Jordan B. Peterson

[cutenickname]

Lord Jesus, deliver me from typos and change @dUSt's heart on the matter of allowing people to edit their posts.

[Pooooma]

57 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

also @Pooooma Welcome to Phatmass!

Thank you!

57 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

because his/her response

His.

 

57 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

He sees male dominance of women and gender/sex-based inequalities as having their origins in nature. He argues that while there might be lingering misogyny, the primary differences in outcome between men and women are the result of certain innate kinds of gendered intellectual postures/potentials, [...]. [...] it is no way dishonest (intellectually or otherwise) to feel that this is a sexist position.

For the sake of charity, I'm not going to acknowledge the first paragraph of point 2. As for the rest, please explain to me what exactly is sexist about pointing out legitimate distinctions between the sexes? How is it wrong to state that there's a general group called "men," a general group called "women" and that each of these groups have general and statistically-predictable shared characteristics? There's nothing wrong with that. It is objectively not sexist. I don't know how else to phrase it. Drawing legitimate distinction between men and women isn't inherently sexist. Please, with all sincerity, can you cite me one single statement he's made on this regard that you find problematic? Not a generalization of his views, but a quote? Even one?

 

57 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

He also advocated enforced monogamy as a way of dealing with the vitriolic and broken young men called incels. My understanding of revelation says that sex belongs to marriage, but I can not in conscience say that I think in 2020 policing women's sexual choices

Yeah, if I were you, I'd have abandoned this point half-written as well. Good choice.

 

57 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

3) Re: Bill C-16.  It does not criminalize refusal to use a person's correct pronouns it protects trans people from hate speech.

Only ostensibly. Final definition for what does and doesn't qualify as "hate speech" isn't found in C-16 itself. Judgment for that very well falls within the scope of, say, Ontario's Human Rights Tribunal, which is an objectively and openly partisan, ideologically-motivated group dedicated to little more than such issues as this. Its existence is already questionable enough; its record is arguably worse. If this group decides a professor's speech is hateful, it is legally hate speech. That's the problem. Looking at bills in a vacuum will never get you anywhere -- they're merely one part of a massive system, and each of those parts carries weight. If I look at my car's tires and say, "Gee, that's not very heavy!" that doesn't mean I'll be able to lift the whole dang car. The tire is just a part of a greater system, and if you aren't careful, the weight of that system can and will bear down on you without remorse. That's part of the point Peterson made; you'd have likely found that if you'd listened a bit more generously.

 

57 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

A priest preaching the Church's understanding of gender/sex, a University professor who is a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, [...]not the target of this law nor prosecutable under it. It is dishonest to keep saying they are. Go read the bill and listen to what mainstream commenters have said.

1. Re: my last.

2. Tell that to Pastor David Lynn. He was arrested in Toronto (because where else) for precisely for this. In fact, I don't believe he even explicitly described homosexuality as a sin. He was sent to jail nonetheless. It has been rather common-knowledge among many pastors, preachers, priests and the like that such speech can land you in jail since at least 2006. This is nothing new. If you sincerely believe censorship is okay as long as someone labels it as "hateful,"... yikes, bud.

57 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

4) I explicitly stated that I do not think Jordan Peterson is a racist. (Though ironically the racists seem to think he is, but this is a result of his sloppy rhetoric and use of terms like "traditionalist" [which outside of Catholicism is a buzzword used by a certain species of racist] to describe himself.) I described him as a fellow traveler of racists.

You called him an "enabler of racism." To be complicit is to be guilty, though perhaps to a lesser degree. Granted, you also noted his "drug addiction" as an epithet, as though he's at fault for becoming addicted to medications his doctor prescribed him. Talk about uncharitable. Granted, uncharitablility seems to be a common thread through your commentary so far. As for how racists think he is, sure. I bet they do. They also believe in racism, so I'm a little put-off on the idea of taking their opinions or interpretations seriously.

 

57 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

5) Your "black voice," your high school,  and your okay-ness with chilling with Nazis are things I best not comment on. Not because I cannot comment on them, but because I should not.

Zoinks. Let's break this down some, eh?

 

57 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

your okay-ness with chilling with Nazis

I did not say this. I said:

 

5 hours ago, Pooooma said:

It was extremely intimidating, it often made me uncomfortable, [...]. I hope I was able to show them that people tend not to be monolithic, but as I've since given up on them, I can't say. It was a very enlightening experience, though.

If you read this and say, "this guy likes chilling with nazis," the blame lies squarely and solely upon your shoulders, not mine. The only way you could reach this conclusion is from approaching everything I say with the intent to distort it. I explicitly said the opposite of what you claimed. They made me uncomfortable, I met them as friends-of-friends, I spoke to them for several years, I showed them their views were wrong, and when I realized my work was useless and the insults were often too much to bear, I abandoned them. What part of that makes you think I was "okay with chilling with nazis"?

 

TL;DR: stop approaching every view that isn't yours with a hermeneutic of suspicion. This isn't the only post you've made where I've noticed this. The only way you could reach the conclusions you often do is by willingly ignoring things with which you disagree. That's not conducive to fruitful discussion. That's uncharitable. Rewording other peoples' words to mean the opposite of what they meant is effectively a lie.

I said you were wrong before, and now I'm doubling down. With all due respect... yikes, bud.

 

EDIT: I haven't taken the time to re-read what I've written, so sorry if I seem aggressive. I don't think it was my intention.

Edited October 3, 2020 by Pooooma

[cutenickname]

3 minutes ago, Pooooma said:

Thank you!

His.

 

For the sake of charity, I'm not going to acknowledge the first paragraph of point 2. As for the rest, please explain to me what exactly is sexist about pointing out legitimate distinctions between the sexes? How is it wrong to state that there's a general group called "men," a general group called "women" and that each of these groups have general and statistically-predictable shared characteristics? There's nothing wrong with that. It is objectively not sexist. I don't know how else to phrase it. Drawing legitimate distinction between men and women isn't inherently sexist. Please, with all sincerity, can you cite me one single statement he's made on this regard that you find problematic? Not a generalization of his views, but a quote? Even one?

 

Yeah, if I were you, I'd have abandoned this point half-written as well. Good choice.

 

Only ostensibly. Final definition for what does and doesn't qualify as "hate speech" isn't found in C-16 itself. Judgment for that very well falls within the scope of, say, Ontario's Human Rights Tribunal, which is an objectively and openly partisan, ideologically-motivated group dedicated to little more than such issues as this. Its existence is already questionable enough; its record is arguably worse. If this group decides a professor's speech is hateful, it is legally hate speech. That's the problem. Looking at bills in a vacuum will never get you anywhere -- they're merely one part of a massive system, and each of those parts carries weight. If I look at my car's tires and say, "Gee, that's not very heavy!" that doesn't mean I'll be able to lift the whole dang car. The tire is just a part of a greater system, and if you aren't careful, the weight of that system can and will bear down on you without remorse. That's part of the point Peterson made; you'd have likely found that if you'd listened a bit more generously.

 

1. Re: my last.

2. Tell that to Pastor David Lynn. He was arrested in Toronto (because where else) for precisely for this. In fact, I don't believe he even explicitly described homosexuality as a sin. He was sent to jail nonetheless. It has been rather common-knowledge among many pastors, preachers, priests and the like that such speech can land you in jail since at least 2006. This is nothing new. If you sincerely believe censorship is okay as long as someone labels it as "hateful,"... yikes, bud.

You called him an "enabler of racism." To be complicit is to be guilty, though perhaps to a lesser degree. Granted, you also noted his "drug addiction" as an epithet, as though he's at fault for becoming addicted to medications his doctor prescribed him. Talk about uncharitable. Granted, uncharitablility seems to be a common thread through your commentary so far. As for how racists think he is, sure. I bet they do. They also believe in racism, so I'm a little put-off on the idea of taking their opinions or interpretations seriously.

 

Zoinks. Let's break this down some, eh?

 

I did not say this. I said:

 

If you read this and say, "this guy likes chilling with nazis," the blame lies squarely and solely upon your shoulders, not mine. The only way you could reach this conclusion is from approaching everything I say with the intent to distort it. I explicitly said the opposite of what you claimed. They made me uncomfortable, I met them as friends-of-friends, I spoke to them for several years, I showed them their views were wrong, and when I realized my work was useless and the insults were often too much to bear, I abandoned them. What part of that makes you think I was "okay with chilling with nazis"?

 

TL;DR: stop approaching every view that isn't yours with a hermeneutic of suspicion. This isn't the only post you've made where I've noticed this. The only way you could reach the conclusions you often do is by willingly ignoring things with which you disagree. That's not conducive to fruitful discussion. That's uncharitable. Rewording other peoples' words to mean the opposite of what they meant is effectively a lie.

I said you were wrong before, and now I'm doubling down. With all due respect... yikes, bud.

 

EDIT: I haven't taken the time to re-read what I've written, so sorry if I seem aggressive. I don't think it was my intention.

I think I am not going to engage with you further, at least not right now. There's something in/about you that I find distasteful. God bless you and I hope to see you in His heaven. Ima go think/pray about why I dislike you so strongly. If I find that the fault is mine I will unblock you and acknowledge it. Be happy.

[Pooooma]

Just now, cutenickname said:

I think I am not going to engage with you further, at least not right now. There's something in/about you that I find distasteful. God bless you and I hope to see you in His heaven. Ima go think/pray about why I dislike you so strongly. If I find that the fault is mine I will unblock you and acknowledge it. Be happy.

That's unfortunate, but ok. I don't think 5 minutes and change is enough time to read my post all the way through, so now I'm tripling down on the whole "uncharitable assumptions" thing. Hope you do well, but yikes bud.

[cutenickname]

I think assuming my lack of charity is in and of itself uncharitable. Give me the same kindness and consideration you give Nazis.

The charitable act seems to me to be to step back from dislike of you to figure out if it is legitimate or a kind of sinful presumption. I cannot find the block button though.

[Pooooma]

Just now, cutenickname said:

I think assuming my lack of charity is in and of itself uncharitable. Give me the same kindness and consideration you give Nazis.

I appreciate the correction and will try to conduct myself accordingly. It's hard to see such things as manipulative re-statements to justify baseless allegations rooted in misunderstandings as anything less than uncharitable, though.

As I said in my last post, my goal wasn't to anger or offend you. I'm not trying to be aggressive. If I've bothered you, I'm sorry.

Do you well.

[KnightofChrist]

I've never understood why a man can believe he is a woman, but that same man cannot believe he is the King of England, General Patton, or George Washington.

Is it limited to only gender? Why can it not be applied to race, space or time?

[cutenickname]

6 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I've never understood why a man can believe he is a woman, but that same man cannot believe he is the King of England, General Patton, or George Washington.

Is it limited to only gender? Why can it not be applied to race, space or time?

Obviously people could believe all of these things. If someone can scan brains and show that they are in a "King of England" pattern, or an Asian pattern and not receiving them socially as the King of England or Asian has been linked to suicide and violence directed at them then well...

[KnightofChrist]

1 minute ago, cutenickname said:

Obviously people could believe all of these things. If someone can scan brains and show that they are in a "King of England" pattern, or an Asian pattern and not receiving them socially as the King of England or Asian has been linked to suicide and violence directed at them then well...

May they command armies and collect taxes from their perceived subjects? How far should we take it?

[cutenickname]

4 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

May they command armies and collect taxes from their perceived subjects? How far should we take it?

Well, no. In the specific case of trans people, I am affirming, but I am also a lefty. I think of transmen as men and transwomen as women. I even dated a ftm trans man for a while.

I think the charitable conservative position would call people what they want to be called and to be unobstructive about surgery (for people who want it) and hormones (for people who want them). I can understand conservative opposition to marriage and legal changes of sex, though I have no problem with either.

Edited October 3, 2020 by cutenickname

[KnightofChrist]

1 minute ago, cutenickname said:

Well, no. In the specific case of trans people, I am affirming, but I am also a lefty. I think of transmen as men and transwomen as women. I even dated a ftm trans man for a while.

I think the charitable conservative position would call people what they want to be called and to unobstructive about surgery (for people who want it) and hormones (for people who want them). I can understand conservative opposition to marriage and legal changes of sex, though I have no problem with either.

Why not? Do we actually believe the individual and the brain scans or not?

What of individuals who believe that they are dogs, cats or other species other than human?

And individuals who are perfectly healthy who believe themselves handicap and want to amputate perfectly healthy body parts? Should we support those decisions?

 

[cutenickname]

2 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Why not? Do we actually believe the individual and the brain scans or not?

What of individuals who believe that they are dogs, cats or other species other than human?

And individuals who are perfectly healthy who believe themselves handicap and want to amputate perfectly healthy body parts? Should we support those decisions?

 

I do not necessarily understand your first two questions.

I think divine revelation shows that God divides creatures into human and animal in an ontologically meaningful way, so I'd have a hard time affirming an objective woman in her belief that she is a male dog, but if she required for her health and well-being that I play fetch with her and give her belly rubs, I suppose I might. I'd have to think about it some more though.

People who want amputations, etc are an interesting case. Assuming that the presence of the limb they feel is alien is causing them real mental distress, scientific consensus moves towards affirming surgeries for them, and the body parts they desire to have removed are not necessary for sustaining life, then I'd not be comfortable saying no to them.  I haven't thought deeply enough about this to know whether or not I think this is permissible in a doctrinal sense, but that is my knee jerk reaction. Don't hold me to it though.

 

[Pooooma]

 

5 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

Assuming that the presence of the limb they feel is alien is causing them real mental distress, scientific consensus moves towards affirming surgeries for them, and the body parts they desire to have removed are not necessary for sustaining life, then I'd not be comfortable saying no to them.  I haven't thought deeply enough about this to know whether or not I think this is permissible in a doctrinal sense, but that is my knee jerk reaction. Don't hold me to it though.

Probably don't want to hear from me again, but with all sincerity, what's the use of affirming delusions? Is it not more charitable to help someone cope with the truth than to let them believe lies? Asking because I sincerely can't tell what your perspective is.

[cutenickname]

2 minutes ago, Pooooma said:

 

Probably don't want to hear from me again, but with all sincerity, what's the use of affirming delusions? Is it not more charitable to help someone cope with the truth than to let them believe lies? Asking because I sincerely can't tell what your perspective is.

If affirming the delusion prevents suicide and allows them to move on, be happy, and live long long enough to come to know Christ, my hot take is that it would be ok. Please do not hold me to this, I am not offering it as a considered theological evaluation of the matter. Idk what God's will would be here in the case of the person that wants their arm or leg removed.

It might be more charitable to try to support someone through a delusion or it might be very destructive. Out of my depth. Haven't considered it enough.

[Ice_nine]

or ten years later they might be like "why did you guys let me cut off my beaver dam arm when my head wasn't right?"