The Jordan Peterson discussion thread

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,595
@OrbitalDawn where in the world are you?
You post at the strangest hours.

Any case, you kinda proved my suspicion.
Not one person has shared an option about the content, it's all just about the creator. You could not even manage an option about social group theory, except to try and bash Peterson again.

I'm guessing a lot of the flack is based on articles
( like the one you shared) and video clips.
instead of thinking about the subject and coming to our own conclusions, right or wrong.
I'm guilty of this as well.

As for your linked article,
"Use italics liberally...", "It does help if you are male and Caucasian"
Really?
Is the part I quoted and responded to not based on the content?

I don't even necessarily disagree, but it's odd that he lectures people on this stuff while doing it himself. It also puts his histrionic analysis of where the problems stem from in serious doubt for me.

The part that I quoted is compelled speech.

If you broke the lockdown and the judge forced to you say:" I love the lockdown, lockdown is love lockdown is life" , it is compelled speech.

I might add that even if you are accused of murder, the state isn't allowed to force you to say anything. But call someone by their biological sex? Oh no that is absolutely forbidden.
You don't actually believe courts haven't ruled on interactions between 2 people before, do you?
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,123
You don't actually believe courts haven't ruled on interactions between 2 people before, do you?
Making it illegal to call someone by their biological sex? State enforced definitions of truth. Funny, I actually don't really expect you to have a problem with this.

Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. ... The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened" – well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_+_2_=_5
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,595

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,123
Bold argument that court orders should be ignored, konfab.

And how do you think libel/slander lawsuits have been treated by courts, since forever?
Libel and slander are there when someone tells a provable lie about someone, that damages their reputation.

What you want to do is to allow the court to make it illegal to tell the truth about someone. Calling a biological female "she" might hurt fee fees, but there isn't anything untrue about it.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,123
And to enforce speech... Oh noes!
Big difference in the state forcing you to keep quiet about something vs being forced to say something.

The first is enforcing Thumper morality: if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all.
The second is you have to say what the state wants you to say.

If you think how you indoctrinate people, you force them to repeat something over and over again until they don't think differently about it. Getting them to keep quiet about something can't do that to them.
 

MightyQuin

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
16,289
Big difference in the state forcing you to keep quiet about something vs being forced to say something.

The first is enforcing Thumper morality: if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all.
The second is you have to say what the state wants you to say.

If you think how you indoctrinate people, you force them to repeat something over and over again until they don't think differently about it. Getting them to keep quiet about something can't do that to them.
Precisely and also Peterson's MAIN argument against this gender pro-noun kak.

Making it illegal to say certain things is already toeing the line re. freedom of speech.

Telling people what they MUST say by LAW, is total BS and unconstitutional.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
24,123
Precisely and also Peterson's MAIN argument against this gender pro-noun kak.

Making it illegal to say certain things is already toeing the line re. freedom of speech.

Telling people what they MUST say by LAW, is total BS and unconstitutional.
It is very limited what the state can compel people to say. If you look at case law, it is all over the place:
Examples of compelled speech supported by law[edit]
Examples of compelled speech not supported by law[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,041
I'm saying the law and courts already do that.
Ah okay. Wonder how they draw the line between good/bad speech, or who get's to draw that line and on what grounds. Are there clear determining factors etc...
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,595
Ah okay. Wonder how they draw the line between good/bad speech, or who get's to draw that line and on what grounds. Are there clear determining factors etc...
Generally it would come down to inflicted or possibility of inflicting harm, physical, reputational, psychological etc.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,041
Generally it would come down to inflicted or possibility of inflicting harm, physical, reputational, psychological etc.
There's no consistency there though, that would make the laws pretty endless wouldn't it?

i.e. I can take someone to court because their words hurt me or hurt my reputation, but what if those words were true as opposed to false? Can I not utter a truth (X is a thief) when they are? Can I not utter a truth (X is a male) when he is?

I think as soon as that standard is dropped then the floodgates are opened. And then it becomes a game of politics and power over truth and justice. I gather this is the idea JP was trying to get across? And not only in law and order, but also in social interaction in general.
 
Last edited:

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,041
Come to think of it, that concern may be applicable to morality itself :) This could be why secular ethics is under huge contention. Any maybe why it's referred to as nihilistic. All makes sense (to me at least).
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,595
There's no consistency there though, that would make the laws pretty endless wouldn't it?

i.e. I can take someone to court because their words hurt me or hurt my reputation, but what if those words were true as opposed to false? Can I not utter a truth (X is a thief) when they are? Can I not utter a truth (X is a male) when he is?

I think as soon as that standard is dropped then the floodgates are opened. And then it becomes a game of politics and power over truth and justice. I gather this is the idea JP was trying to get across? And not only in law and order, but also in social interaction in general.
Do you mean laws or lawsuits? The lawsuits have to fit within the scope of existing laws to have any chance of success. You can bring suits as much as you like but they'll just get tossed if they're not credible, and probably get you classed as a malicious litigant.

And there is a 'truth defence' is defamation lawsuits, for example.

Come to think of it, that concern may be applicable to morality itself :) This could be why secular ethics is under huge contention. Any maybe why it's referred to as nihilistic. All makes sense (to me at least).
I'm curious why you think it's unique to secular ethics?
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,041
Do you mean laws or lawsuits? The lawsuits have to fit within the scope of existing laws to have any chance of success. You can bring suits as much as you like but they'll just get tossed if they're not credible, and probably get you classed as a malicious litigant.

And there is a 'truth defence' is defamation lawsuits, for example.
Ah gotcha. Agree :)

I'm curious why you think it's unique to secular ethics?
Secular ethics suffers from a lack of absolutes or axiomatic statements that regulate conflict, especially in the domain of ethics (i.e. God's commandments). From what I've seen we sometimes call out and criticize circular reasoning or circular logic when it comes to certain religions, but those at the very least seem to create order. It may or may not be 'good order' or 'truthful order' but order nonetheless.

If we remove the consistency of a specific religion out of society I gather that total disorder would logically ensue, as is seemingly evident in politics and social discourse today.

Of course I'm not taking into consideration the conflicts that arise out of multiple religions nor am I saying any particular religion is good/bad or without oppression, imperfections etc... I just feel I understand the criticism when it comes to removing those consistencies out of moral behavior, moral decisions and moral judgement.

We could say truth alone should be the moral compass (as any secular inclined person might agree), but truth is a very obfuscated concept on its own. Also Hume's Guillotine comes to mind, can't derive an ought from an is - which is why secularism is seen as generally nihilistic. There's no apparent universal meaning without an absolute ought prescription and everyone is just left to create their own little bubbles of meaning that constantly conflict with others. I'm not sure how the lawmakers then derive their laws consistently in this turmoil, but maybe I'm just naïve :)
 
Last edited:

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
16,653
And there is a 'truth defence' is defamation lawsuits, for example.
But truth is not a defense for "misgendering" someone - ie calling them by pronouns appropriate to their sex but not their gender?

Also, I'm curious to whether you think blasphemy should be treated the same.

Specifically - should blasphemy be included in crimen injuria?

If I walk into a mosque and shout f*!* the prophet muhammed, should I be arrested? If not, why not?
 

TysonRoux

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
8,162
But truth is not a defense for "misgendering" someone - ie calling them by pronouns appropriate to their sex but not their gender?

Also, I'm curious to whether you think blasphemy should be treated the same.

Specifically - should blasphemy be included in crimen injuria?

If I walk into a mosque and shout f*!* the prophet muhammed, should I be arrested? If not, why not?
For trespassing or "blasphemy"?
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,595
Secular ethics suffers from a lack of absolutes or axiomatic statements that regulate conflict, especially in the domain of ethics (i.e. God's commandments). From what I've seen we sometimes call out and criticize circular reasoning or circular logic when it comes to certain religions, but those at the very least seem to create order. It may or may not be 'good order' or 'truthful order' but order nonetheless.
I don't know really know how you can look at the history of religion and think their axiomatic statements do anything but foment conflict. If anything, their uncompromising nature (in many cases) likely make it more likely for conflict to result, given their mutual exclusivity, absolutist claims and all-encompassing nature.

Bobbin said:
If we remove the consistency of a specific religion out of society I gather that total disorder would logically ensue, as is seemingly evident in politics and social discourse today.
Where specifically? The least religious countries are the most prosperous, including with social/political stability. The Nordic countries, most of Western Europe, Australasia, etc.

Bobbin said:
Of course I'm not taking into consideration the conflicts that arise out of multiple religions nor am I saying any particular religion is good/bad or without oppression, imperfections etc... I just feel I understand the criticism when it comes to removing those consistencies out of moral behavior, moral decisions and moral judgement.

We could say truth alone should be the moral compass (as any secular inclined person might agree), but truth is a very obfuscated concept on its own. Also Hume's Guillotine comes to mind, can't derive an ought from an is - which is why secularism is seen as generally nihilistic. There's no apparent universal meaning without an absolute ought prescription and everyone is just left to create their own little bubbles of meaning that constantly conflict with others. I'm not sure how the lawmakers then derive their laws consistently in this turmoil, but maybe I'm just naïve :)
Well, I mean there are whole fields of philosophy dedicated to it. People have been thinking about this stuff for a very long time.


I also don't quite know what you mean by "universal meaning", but the disparaging of subjective meaning has never made sense to me. Religious apologists often claim it's what's at the root of any problems they see, but they miss that their meaning is subjective, too.

Religions pretending their subjective meaning is actually objective doesn't make it so.

Having a bunch of different religions all claiming their meaning is the objective one kind of gives the game away.

So we're right back where we started - everyone creating "their own little bubbles of meaning" and often sharing it with others, including with religions.

But truth is not a defense for "misgendering" someone - ie calling them by pronouns appropriate to their sex but not their gender?

Also, I'm curious to whether you think blasphemy should be treated the same.

Specifically - should blasphemy be included in crimen injuria?

If I walk into a mosque and shout f*!* the prophet muhammed, should I be arrested? If not, why not?
Like any of these things, it's context and definition dependent.

If it's defined as this: "the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk."

Then no, never. It's an absurd thing to criminalise.

If it's used as in your example where it involves trespassing and possibly harassment/abuse - it'll be part of the context of those offences.
 
Top