Posts by bohm

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

bohm

If any group wants to attack the US do they just declare themselves a religion and are then untrackable? Maybe the mafia should consider declaring themselves a faith as well, would probably make things easier for them.
Who cares what the UCLA "think", what matters ultimately is what the electorate vote for. All talk of rights any anything else is predicated on the notion that someone can decide what is and isn't OK: that is the government, via the supreme court, ultimately controlled by the people.

Well, Trump proposed a database of all Muslims (US citizens) and so you will have to ask him these questions as presumably the statement assumes they have an answer.

In a democracy such as the US what fundamentally defines people's rights are the constitution. You are correct that the people can change the constitution to make something constitutional which formerly were not; You may feel such a database is a fine idea but I disagree. I think the creation of databases targeting people of a particular religious or political persuasion is one of the stepping stones into tyranny and thought-crime. I think it was wrong during WW2 when the Japanese were put into camps, I think it was wrong during the 50s under McCarthy and I think it would be wrong in 2017.

No one can force anyone to call them he or she, whatever they are. The only recourse you have is to tell someone that they are being insulting and to cease talking to them.

There is an inconsistency here. In the previous post, you said that "what matters ultimately is what the electorate vote for". The Canadian people have voted for a government that --with a very, very considerable margin-- voted for C 16. Thus, if you believe that what matters is what people have voted for (rather than some underlying principles), then there can be little more discussion if C 16 is right or wrong.

The problem with these people is that there is no public opinion on it.

The margin by which C16 was enacted would suggest otherwise.

The reason I suspect Jordan Peterson is right on this issue is because it appears the university is trying to do everything it can to deny even discussion of the issue. Preventing the espousing of ideas is rarely the sign of a solid argument.

How can they do "everything" to "deny discussion" and at the same time host a debate which is broadcasted on the internet?

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

bohm

No absolutely not. Not unless something interferes with their ability to perform their duties.
Again if Peterson is correct, the fireman/woman will be able to demand that they are referred to by made-up pronouns. They employer would be liable for the failure of other employees to comply. IF Peterson's interpretation is correct.

Okay thanks for the clarification, I am glad we are discussing the issue of free speech rather than Petersons situation at his university.

The thing is that in order to make it illegal (by federal law) to fire the fireman(woman), there has to be a law against it (which there already are in many places in Canada like Toronto). That law (C 16) has to use a phrase to describe the act of referencing a person by his preferred pronouns, and it also has to capture the situation where the female fireman is fired for other gender expressions such as having a beard, wearing a tie, etc. Since you can come up with many ways to discriminate against a transexual the phrase must be quite wide. In this case, they choose "gender identity and gender expression" as that phrase.

At this point, we are already dictating what other people should say (plausibly, at least). For instance, we are now dictating that the employer can't systematically call his subordinate "he" if she identifies as a "she" (this remains to be tested in the courts but it would appear this would fall under harassment -- as I think it should, if there are laws about these kinds of things, because I can easily see that as being harassing behavior similar to referring to a gay man as "miss").

This is where I am beginning to find Jordans points quite dubious. The thrust of his main objection is to the idea that he is being "forced" to use "made up words" and that is tied into the idea that Marxist are trying to control his language which he sees as an incursion on free speech.

Well, if we agree that a boss can't systematically call a trans "he" if she identifies as "she", language is already being controlled: The person in question IS a "he", biologically, "she" IS a "he" traditionally, and Jordans language IS now being controlled according to non-traditional interpretation of a person's right (it is okay to be trans).

Since Jordan seems to have no problem changing pronouns for real transexuals, then "language control" can't be his real point (again, a point can be made that we should not have such rules and a transsexual or gay man should just suck it up, however, I think that is for the Canadians to decide).

Thus, what remains as his main point is specifically the use of words like "Xir". Here, Jordan is referring to tradition (it has always been "he" or "she") and the "Marxist" origins of the words which he think is bad.

I think those arguments are very dubious. The argument from tradition seems to be exactly the same argument made against gay marriage (marriage has always been between a man and a woman) and has no real content. As for the Marxist bit, well, that theory that words are "tainted" seems pretty overthought, at the very least that means there are no arguments against pronouns which are not made-up by Marxists.

That leaves the question of harm, which Peterson seems to believe is quite substantial.

Now I happen to agree that the use of pronouns like Xir is quite ridiculous, but I fail to see the potential harm because the standards for harassment/hate crimes are very high. If I had to be convicted of harassing my neighbor based on his religious beliefs, I would have to do some pretty extreme things, and so we are back to a lot of hypotheticals (what if the receptionist turns up with a beard and a dress? What if a biological man want an egg transplant to overcome infertility?) which conflicts with other points made on this thread (there are less than 0.3% transexuals and in my experience, they struggle not to look ridiculous).

The thing this brings me to is why should this be given so much attention as a free speech issue given, say, the current US president elect has said he will change libel laws to make it easier to sue newspapers that write bad stories about him? How does this compare against the crap happening in the arabic world?

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

bohm

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Peterson's explanation of why it does is compelling but perhaps he will be shown to be mistaken.

Petersons make specific and very noteworthy claims which it is up to him to prove; if the issue is as clear as he makes it out to be, it should be easy to find support for the bill. How many scholars have come forth and supported his interpretation of events?

I'm not sure if I'm on the same page with you about that. Converting to christianity demonstrates poor judgement but it probably doesn't interfere with a person's suitability to do most jobs. Insisting on turning up for work as a hotel receptionist in a dress and a beard probably would.

Please notice that you changed my example to something else. As a receptionist, you are subject to rules about dress or grooming which you are not subject to as a fireman.

What is being glossed over in these cases is that rules are interpreted by the courts. For instance, if a receptionist decides on religious grounds to not shower for two weeks, and the manager decides to fire him or her, then the case can be taken to court by the receptionist but I doubt it would be with much success.

But let us make this plain: You believe that it should be legal to fire a fireman for coming out trans? For instance, suppose a female fireman comes out as a man, you believe it should be possible to fire that person?

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

bohm

Bohm: Jordans position is that on campus he should still be able to call the person "him" or "her" according to the student's biological sex
For the third time no it isn't.
He has stated clearly - including in the latest video I posted - that he has no problem addressing a transgender person as he or she according to their preference.

Then I am confused. Is his position not that he "refuse" to call a student "Xir" or "they" as a matter of principle, and that would automatically mean he calls the student "him" or "her" as he deems appropriate?

I agree with you that he calls a "true" transperson his or her preferred pronoun. But that was clearly not what my comment referred to.

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

bohm

Cofty: Sorry I forgot if you mentioned that you read the bill in question.

Could we perhaps try to figure out where we agree or do not agree on the bill and leave the on-campus stuff alone?

Firstly, do you agree with Peterson this bill forms an unprecedented and new challenge to free speech in Canada?

Secondly, I think we are on the same page regarding the general principle that trans people should be a protected category, i.e. that you are not allowed to fire a fireman for coming out women similar to how you should not be allowed to fire him if he converts to Christianity?

If you do not agree on this, i.e. that trans people should be a protected category, perhaps we can agree that making them a protected category is not really that important (i.e. the 0.3% point you brought up).

With these things in mind, what (or which) of the three changes in the bill is it you disagree with? i.e. which of the changes is it that forms the important challenge to free speech in Canada?

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

bohm

Cofty:
but that it's okay, in fact it is his "right", to address someone as he and him and his, who does not feel themselves to be a man - SBF

Which is a total misrepresentation of his position. As usual you are attacking a straw man.

I think that is not exactly a strawman. The students in question believe they are not a man or a woman and therefore wish to be called "they". We can argue that they are just trying to be special, a bit like how students used to wear dark makeup and pierce themselves with safety pins 15 years back, or trying to troll him, however, Jordans position is that on campus he should still be able to call the person "him" or "her" according to the student's biological sex.

In other words, the student "does not feel themselves to be a man" and Peterson believe it is his "his "right", to address someone as he and him and his", as SBF wrote unless I am missing something.

BTW is there a video of the debate online? and did you read C 16 yet?

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

bohm

LUHE:

Take a person who's transitioned to male, as an example (born biologically female, with XX chromosomes, but is really a man trapped in a woman's body). Prof Peterson refuses to address this person as 'Mx' (as requested) but addresses this person, against this person's wishes, as 'Mr'. What's wrong with Professor Peterson's actions here?

That he is being a dick?

The discussion is about Petersons claims that bill C16 is an unprecedented challenge to free speech from the far left which, according to him, has infiltrated academia. If you agree with Peterson, could you please point out what part of bill C16 that actually form that threat? (I copy-pasted the bill a few pages back).

What this issue of free speech in the wider society is being confused with is that Petersons university is telling him to behave in a certain way in front of the students, namely to use their made up pronouns. His university is fully within their right to do that (do we agree?) similar to how they can (and very likely are) dictating who he dates, how he grooms, talks, behaves, etc. while on his job. Quite frankly, that goes without saying: It is in my opinion as a teacher hugely unprofessional of him to make a fuss about how a student wish to be address while he is carrying out his job.

For instance, I could decide, as a private person, that a student's name was so ridiculous I didn't want to say it, but I should leave that private opinion at home when I went to work and still use the students name. That is simply part of being a grown-up and acting professionally.

I also think it is unethical (not illegal) to monetize videos of his students in the manner he is.

SBF Nailed it on the previous page:

We have a president of the United States who is intimidating the press, encouraged violence in the campaign, is stigmatising minority groups, and threatened to put political opponents in jail. Any sense of proportion at this moment would allocate no time whatever to mister storm in a teacup Peterson.

I simply cannot help to notice that outside the blue-haired crazy-left (and I have never encountered one in real life) the people who are really interested in these stories are the right-wing: "Look at the regressive left, all they care about is if you are called Xir or Hen or some other fashionable word, haha! They have lost touch with the common man!".

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

bohm

Let me clarify: I would have preferred Bernie if I was an American, but Hillary since I am not (she promised more stability and a continuation of current policies).

I think both are miles better candidates than Trump on all important metrics, as do I think every single previous candidate in my life time would have been a better pick than Trump.

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

bohm

No, I don't. What does it violate? Why, if you can show a link between a militant religious ideology would you not want to have some handle on who those people are, especially newly arrived ones or those with links to other, radical individuals. How do you track that without some form of registry?

It would likely violate the 1st and 5th amendment, see for instance the UCLAs thoughts on the matter. The idea of creating and maintaining a database of citizens because of their religious views (or other ideas) is fundamentally unsound, but very likely also unconstitutional.

To me, the "sum" of the debates is her attacking him for being silly and unsuitable, and him making claims about what he's going to do. His claims were far more memorable, she always came across as contrived and an insincere act

Most of trumps proposals were memorable exactly because they were either likely unconstitutional or impractical. here is a genuine question: Who of the two

here is a genuine question: Who of the two attacked the other the most and the most viciously? Trump, for instance, systematically labeled Hillary "Crooked Hillary".

Because no one reads the news, they watch the TV who occasionally read the news but typically chase sensationalism. The electorate chose to weaken the 4th estate and so get trump. Everyone who pushes for instant issues and YouTube videos of confrontation instead of proper reasoned debate contributes to this.
BLM promote shouting at people, and so who could shout the loudest became the standard for success.
Trump won.

I agree. First Poland more or less succumbed to right-wing nationalists who are now weakening their democratic institutions and free press (something very rarely mentioned), then brexit (again, a decision made on very widely promulgated lies which were known to be lies), then Trump. Perhaps Le Pen next and then something really awful in Germany; if that happens I am really going to fear for the next decade.

Too complicated (tiered tax breaks), to abstract or talk of "middle class" as a segment instead of talking to real working people.

Perhaps. But that is then her fault for making feasible solutions that could be funded rather than just saying she will fix everything and throw out the mexicans.

86

Free Speech - Jordan Peterson Debate Live 9:30 EST Saturday

by cofty in

professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?

) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.

in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.

bohm

A national database of foreign nationals, some of whom may be looking to conduct terrorism is not necessarily crazy and not necessarily in violation of the 1st and 5th amendment.

Okay but now you are just changing what I said. There is already a database with people entering the US and that's perfectly legal. What I referred to was a database of American citizens based on their religious affiliation. THAT is what many civil rights groups are questioning. So do you think THAT is crazy?

The fact is that some muslims are a threat. The left's claim that none are and there is no threat

I am part of "the left" and I make no such claim. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone on the left (even the crazy left, but let us leave those aside) who claim that no Muslims are a threat, and there is no threat from Muslims. Can you see how that sentence is both factually false and perpetuate a false dichotomy?

but it's really the sum of her position. In the same way that we judge Trump not just by what he says but those around him.

I raise you troll extraordinaire Steve Bannon!. I have tried to re-evaluate my thoughts about Hillary after the election and I have many times found that I too fell back on negative generalizations about her (like, I too knew she was somewhat involved in the PC business). I am struggling to find concrete reasons for those beliefs now in what she actually said and did and I am thinking that I too was trolled.

Yes, as part of her compaign she advocated LBGT rights and equal pay. So what? I also believe in those things, and without someone who keeps reminding me that she must also accept every blue-haired talking point it is actually difficult to see that as something to hold against her ( but enter breitbart...).

Meanwhile, Donald trumps wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Comparing the two, one is saying something I obviously think is a step backwards, the other is advocating things that, if I don't read things into it, I happen to agree are good things.

No, she had the chance to stay on message but again and again she simply focused on how unsuitable Trump was - all the time just talking about him and repeating the mistakes that other republicans had made in the primaries without telling people what SHE was going to do for THEM.

Well, that is not my impression from watching the presidential debates. She kept mentioning things she would do, etc. etc., and Trump kept making (often quite plainly false) statements about her with very little content. Should we go over their exchange of coal mining as an example?

We got to agree on a metric for how we compare their statements.

Do you claim that Trump spoke more or less about specific policy steps than Clinton? Do you think that Trump mentioned Clintons unsuitability more or less often than she spoke about his? (The phrase "crooked Hillary" comes to mind, as does his call to put her in jail on public television).

She failed to prosecute the case against him despite his pitifully weak intellect. She didn't dismantle his arguments, just labelled them ugly and his supporters too.

Trumps lies were documented by all major newspapers through the race. That did not seem to have any effect at all. It is very hard to see what she could actually have done when the truth does not appear to matter.

He was going to clamp down on immigration, especially muslims coming into the country, and jobs being exported overseas. To many voters, these were the most important issues in their life, a threat to their way of life and possibly their life itself.
His promises were memorable because they were tangible. They could be visualized - yes, many times because they were outlandish, but that made them memorable.
What exactly did Hillary promise, other than to be the first female president? More pandering to the loonies?

No college tuition at public colleges for families making less than 125'000, maintain affordable health care, no tax increase on the middle class, limit on super PAC spendings, ...

I agree Trumps message was simpler: To make America great. Hillary Clintons goals were dull because she was bounded by what was feasible when she wrote them out...