Current Affairs The New Middle

[dholliday]

Came over here at your suggestion dholliday. I like Peterson so I'll read back and catch up.

But to respond to your comment in the other thread, I'm less confident. I think the "middle" will casually say things that would give the impression of less polarization. Polling indicates people will agree to common sense ideas (gun control, for example), but I don't think that holds up in action and under pressure. I fear the fractures are very real.

I don't want to derail anything already discussed so I'll leave it there and jump back in once I can read what you all have touched on.

Good post, mate. You're not derailing anything, what you say adds to the debate. Interesting point you make about the fractures being too strong. I disagree that common sense ideals won't hold up in action/under-pressure. Before 2015 Germany was a world-leader in doing just that. It started to fall apart once the political thinking became too swayed to one side (wir schaffen das).

 

[Pettifogger]

Good post, mate. You're not derailing anything, what you say adds to the debate. Interesting point you make about the fractures being too strong. I disagree that common sense ideals won't hold up in action/under-pressure. Before 2015 Germany was a world-leader in doing just that. It started to fall apart once the political thinking became too swayed to one side (wir schaffen das).

As a point of clarification I'm not saying common sense ideals won't prevail. I'm saying indications we rely on to bolster our belief that "the middle" will prevail in keeping us (in my case, America) unified at some level often don't hold up under pressure. But I think a lot of what we look to for comfort or security in the fact that we still have ties that bind are short-lived. Polls, elections, etc. Part of this is because a lot of people don't want or don't care to make determinations about those bedrock topics. They/we gloss over the specifics in favor of the broad consensus (generalized freedom, for example). I can't necessarily blame them/us, most people are consumed with work and family and whatnot, and probably don't want to ponder whether America should go on in unified form. It's not something that dominates my attention either, but I do wonder at times whether there are still (or were there ever?) easy answers to why we're all sharing the same space/governance/resources/etc.

Maybe the very fact we're all too distracted by our work and our families to worry about such things IS a binding agent here.

 

[dholliday]

As a point of clarification I'm not saying common sense ideals won't prevail. I'm saying indications we rely on to bolster our belief that "the middle" will prevail in keeping us (in my case, America) unified at some level often don't hold up under pressure. But I think a lot of what we look to for comfort or security in the fact that we still have ties that bind are short-lived. Polls, elections, etc. Part of this is because a lot of people don't want or don't care to make determinations about those bedrock topics. They/we gloss over the specifics in favor of the broad consensus (generalized freedom, for example). I can't necessarily blame them/us, most people are consumed with work and family and whatnot, and probably don't want to ponder whether America should go on in unified form. It's not something that dominates my attention either, but I do wonder at times whether there are still (or were there ever?) easy answers to why we're all sharing the same space/governance/resources/etc.

Maybe the very fact we're all too distracted by our work and our families to worry about such things IS a binding agent here.

Ha, indeed. Dave Rubin said similar to your post: we're already binded by our shared lifestyles and the fact we're not in constant civil war on the streets but instead (for the most part) live our lives in relative peace with each other.

Maybe the internet is just amplifying the whole tribal warfare thing far too much.

 

[verreauxi]

He's a university professor, and I imagine he would have a clearer idea of how big a problem it is. It might not matter to a lot of people outside of college campuses, but there's videos on Youtube where protestors stop him from doing a visiting lecture by going into the lecture hall and blowing horns, banging drums and not letting him speak. I can see why his interpretation of the problem's severity might be different to yours

You're mixing up loads of different things he's said, and it feels like you haven't actually watched videos where he outlines his specific objections to that law. He doesn't target LGBT people in the slightest, or in anything he says for that matter, it's an enforced language imposition (as opposed to a restriction), and he's completely right to resist it imo.

I confess I have only read stuff he says, as I honestly can't watch him speak, he has these incredibly annoying affectations that distract me from listening. But I have tried to make myself familiar with what he has said via writing.

I maintain the following: 1) In 2012, Ontario included a gender-clause in their hate crime bill and Peterson was silent on this. 2) In 2016, when it came to a federal level, he started to protest and did so using pointlessly extreme language as his famous quote implies (e.g., Marxist, 100 million killed, zhe, etc.). I think he was choosing deliberately provocative words when he could have said something more smart and restrained. 3) It was exactly this quote and his subsequent digging in of his heels that led to students protesting him (and as I've discussed many times in this forum, I am steadfastly against students protesting a speaker at university simply because they disagree with them). As you point out, there is all sorts of additional context in terms of his arguments, but if it is context that matters then his initial hyperbolic quote implying use-of-zhe=100 million killed=Marxist doctrine was definitely the wrong context to frame his otherwise seemingly reasonable thoughts on the matter.

Universities differ in terms of their student's political "climate", reactivity and sensitivities. I'm aware of that. There is a fair amount of liberal professors who do not agree with other liberal professors regarding the free speech issue. I am definitely on the side of "hear all sides" no matter how distasteful you might feel.

 

[Prevenger17]

In 2012, Ontario included a gender-clause in their hate crime bill and Peterson was silent on this.

Yes, because it was probably similar to most hate speech laws which he is in favour of. For instance, prohibiting the use of certain racial slurs that we don't need to say for obvious reasons. The 2016 clause wasn't a restriction, it was an imposition, you have to use certain gender pronouns in particular cases. There's a huge difference. He favours prohibitive hate speech laws, not laws that enforce language

 

[ilikecheese]

Maybe the internet is just amplifying the whole tribal warfare thing far too much.

A couple of points on this.

1. In our real lives we generally surround ourselves with like minded people.
2. The internet allows for a group of like minded people...in this case Everton supporters...to discuss things they are not like minded about at all. People then tend to defend their opinion to the hilt in order to not lose the internet war.

So I think it's fair to say the internet definitely has had an impact on tribalism. Other factors would be the tribalization of the news started by Fox News here in the states.

 

[ilikecheese]

As an example of of what I stated above, I got into an argument with a guy on Twitter for a couple of days before he blocked me.

What was the argument? The word vetting. I said something to the effect that at least to rent a truck used as a killing machine you have to pass some vetting processes.

He simply got so hung up on the word vetting that he was bound and determined to completely ignore any semblance of facts to shout me down and call me names.

It was quite fascinating to watch.

 

[verreauxi]

Yes, because it was probably similar to most hate speech laws which he is in favour of. For instance, prohibiting the use of certain racial slurs that we don't need to say for obvious reasons. The 2016 clause wasn't a restriction, it was an imposition, you have to use certain gender pronouns in particular cases. There's a huge difference. He favours prohibitive hate speech laws, not laws that enforce language

What you claim does not appear to be true, as I mentioned before in the Jordan Peterson thread when we were talking about this previously. As the Canadian Bar Association has said,

C-16 Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression. Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation.

More here:

https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

 

[Prevenger17]

More here:

https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

Tbh, I'd prefer to admit defeat in this argument than read all of that.

 

[Prevenger17]

C-16 Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression. Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation.

Seriously though, irrespective of this rather flimsy assurance, can you not foresee any problems this might have for people, particularly in academic circles? Gender fluidity comes packaged with a lot of prescribed language, particularly with regard to pronouns, and there really isn't a precedent for that before in any historical equality movements. A lot of minority groups find certain language offensive, and rightfully object to words that are historically rooted in hate. This is a group that insists on certain new language being used (and there's a lot of variance, I believe there are 30+ new gender pronouns on the go). Yes, only extremists will insist on it, yes they are few in number. But it's a safe bet that, if you wanted to find them, you'd start looking for them on a college campus. I can see why he's worried

 

[Pettifogger]

Seriously though, irrespective of this rather flimsy assurance, can you not foresee any problems this might have for people, particularly in academic circles? Gender fluidity comes packaged with a lot of prescribed language, particularly with regard to pronouns, and there really isn't a precedent for that before in any historical equality movements. A lot of minority groups find certain language offensive, and rightfully object to words that are historically rooted in hate. This is a group that insists on certain new language being used (and there's a lot of variance, I believe there are 30+ new gender pronouns on the go). Yes, only extremists will insist on it, yes they are few in number. But it's a safe bet that, if you wanted to find them, you'd start looking for them on a college campus. I can see why he's worried

Here is part of the Canadian Supreme Court's discussion of hate speech, which I think underlies the impact of C-16.

"Hate speech legislation is not aimed at discouraging repugnant or offensive ideas. It does not, for example, prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups in society. It only restricts the use of expression exposing them to hatred as a part of that debate. It does not target the ideas, but their mode of expression in public and the effect that this mode of expression may have."

To me, it seems almost impossible to discern where the lines are unless we undertook a comprehensive review of what type of action is actually being punished for hate speech offenses.

 

[verreauxi]

Seriously though, irrespective of this rather flimsy assurance, can you not foresee any problems this might have for people, particularly in academic circles? Gender fluidity comes packaged with a lot of prescribed language, particularly with regard to pronouns, and there really isn't a precedent for that before in any historical equality movements. A lot of minority groups find certain language offensive, and rightfully object to words that are historically rooted in hate. This is a group that insists on certain new language being used (and there's a lot of variance, I believe there are 30+ new gender pronouns on the go). Yes, only extremists will insist on it, yes they are few in number. But it's a safe bet that, if you wanted to find them, you'd start looking for them on a college campus. I can see why he's worried

I'm personally not worried. There are a lot of new pronouns, to be sure, and it is confusing, but I sense things will settle down into what is accepted and what isn't. Certainly a small fraction of might be aggrieved at the wrong use of a pronoun, but I don't think it would result in lawsuits or punishment or anything like that, and if they were genuinely aggrieved, a simple/quick apology is what I would do (I can't speak for what others would do). But in fact most of the pronoun stuff can be avoided by using either 1) the person's name, or 2) they, both of which have been advocated by LGBT groups. And that's probably the easiest solution to all of this. It might seem like LGBT groups are "forcing" this on society, but to them, they would argue that being shoe-horned into a binary gender division is both inaccurate and even hurtful.

 

[dholliday]

2) they, both of which have been advocated by LGBT groups. And that's probably the easiest solution to all of this. It might seem like LGBT groups are "forcing" this on society, but to them, they would argue that being shoe-horned into a binary gender division is both inaccurate and even hurtful.

Out of the question. There is no way they will ever become an common accepted term to refer to a single person.

And being shoe-horned into a binary gender division is just ridiculous. Because where does it end? If enshrined in law it ends in authoritarianism, and history shows us authoritarianism ends up doing no good.

Regarding the specific debate: there are males & females. That's it. The rest is up to the individual and he/she should have the freedom to seek the life they (they used correctly here) choose. Be that gay/trans/whatever. They are also free to develop their own cliquey language to describe themselves or their scene, as many scenes do have their own language. But to force that language on the general populace is idiotic at best.

 

[verreauxi]

Out of the question. There is no way they will ever become an common accepted term to refer to a single person.

And being shoe-horned into a binary gender division is just ridiculous. Because where does it end? If enshrined in law it ends in authoritarianism, and history shows us authoritarianism ends up doing no good.

Regarding the specific debate: there are males & females. That's it. The rest is up to the individual and he/she should have the freedom to seek the life they (they used correctly here) choose. Be that gay/trans/whatever. They are also free to develop their own cliquey language to describe themselves or their scene, as many scenes do have their own language. But to force that language on the general populace is idiotic at best.

But it isn't enshrined in law in terms of forced usage, as I wrote above. And many words are already enshrined and even forbidden in hate-speech laws and the result hasn't been authoritarianism.

And I'm only repeating what I read about the use of these pronouns. I realize that "they" can't always lead to sensible sentence structure.

Regarding the specific debate, I don't find it to be so cut-n-dry. There are 1) many biological ways to define sex in terms of male/female (chromosomally, hormonally, genitally, internal anatomy), 2) biological cases of intersex people, and 3) cases of individuals who could be biologically male, but gender-identify as female (and vice versa), and 4) cases where some components of your biological sexuality are in place and others are not; for example, there are individuals who are hormonally/chromosomally male, but who have external female genitalia and might gender identify as female. In many individuals, one's biological sex will match up with the gender identity that they identify with (e.g., I am a genitally, chromosomally, hormonally defined male who gender identifies as male), and in most societies there are two sexes and two respective gender identities, but there are also cases of societies that recognize three genders. And apart from that, gender identity is what the individual chooses to identify with, independent of whether they are chromosomally male, hormonally male etc. This is why the phrase gender identity was coined, so as to separate biological assignment of sex from the individual's own feelings of their sexuality.

 

[dholliday]

But it isn't enshrined in law in terms of forced usage, as I wrote above. And many words are already enshrined and even forbidden in hate-speech laws and the result hasn't been authoritarianism.

And I'm only repeating what I read about the use of these pronouns. I realize that "they" can't always lead to sensible sentence structure.

Regarding the specific debate, I don't find it to be so cut-n-dry. There are 1) many biological ways to define sex in terms of male/female (chromosomally, hormonally, genitally, internal anatomy), 2) biological cases of intersex people, and 3) cases of individuals who could be biologically male, but gender-identify as female (and vice versa), and 4) cases where some components of your biological sexuality are in place and others are not; for example, there are individuals who are hormonally/chromosomally male, but who have external female genitalia and might gender identify as female. In many individuals, one's biological sex will match up with the gender identity that they identify with (e.g., I am a genitally, chromosomally, hormonally defined male who gender identifies as male), and in most societies there are two sexes and two respective gender identities, but there are also cases of societies that recognize three genders. And apart from that, gender identity is what the individual chooses to identify with, independent of whether they are chromosomally male, hormonally male etc. This is why the phrase gender identity was coined, so as to separate biological assignment of sex from the individual's own feelings of their sexuality.

As Prev said earlier, the issue isn't forbidding hate-speech, the issue is enforcing use of specific terms to describe something which isn't necessarily biologically true.

Enforcing use of language to suit a social trend is the authoritarianism part. Enforcing the disuse of hate terms to protect people is not. The concept of fluid gender identity is very young and itself fluid, making ever-changing amendments inevitable, which will only muddy the waters.

We both agree people are free to identify with whatever term or group they wish, and they should not be discriminated for it. But neither should they be able, by law, to force others to use their language. For people of dark skin I, for example, don't use the term 'people of colour' as not so long ago we were told 'coloured' was no longer acceptable (before that it was the polite accepted term). It's an ever-changing landscape and bully to those who want to play that game, but I don't and neither do the general populace.

Most people prefer not to think about a person's skin colour at all, and I thought we were almost there not so long ago. Same with gay/trans/etc...the internet is breeding specialist scenes which explode onto the mainstream. All fine and dandy until our language becomes enforced to fit the scene, which breeds resentment and rewinds social progress.

The point is by us not enforcing language of specialist scenes were are not discriminating against people, we still value them as people of equal worth to ourselves. But if we allowed the use of hate-terms we would be allowing discrimination, those terms clearly value the target as of lower worth. Not the same thing.

Have you heard of newspeak?