way after yours.
It's a response to all of the concerns including his and including changing rooms & shit.
The questions to be asked with respect to C-16 and the mandatory use of pronouns remain:
1) is there an opportunity to publicly disavow the usage of pronouns and the underlying gender theories in the legislation?
2) Does C-16 deprive one of the ability to speak one’s mind or does it effectively associate one with a message with which one disagrees?
If the answers to question 1 is “no”, and the answer to question 2 is “yes”, then C-16 would appear to be unconstitutional.
This is addressed by the Bar association.
https://www.cba.org/News-Media/News/2017/May/CBA-position-on-Bill-C-16
The Bar Association mulled it over and listened for a long time. They know about him, he was loud, insistent and persistent.
So where did they actually show how the argument was wrong?
if postmodern neo-marxism is a thing then what the fuck is modern neo-marxism
why even neo-marxism, how is it different from regular marxism? what's new? How are any of these words modifying each other and in what way?
i like jordan peterson but sometimes i think he mistakes post-modernism for "new" or "millennial".
I find that in some places he agrees the two views are inherently contradictory, while in others he invariably calls pomo an offshoot of neomarxism which is disguised for palatability.
If his usage of the terms are very clear to you, could you perhaps sum them up for me please? What does he mean by either postmodernism and neomarxism?
Every time.
No, he doesn't provide a definition even in the contexts that have been shown thus far as to how two different philosophies that actually hate eachother. Can somehow be brought together. The usage of Postmodern NeoMarxist is at the same level as calling someone a Stalinst Marxist NeoNazi.
The foundations by which both were built on were so diametrically opposed that they cannot bridge the gap without running into a massive failures in, this case, external logic. If you actually watched the video, you would've come to understand how at their base roots, these movements would never get along. However on top of that, during the the rise of Post Modernism, communists attempt to get people like Derrida and Foucault to join them and instead both of them spent a large portion of their early works ripping apart communism.
This isn't a semantic argument, this base foundations being so opposed that you cannot connect them at all. And then you throw in identity politics, a modernist ideal? Dude, the fuck? How does the ship made of holes, stone and nails work?
If words no longer matter then I'm just going to start calling right-wingers post-modern neofascists and talk about how the philosphy that guides their utterances is the same philosphy that led to the Holocaust. See, I can be a philospher too. Put me in the game coach I'm ready!
I think what that Peterson and people like him think about when they use "post-modern neo-marxism" or the like is the ideology of dividing society into classes by minority status with the straight white males being the oppressive upper class that you rebel against. Now how did they arrive to use this combination of words for this, I cannot tell you.
Also holy shit the voice training really paid off no? I can hardly recognize her voice comparing to some older videos that I've seen recently. I'm impressed.
Can't wait for Peterson to drop into the realm of obscurity.
Angry keyboard Peterson warriors typing...
I and others actually go to him for life advice (self help). I think reducing his viewers motives to a single reason is kind of reductionist. His advice on what to have for breakfast and how to approach conflict has changed a few lives for the better.
someone should make a bingo card for the ways all the new alt-right darlings end up. so far we have "endorsing child molestation", "backing the wrong horse and having their credibility destroyed", "literally having no server providers who want to host their neo-nazi rag", and "actually getting caught threatening to kill people 4 hours before someone was killed at your protest"
everyone feel free to add any has-been internet skeptic detritus they may remember
Because, there's heaps of better sources for that advice. Ones that dont have a nutter behind it peddling nonsense.
I think it is abit of a false dichotomy to say "all of them, or just these people," since JP is talking more about some of the thought figures and overall movement.
Like in this bit, he actually just says, "most" when talking post-modernists happening to be marxist, which suggests he realizes that not all PM thinkers are or have to be this way.
So most now are neo marxists? Thats a pretty substantial claim. Wheres peterson's proof that its true, because majority of lgbt people i talk to just want protection from hate crimes as is anyone else whos a minority.
There's several reasons a lot of cults use self-help as front, some if which are that it's an effective vessel for subtly preparing them to accept your other beliefs, and that being able to make people go, "You really helped turn my life around" is a very effective way to gain people's trust and dependence on your advice. Not that he's quite running a cult, but it makes a good microcosm. Beneath it all, he's really just your bog-standard, run-of-the-mill conservative, but due to his apparently effective self-help, his obfuscating philosophy word salad, and his +10 Blessed PhD of Appeal to Authority, he's an internet celebrity constantly defended by people who otherwise wouldn't give him the time of day.
Functionally, calling people and movement Neo Marxist&/post modernist is a mechanism where he and his fans dismiss people fighting for their rights as "puppets" of karl marx or some other guy.
https://youtu.be/-9MnM7N_k3I
Who decides who the cultural marxists are?
He just takes this guy's word for it that the campaign is by cultural marxists "I'd be against it too if it was backed by cultural marxists"
That's an implicit acceptance that it's by cultural marxists and an explicit license to all his fans that decide that the Yes campaign is culturally marxist (remember this definition is fucking nebulous at best) to oppose it.
I wish someone posted this sooner tbh because it's all I needed to decide I just don't like JBP flat-out. I still think Contra did a shitty job of arguing against him in her video but this is retarded. "If <BAD PEOPLE> support <GOOD CAUSE> I wouldn't support <GOOD CAUSE> either"? Okay dude
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
