https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deservelol, what a takedown from the guy who wrote this:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/socialism-as-a-set-of-principles
Sad that people with no innterest in economics continue to write about economics.
^ he’s standing up against being forced under penalty of the law to use a particular pronoun to describe people. Yes this might get him mixed up with some “bigoted jerks”, but that just makes the stand more admirable. There is nothing weird about dying in this hill, as you describe it. It’s a prominently outrageous example of PC bulls**t.
How is PC bulls**t to use the pronoun that someone wants to be addressed with? How is it different from taking the effort to remember someone's name?
My guess would be that strong opinions about other people's gender originate from a religious outlook. Indeed, Peterson appears to be a religious person. (Or "Mr. Peterson appears to be a religious man" if you prefer, though this could be misconstrued as uncertainty regarding his masculinity rather than his religiosity.)
How is PC bulls**t to use the pronoun that someone wants to be addressed with? How is it different from taking the effort to remember someone's name?
He objects to the made up PC pronouns like xe xir xirself and how people are compelled to use them or else they can be fined or go to prison.
Indeed, Peterson appears to be a religious person.
Peterson doesn't believe in God.
^ he’s standing up against being forced under penalty of the law to use a particular pronoun to describe people. Yes this might get him mixed up with some “bigoted jerks”, but that just makes the stand more admirable. There is nothing weird about dying in this hill, as you describe it. It’s a prominently outrageous example of PC bulls**t.How is PC bulls**t to use the pronoun that someone wants to be addressed with? How is it different from taking the effort to remember someone's name?
My guess would be that strong opinions about other people's gender originate from a religious outlook. Indeed, Peterson appears to be a religious person. (Or "Mr. Peterson appears to be a religious man" if you prefer, though this could be misconstrued as uncertainty regarding his masculinity rather than his religiosity.)
Asking people to address you by made up pronouns is mornonic.
^ he’s standing up against being forced under penalty of the law to use a particular pronoun to describe people. Yes this might get him mixed up with some “bigoted jerks”, but that just makes the stand more admirable. There is nothing weird about dying in this hill, as you describe it. It’s a prominently outrageous example of PC bulls**t.How is PC bulls**t to use the pronoun that someone wants to be addressed with? How is it different from taking the effort to remember someone's name?
My guess would be that strong opinions about other people's gender originate from a religious outlook. Indeed, Peterson appears to be a religious person. (Or "Mr. Peterson appears to be a religious man" if you prefer, though this could be misconstrued as uncertainty regarding his masculinity rather than his religiosity.)
How is it bulls**t to be required by law to address somebody with a made up pronoun? You’re hopeless. Leave academia please.
^ he’s standing up against being forced under penalty of the law to use a particular pronoun to describe people. Yes this might get him mixed up with some “bigoted jerks”, but that just makes the stand more admirable. There is nothing weird about dying in this hill, as you describe it. It’s a prominently outrageous example of PC bulls**t.How is PC bulls**t to use the pronoun that someone wants to be addressed with? How is it different from taking the effort to remember someone's name?
My guess would be that strong opinions about other people's gender originate from a religious outlook. Indeed, Peterson appears to be a religious person. (Or "Mr. Peterson appears to be a religious man" if you prefer, though this could be misconstrued as uncertainty regarding his masculinity rather than his religiosity.)
Because the reality is that these people are deeply mentally ill and need to be institutionalized. having the legal system kowtow the psychotic is not good for anyone least of all these people who need serious medical help.
How is PC bulls**t to use the pronoun that someone wants to be addressed with? How is it different from taking the effort to remember someone's name?He objects to the made up PC pronouns like xe xir xirself and how people are compelled to use them or else they can be fined or go to prison.
Indeed, Peterson appears to be a religious person.
Peterson doesn't believe in God.
While Peterson doesn't argue that the Judeo-Christian God exists and therefore you should listen to the Bible, he still argues that the Bible and the Judeo-Christian tradition are fundamentally good things. So to a certain extent that is a distinction without much of a difference. Although you certainly can't accuse him of being a religious fundamentalist or biblical literalist.
But I agree that he doesn't say a lot of stuff that most people would considered directly "transphobic". His comments are more about free speech. I still think it is a weird hill to die on, though. Not that I particularly disagree with him, I just don't quite understand how he gets so worked up about it.
How is PC bulls**t to use the pronoun that someone wants to be addressed with? How is it different from taking the effort to remember someone's name?
He objects to the made up PC pronouns like xe xir xirself and how people are compelled to use them or else they can be fined or go to prison.
I'm not an American, so maybe I missed something here: is the US honestly considering legislation that compels people to address one another in a particular way? Any sane person would object to such laws.
However, I get the impression that the debate is not really about laws, but about morals. Some people don't want others to define themselves as anything but male or female, because they feel that it is immoral. Hence they dismiss non-traditional pronouns as PC bulls**t. The origin seems religious to me because the same reasoning underlies the crusade against abortion and contraception.
It's also good to note that all pronouns are made up, as indeed are all words. Though I agree xe and xir do not roll of the tongue particularly well, I fail to see what is wrong with using non-gendered language in general. What type of person do you have to be to absolutely *refuse* to use they, themselves, one, person, etc. if this avoids gratuitously offending someone?
His comments are more about free speech. I still think it is a weird hill to die on, though. Not that I particularly disagree with him, I just don't quite understand how he gets so worked up about it.
Probably because free speech is the most important thing in a free and democratic society. Hundreds of millions of people have died on that "weird hill".
How is PC bulls**t to use the pronoun that someone wants to be addressed with? How is it different from taking the effort to remember someone's name?He objects to the made up PC pronouns like xe xir xirself and how people are compelled to use them or else they can be fined or go to prison.
I'm not an American, so maybe I missed something here: is the US honestly considering legislation that compels people to address one another in a particular way? Any sane person would object to such laws.
However, I get the impression that the debate is not really about laws, but about morals. Some people don't want others to define themselves as anything but male or female, because they feel that it is immoral. Hence they dismiss non-traditional pronouns as PC bulls**t. The origin seems religious to me because the same reasoning underlies the crusade against abortion and contraception.
It's also good to note that all pronouns are made up, as indeed are all words. Though I agree xe and xir do not roll of the tongue particularly well, I fail to see what is wrong with using non-gendered language in general. What type of person do you have to be to absolutely *refuse* to use they, themselves, one, person, etc. if this avoids gratuitously offending someone?
This law is being debated in Canada. He's a professor there
The origin seems religious to me because the same reasoning underlies the crusade against abortion and contraception.
It's not the same reasoning. You need to watch his videos to see the explanation.
It's also good to note that all pronouns are made up, as indeed are all words. Though I agree xe and xir do not roll of the tongue particularly well, I fail to see what is wrong with using non-gendered language in general. What type of person do you have to be to absolutely *refuse* to use they, themselves, one, person, etc. if this avoids gratuitously offending someone?
Peterson addresses all of these points.
His self-help stuff seems fine. It's nothing new (mostly just boils down to "focus on yourself and how to improve yourself"), but if it helps people then more power to him.
The reason so many people can't stand his political arguments is because he mostly resorts to strawmen (see his neo-Marxist conspiracies). He originally got famous for arguing against being compelled by Bill C16 to use certain pronouns. All C16 actually did is extend discrimination protections in employment, housing, and education to trans people. There are already plenty of words you can't call people within these spheres that are perfectly legal outside them, so I'm not sure what the big deal is about adding a few more words to the list. Is he mad the government also won't let him call his students f*ggots?
The origin seems religious to me because the same reasoning underlies the crusade against abortion and contraception.It's not the same reasoning. You need to watch his videos to see the explanation.
It's also good to note that all pronouns are made up, as indeed are all words. Though I agree xe and xir do not roll of the tongue particularly well, I fail to see what is wrong with using non-gendered language in general. What type of person do you have to be to absolutely *refuse* to use they, themselves, one, person, etc. if this avoids gratuitously offending someone?
Peterson addresses all of these points.
You can't express them yourself, xir?