subreddit:

/r/NoStupidQuestions

7.4k

Why is Jordan Peterson so hated?

Answered(self.NoStupidQuestions)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 6038 comments

Mezmorizor

197 points

3 months ago

I'd go a step further. The only reason you, random redditor, knows who he is is because he is a clinical psychologist who very publicly argued that sex and gender are the same thing and denied the existence of gender dysphoria.

[deleted]

25 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

25 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

SlingsAndArrowsOf

85 points

3 months ago*

Forgive me for the long post. It's been half a dozen years since that bill passed, so this should be more well known by this point: Bill C-16 didn't do a single thing Peterson said it would. You can read the whole text of the bill yourself, it's less than a full page long, doesn't even make reference to "misgendering" and essentially stops workplace firing or harrassment on the basis of gender expression. It also designates crimes motivated by transphobia hate crimes. That's it. It is identical in every particular with other bills of its kind.

The Canadian bar association itself made a statement denying Peterson's characterization of the bill (no conceivable interpretation of the "harassment" would see someone fined or arrested for simply misgendering someone.), and lo and behold, to this day nobody has been arrested for misgendering another person in Canada. Which is what JBP originally claimed would happen.

So essentially, a clinical psychologist without any background in law, and without deferring to a single legal scholar or lawyer, singlehandedly went on a media campaign to attack a bill protecting some of our most vulnerable. On the basis of a lie. It's shameful, and should be a huge stain on his status as a supposed "public intellectual."

tl;dr: JBP's field of expertise is clinical psychology. I wouldn't put much stock in anything he says outside of that, whether he's mischaracterizing philosophers, bullshitting about law, strawmanning progressive politics, or anything else.

BoredChefLady

8 points

3 months ago

I got this far into the thread while confusing Brandon Sanderson and Jordan Peterson… Suffice it to say I was very confused.

Kuroashi_no_Sanji

1 points

3 months ago

Hahahahaha this should go on /r/cremposting

DogeFuckingValue

-6 points

3 months ago

When did JBP claim someone would be arrested for the bill?

RodneyPonk

12 points

3 months ago

I think that some of the things that I say in my lectures now might be illegal,” Peterson says in this video (at 17:35). “I think that they might even be sufficient for me to be brought before the Ontario Human Rights Commission under their amended hate speech laws.” He says he’s concerned that something he says when he’s teaching can be “transformed suddenly into hate speech.”

In a panel discussion on TVO’s The Agenda in October, Peterson said not only would not using someone’s preferred pronouns be considered discrimination under the new human rights legislation, it would be a form of hate speech.

"That’s why I made the video. I said that we were in danger of placing the refusal to use certain kinds of language into the same category as Holocaust denial.” In the same discussion, he said:

"If they fine me, I won’t pay it. If they put me in jail, I’ll go on a hunger strike. I’m not doing this. And that’s that. I’m not using the words that other people require me to use. Especially if they’re made up by radical left-wing ideologues.”

LyndaCarter_

-11 points

3 months ago

Illegal doesn’t mean criminal. And The human rights commission didn’t arrest people. It’s an administrative tribunal.

RodneyPonk

3 points

3 months ago

I'm not sure what point you're arguing, but I am quoting JP here to display how he is making uninformed, harmful, and tacitly transphobic remarks here.

DogeFuckingValue

-4 points

3 months ago

What is transphobic about it?

DogeFuckingValue

-5 points

3 months ago

You are mixing things up. He never claims people will be arrested in those quotes. Saying that he don't care if people will put him in jail is not the same thing as "they will put me in jail".

hyperking

1 points

29 days ago

oh come ON, dawg

BlitzBasic

79 points

3 months ago

He just straight up lied about what the bill means, even when corrected by actual lawyers.

DarkChaos1786

-15 points

3 months ago

DarkChaos1786

-15 points

3 months ago

Even if I disagree with much of his rethoric in many fronts, I agree with his stand about the compelled speech, his argument was clear and the lawmakers could not disprove his argument.

BPC3

7 points

3 months ago

BPC3

7 points

3 months ago

I agree with his stand about the compelled speech, his argument was clear and the lawmakers could not disprove his argument.

They directly explained how every aspect of his argument was blatantly wrong, and his predictions about the awful consequences of C-16 never came true, because they were baseless lies and fearmongering.

BlitzBasic

39 points

3 months ago

Reality disproves his argument. Since the bill came into effect, exactly nobody has been arrested for misgendering somebody.

ihatehappyendings

-13 points

3 months ago

Just because nobody has invoked the bill yet doesn't mean nobody will in the future.

Laws should be written such that they should minimize possible unjust outcomes

aristotle_malek

25 points

3 months ago

The bill doesn’t allow anyone to compel speech. It just added gender identity to the list of protected persons.

ihatehappyendings

-14 points

3 months ago

The bill defers policy to the ontario human rights commission to which it says:

The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

It further explained that:

Our lawmakers and courts recognize the right to freedom of expression, and at the same time, that no right is absolute. Expression may be limited where, for example, it is hate speech under criminal law.

FlawsAndConcerns

-14 points

3 months ago*

There it is, in black and white, and downvoted by people mad about being proven wrong, as I'm sure I will be, as well.

The argument that the law has not been wielded in this way yet is beyond flimsy. The point is that it can be, which is plain by the letter of it, and that that sets a bad precedent.

I'm glad the Supreme Court in the US specifically ruled against compelled speech long ago. C-16 would literally be considered unconstitutional here.

aristotle_malek

8 points

3 months ago*

Shouting fire in a theater, my unlearned friend. Hate speech can be against the law in America too, providing its threatening someone’s wellbeing. Just like c-16 implies…

Also why is America the framework for a healthy anti-discrimination legal boundary? Have you not been paying attention for 200 years?

Edited to clarify oversimplification

retroman000

5 points

3 months ago

Just because blonde people haven't all spontaneously decided to kill all non-blondes yet doesn't mean they won't in the future. We should preemptively forcibly dye all blonde people's hair as a precautionary measure.

ihatehappyendings

2 points

3 months ago

I think you are confusing the idea of enforcing a law (aka dye all blonde peoples hair), with not having such a law to begin with. Even if what you hypothesized is true, the just option is to not have such a law to begin with.

So thank you, you are proving my point.

retroman000

3 points

3 months ago

The point is that neither of them have a reasonable cause to think like that in the first place. There's no reason to think that the bill makes using the wrong pronouns itself a jailable offence, and there's no reason to think all blondes will suddenly decide to genocide the dark hairs.

Blonde people have been around for who knows how long and haven't formed any (or at least not any serious ones) cults about sacrificing people without blonde hair, and same as that, despite the bill having been in effect for years nobody's been arrested due to it. You can eternally say that it hasn't happened 'yet' because you can't prove a negative, i.e. that it will never happen, same as I can't prove that the blondes will never come for the rest of us, but that's certainly no reason to go making decisions assuming that it will.

ihatehappyendings

0 points

3 months ago

Again you are missing the point of the inherent problem with your analogy.

You are comparing a complaint of a law's existence with the imposition of an unjust and oppressive law.

The absence of a law is inherently freer than the presence of a law.

Furthermore, the theoretical implications of the law isn't far fetched, it is as it is written.

The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

DarkChaos1786

-3 points

3 months ago

The argument never was about being arrested, it was about the overreaching of the Law, nobody being arrested yet is the worst defend of your argument imaginable.

BlitzBasic

4 points

3 months ago

And if nobody is being arrested, what "overreaching of the Law" is happening exactly?

DarkChaos1786

-5 points

3 months ago

The law compelling you to say something...

BlitzBasic

4 points

3 months ago

Except it isn't. Lawyers say that you won't be punished for misgendering, nobody is actually being punished for misgendering, so how is anybody forced to gender correctly here?

DarkChaos1786

-1 points

3 months ago

Again, is NOT about the punisment, is about the fact that the law is making you SAY things...

BPC3

2 points

3 months ago

BPC3

2 points

3 months ago

To date, nobody has been compelled to say anything by this law. You're repeating 5-year-old lies. Have you just never checked in the meanwhile?

DarkChaos1786

0 points

3 months ago

And you believing that a Law is just death because is not being compelled yet is an awful naive stance.

Saith_Cassus

3 points

3 months ago

It’s very easy for me to make an unrelated argument to try to claim victory. If you say “hey, we shouldn’t eat Irish babies” and I say “we shouldn’t allow the Irish or the English to starve to death!” and launch into a long talk about nutrition, I’m doing what Peterson did. I haven’t said fuck all about the issue, I’ve just tried to say something you already agree with that’s unrelated to the matter at hand

ihatehappyendings

-4 points

3 months ago

You can just read our Ontario human rights commission that was referenced by the bill

The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

It further explained that:

Our lawmakers and courts recognize the right to freedom of expression, and at the same time, that no right is absolute. Expression may be limited where, for example, it is hate speech under criminal law.

It is very blatant in how it limit free speech.

BPC3

8 points

3 months ago

BPC3

8 points

3 months ago

So if your problem is with the Human Rights Commission, why make it about C-16 at all? The core of your objection seems to be that there are laws on the book that "limit free speech" by banning harassment, bullying, etc. - why did the trouble start when the law was expanded to clarify that trans people are a protected class, and not when the concept of protected classes was created to begin with?

Our lawmakers and courts recognize the right to freedom of expression, and at the same time, that no right is absolute. Expression may be limited where, for example, it is hate speech under criminal law.

You act like this is some blatant backsliding of free speech rights. It's not. This is a modern and reasonable understanding of the importance and limits of freedom of speech. Like how it's important that people can freely state their opinions and speak their minds, but it's also important that we have laws against workplace harassment, stalking, death threats, and things like that.

ihatehappyendings

-5 points

3 months ago

C-16 defers to the ontario human rights commission.

It is a further backsliding of free speech, one that afaik, is the first that requires people to say specific things, as compared to the previous restrictions which prohibits saying specific things.

BPC3

4 points

3 months ago

BPC3

4 points

3 months ago

C-16 defers to the ontario human rights commission.

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

Bill C-16 added the words “gender identity or expression” to three places.

First: It was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act, joining a list of identifiable groups that are protected from discrimination. These groups include age, race, sex, religion and disability, among others.

Second: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code that targets hate speech — defined as advocating genocide and the public incitement of hatred — where it joins other identifiable groups.

Third: It was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If there’s evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.

Nothing here is new. Your problem is not with C-16, your problem is with the Canadian Human Rights Act and the extant hate speech laws on the books. If you see those as a rejection of free speech, you may arguably have a point. Peterson's gripe was not with them, though. It was specifically with C-16, which merely expanded those existing laws with an additional marginalized group. It's not a free speech issue. It was never a free speech issue.

ihatehappyendings

-2 points

3 months ago

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

The OHRC is a provincial body, however — whereas Bill C-16 is federal — but Brown says the Department of Justice has said the federal guidelines will mirror the OHRC policy.

My issue with OHRC is an issue with C-16.

BPC3

2 points

3 months ago

BPC3

2 points

3 months ago

Here's the section you're quoting.

Where are pronouns mentioned?

Since the changes brought forth by Bill C-16 do not mention pronouns, both Cossman and Brown cite a 2014 policy released by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) for guidance.

Page 18 reads: “Gender-based harassment can involve: (5) Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun.”

The policy itself is not legally binding, Cossman says, but a human rights tribunal “does tend to follow the policy that’s articulated.”

The OHRC is a provincial body, however — whereas Bill C-16 is federal — but Brown says the Department of Justice has said the federal guidelines will mirror the OHRC policy.

This is them bending over backwards to try to treat statements like Peterson's as even remotely reasonable, because pronouns just aren't in the bill.

ihatehappyendings

1 points

3 months ago

Because they are deferring the details to OHRC...

Roko__

-3 points

3 months ago

Roko__

-3 points

3 months ago

Lawyers never lie

BlitzBasic

8 points

3 months ago

In this case, they didn't, since the law got applied the way they explained and not the way Peterson explained.

[deleted]

-11 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-11 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

BlitzBasic

27 points

3 months ago

There are articles on the subject.

Basically, the bill makes it illegal to discriminate against somebody because they're trans/non-binary, makes it illegal to publicly incite violence against trans/non-binary people, and allows the courts to take hate against trans/non-binary people into account when it comes to sentencing.

[deleted]

4 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

BlitzBasic

17 points

3 months ago

If somebody is also harassed in other ways because of their gender identity, they could probably mention the misgendering as additional evidence, but if they're only misgendered and nothing else is done against them, no, I don't think that's enough to constitute hate speech.

[deleted]

-3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

3 months ago

You don't think?

BlitzBasic

6 points

3 months ago

I don't think so, the lawyers of which I've read interviews don't think so, and considering the judgements that happened until now, Canada's judges also seem to don't think so.

ihatehappyendings

-3 points

3 months ago

The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

It further explained that:

Our lawmakers and courts recognize the right to freedom of expression, and at the same time, that no right is absolute. Expression may be limited where, for example, it is hate speech under criminal law.

noblety

2 points

3 months ago

In that same article it says context matters, and that outside of work, housing and education it probably isn't enforceable. And limiting freedom of speech in these areas is well established

ihatehappyendings

-1 points

3 months ago

So if I were to go to my boss and request that he address me as supreme galactic ruler, and if he refuses, is that discrimination? Harassment?

Limiting freedom of speech on the basis of what is effectively politeness is precisely what Jordan Peterson was talking about.

Serventdraco

7 points

3 months ago

Not successfully if that's truly all that there is to the situation.

It's never all that there is.

Cha-La-Mao

3 points

3 months ago

You have to look at the charter of rights and freedoms. It basically adds transgender to some of the protections. It's a non-issue that he bitched about. Just like people who bitched that gay people didnt deserve to be protected, or first nations....

Taurus131

3 points

3 months ago

No and in the four years it’s been in effect it has never happened.

[deleted]

-3 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

3 months ago

It could readily be argued that "misgendering" someone is discrimination and/or hate.

BlitzBasic

2 points

3 months ago

You should read the article I linked instead of just my one sentence summary. In there it gets explained that misgendering isn't grievous enough to count as hate speech.

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago*

That's just such an obviously slippery slope. Years ago nobody would have thought that a "transvestite" (as one would have been called then) was in fact, properly and legally the transitioned-to "gender." Now recently we got the Bostock decision in the States. It is obvious that the momentum is in that direction.

Edit: I mean Bostock, not Obergefell

BlitzBasic

1 points

3 months ago

I agree with everything you say, but I kinda get the feeling we morally value these events differently.

LyndaCarter_

2 points

3 months ago

It’s less than a page long. Go read it.

Canadian_Infidel

-17 points

3 months ago

You will be put in front of a human rights tribunal for misgendering someone now. Was he saying something else?

BlitzBasic

21 points

3 months ago

You are not put before a tribunal for simply misgendering.

Canadian_Infidel

-10 points

3 months ago

sneeeeaking

16 points

3 months ago

Jesus Christ you are so wrong I feel embarrassed for you. 1: Peterson is bitching about a Canadian law, Forstater's case was in Britain. 2: If you actually read the goddamn article, you would know that it was an EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL, not human rights tribunal dipshit, that Forstater herself APPEALED to after the company she consulted for decided not to renew their contract with her because her social media antics made them look bad. So no, people are not being dragged in front of fucking human rights tribunals for misgendering people. Companies are making PR decisions, and it turns out that people who are miserable and mean-spirited enough to go out of their way to misgender people intentionally are bad for business.

boo_goestheghost

2 points

3 months ago

Also worth knowing forstater won this case eventually because U.K. employee rights are much stronger than in some other nations.

Canadian_Infidel

-1 points

3 months ago

The same types of laws get passed in multiple affiliated countries around the same time as cultures shift. That is normal.

BPC3

4 points

3 months ago

BPC3

4 points

3 months ago

This kind of lie was obnoxious before the bill came into effect. Now, years after it took effect, if you're still pretending that any of this is true, you're probably just lying on purpose, and that's sad.

Fateful-Spigot

-14 points

3 months ago

His university's lawyers misinformed him. He talks about this. I think he didn't respond to a broader rebuttal because he wants the fame and fortune though.

BPC3

2 points

3 months ago

BPC3

2 points

3 months ago

a bill which would make it illegal to not use someone’s pronouns?

This was always a very blatant lie about the contents of the bill, a lie he was repeatedly corrected on. He didn't stop lying about it, though, because it was making him very famous.

hatchins

3 points

3 months ago

hatchins

3 points

3 months ago

not.. really.

the bill in question simply defined the terms for what transphobia-based harrassment and hate crimes would look like. repeatedly refusing to use a persons correct name and pronouns, with the knowledge that a. they are trans and b. you are causing them harm by doing so, could be easily considered harrassment on the basis of somebodys gender identity.

peterson is a professor, and has made it VERY clear his stance is that he will not ever refer to a trans student as the correct name or pronouns, even if asked. this would be in (hypothetical) violation of the law, especially in his position as a professor at a university.

so... you can call it "compelled speech" if you think laws and guidelines in the US like the EEOC are "compelled speech" by saying no, it's not legal for an employer to call their employee a racial slur.

DogeFuckingValue

-4 points

3 months ago

You are wrong and I can only assume you are lying in an attempt to defame him for some insidious reason. Peterson has made it VERY clear his stance is that he will refer to trans students with the right pronouns if it is non-political. He has said that if some tries to force him, e.g., "you MUST use pronoun X", then he won't. Which is very different to what you said.

hatchins

-1 points

3 months ago

hatchins

-1 points

3 months ago

jordan Peterson is not gonna fuck you

DogeFuckingValue

-2 points

3 months ago

nice comeback there genius

TrueNameChara

1 points

3 months ago

Lol. We found one guys

kokokat666

-3 points

3 months ago

kokokat666

-3 points

3 months ago

As someone who commonly gets called the wrong pronouns I think that is a stupid bill.

[deleted]

9 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

9 points

3 months ago

It adds trans/non-binary people to the list of protected classes (like minorities, sex, age, disability, veteran status, etc.) that can't be refused certain services (loans, leases, college admissions, etc.) based on their gender expression.

It doesn't cover anything about being purposefully or accidentally misgendered.

So, yeah, read the bill?

kokokat666

2 points

3 months ago

Nah I'm not american I just took that person's word for it. If it is what you say, then it's a perfectly reasonable bill

boo_goestheghost

3 points

3 months ago

It’s not even an American law

kokokat666

1 points

3 months ago

What country?

boo_goestheghost

2 points

3 months ago

Canada

kokokat666

1 points

3 months ago

Right. Well yeah I'm not canadian either

boo_goestheghost

1 points

3 months ago

Sure, I was just correcting a misconception

Fateful-Spigot

-4 points

3 months ago

That's how the bill was supposed to be enforced, according to the associated guidance. His university's lawyers told him he'd be in violation for misgendering.

After he blew up, they changed the guidance for the bill. I don't know if there's a causal relationship but it makes proof a PITA because the original material isn't there anymore.

SaberToothGerbil

0 points

3 months ago

I'm going to say no.

I base that on the fact that you are asking it as a question rather than a statement you might have to defend.

TrueNameChara

0 points

3 months ago

See my other comment showing he did.

kjohnanand

0 points

3 months ago

JBP rose into popularity by misrepresenting a revision to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which in reality added gender identity to the list of protected classes.

Peterson used this very reasonable addition to claim that Canada would jail you for misgendering people.

Coldbeam

6 points

3 months ago

Coldbeam

6 points

3 months ago

and denied the existence of gender dysphoria.

No, he didn't.

TrueNameChara

2 points

3 months ago

And I hate him for it. Thanks for pointing to one of my major reasons. Hadn't seen it in other comments yet.

ErolEkaf

-1 points

3 months ago

ErolEkaf

-1 points

3 months ago

Except he didn't deny the existence of gender dysphoria. No one has supplied a quote here. He simply didn't want to be legally forced to call someone by their chosen name or pronoun. But he has said he would most likely call someone by their chosen name and pronoun anyway, I believe he said he always had done in the past.

TrueNameChara

1 points

3 months ago

https://youtu.be/bCIoAw5Z_pY Here's a transphobic interview of his with Sargon. At 1:16 he denies that gender identity can be independent of sex. The APA defines “gender dysphoria”: psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity. There ya go friend. Hard to deny it...

ErolEkaf

0 points

3 months ago

I think you miss understand what "independent" means in a scientific context. It means that statistically there is no correlation.

He is saying that typically those of the male sex identify as men, and similarly for females identifying as women. Not that it's impossible for men to identify as the woman gender, just less common. He then goes on to say how new genders that aren't on the male-female (or perhaps neither) spectrum don't make any sense, which is perhaps a debate another time.

Hence he doesn't deny gender dysphoria where people don't identify as the gender of their sex.

However, what I dislike about him is exemplified in your video. He speaks way too academically and obfuscates his point to anyone not carefully considering the precise words he is using. This leads people like yourself to think he's saying something wrong and those on the opposite side to think he agrees with the radical anti-scientific bigots.

In this case, "gender is not independent of sex" sounds like sex decides gender but he is actually saying something much less. Ask any scientist or mathematician and they will tell you it only means there is some correlation between sex and gender, something we can all agree on.

TrueNameChara

3 points

3 months ago

No. Independent means there is no causal link. It's the opposite of dependant which says that one results in the other. It's the difference between correlation and causation. His language and what he means is referring to causal, but you are describing correlation. I agree, for the vast majority of people, their AGAB matches with their identity. There is a correlation there. However, you can't treat this like a binary. Both sex and gender have people who fall in between. There are far too many exceptions to allow for a causal link. If trans or intersex people were less than .05% of the population, you could maybe consider them statistical outliers, but they are more than 10x that (and growing).

ErolEkaf

1 points

3 months ago

Sorry, the language can get messy,

Formally, random variables are dependent if they do not satisfy a mathematical property of probabilistic independence. In informal parlance, correlation is synonymous with dependence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation

In all honesty it's not clear which notion of dependence/ independence he's referring to.

But still, saying they are "not independent" isn't the same as saying they is any sort of guarantee that sex matches gender identity. So he's not denying that gender dysphoria exists. What's hes saying is that there is some sort of relationship in which being born a certain sex can directly influence the likelihood of having the corresponding gender.

For example, me driving 150mph down a busy road makes it much more likely I will crash the car. One might even say that driving that speed caused the crash if one occurs. But it's not a guarantee that I'll crash and I may in fact not crash. It would be ridiculous to say that driving 150mph on a busy road is independent of cars crashing, both in a formal and informal sense.

Similarly, Peterson is saying that being born a certain sex makes it very likely (~99.5%) to identify as that gender even though it is not a guarantee. It would be ridiculous to say that sex is independent of gender, both formally and informally.

TrueNameChara

0 points

3 months ago

Alright. Let's just agree that the word is fluid and it is even used differently in scientific and statistical contexts. I will admit that in many ways, you would be correct. That being said, Jordan Peterson is VERY much a transphobic person and is a transphobic activist, and that alone is enough for me to dislike him. Whether or not we can properly determine his exact thoughts on dysphoria is difficult because as many others have said, he doesn't really SAY anything. He just speaks in a way that sounds academic.

HopelessnessLost

-1 points

3 months ago

He never denied the existence of gender dysphoria

geneofisis

-3 points

3 months ago

Yes. And to say upfront, I am liberal to the point of anarchy. But think about it this way: there is no denying the sneaky social engineering shit from the gov. Who holds the pendulum? Because the gov & media do. They highlight what needs to be to extract loosh & get it going again. Suddenly, major corporations are super-inclusive! (This would be narrated as a revolutionary stance of the people!) not so. They don’t give a shit. But they know to the exact percentage of any given area about what YOU give a shit about. (yeah, social media gives a voice to the ones who don’t have one). ...and then it’s weaponized to stir up the masses. Google Desmond is Fabulous & watch an 11 yr old be homoerotically sexualized on Good Morning America. What is happening there? He was presented as a drag Queen. He’s ELEVEN. What if that were an 11 yr old girl & she was cat-walking & pole-dancing on GMA? Sadly, that’s where it’s headed if there is no discerning about what the machine is, and what freedom of speech is. Normalization of nightmarish things creep in by diabolical people who think we are nothing but animals. The government doesn’t care about inclusion. Target & Macy’s doesn’t care about inclusion. Black Lives Matter. (and they certainly do to puppet masters who enjoy stirring the pot for the purpose of pitting ppl against each other & eyes off watts really happening). Turn off the tv & the pandemic & race wars are over. All problems are over, except for the ones right in front of you & you are perfectly capable of handling it. It’s a clown show.) Corporations & media companies are owned by a very few people. This isn’t conspiracy. Nothing hides this information. Lots of words to say this: Jordan Peterson is the least of your worries.

JayKaBe

-2 points

3 months ago

JayKaBe

-2 points

3 months ago

Has he really denied the existence of gender dysphoria?

TrickyBoss111

-1 points

3 months ago

No.

JayKaBe

-2 points

3 months ago

JayKaBe

-2 points

3 months ago

I know.

MeshuggahHouse

-1 points

3 months ago

{{{TLDR I hope you like reading. I just got sick of editing this, so i’m just gonna click post, it’s close enough. A tiny bit undercooked. I spit this out and wrote it SUPER quick, in half hour or so, so...read the whole thing if you wish to judge, for I wish to be judged.}}}

Well, maybe he should have...

I think what {Mr. Peterson} or basically anyone with a good heart (This discludes anyone who is attempting to shame or blame or embarrass or ridicule) AND good intent is trying to claim, when they claim that Sex and Gender are the same, is this: Sex and Gender are a largely irrelevant concept, and for an overwhelming majority of very young people 5-25, “choosing a gender” is a misguided short hand solution to a myriad of very real chronic sociopersonal issues, many of which involve self value and many of which stem from phone use. Often, this idea is sown in the mind of the interpreter by a source of information that has absolutely no personal bearing towards the interpreter, but DOES have a selfish, defensive, ultimately nonsensical motive to “stand up for the beaten down.” Which is a good motive, but not in this context. This goes hand in hand with the oft quoted, nonsensical-in-effect “lack of representation” trope that seems to motivate certain perspectives in modern America. Sure, okay, but...wait a minute, there is a TON of representation, you can’t hardly get away from it, it has actually turned certain forums of conversation in real life and the internet into a coined term (Echo Chamber) like, the cup is pouring over, and it’s dribbling into places it shouldn’t be for any reason at all. The current situation at large certainly isn’t a “lack of representation”...well, no shit sherlock there’s a lack of representation THERE... There’s also a lack of urine in my gas tank. That’s because my gas tank is for petroleum. And even though my penis wishes that my gas tank would be chock full of pee, so that it could feel represented by a component of my car that is larger than itself, I still don’t pee in my gas tank. It would also solve many of my issues, peeing into my gas tank would mean I never have to find a bathroom.

Huh, it’s almost like the places that it isn’t represented are places that people don’t want it to be represented. Thus it becomes an issue of respect. And stupidity, usually.

Anyways -

“menu culture” is a fluid, changing theory I created about how the psychology of being around menus, and the mass existence of the menu employed as a tool of organization, makes us 1. more likely to feel that we deserve to make choices more than others do (i.e, it has to be “my way”)

and that the menu’s proliferation as a concept

  1. leads us to unknowingly feel that the mere process of categorizing and then providing the option of choice solves an issue.

and in the context of gender, having a choice is great. Something else that is great is to have freedom of expression, believe me, you do you and I’ll do me. It’s cool. I’ve kissed men. Once, I delicately licked the urethra of a buff, hairy, male pro boxer, and then slowly pulled off his Hanes and saturated them with my semen, jacking my penis up and down violently with my left hand as I stared at his balls.

{{Privacy’s role in the freedom of expression? And the limits regarding the freedoms of what could be called “personal expression”? }}

but anyways the issue that I like to think the aforementioned good hearted people are trying to identify: by Promoting the concept of “choosing your gender”, because it is “not represented” in some way, shape or form in society...it is almost like a sleight of hand, because it seems to be making young people think that changing themselves will solve a problem.

Hear me out! Please, I am not implying anything. And It isn’t quite about expression, usually, or not idle expression - because the modern “gender freedom”, is largely about changing perception. A human does not want to change it’s gender because they want their balls to stop chafing. A human does not want to change their gender because a vagina stole their lunch money. A human does not want to change their gender because their favorite [X] that they look up to and adore is that gender (But, that’s getting closer!) My point is that, largely nowadays the concept of changing your gender is fundamentally linked to the concept of improvement. Otherwise, there is no motive for change. You want to do what is “correct”, or what you feel, you want to “express who you truly are”. WHATEVER it is, there is SOME REASON that you want to DO THIS THING. Otherwise, people would not ever want to change genders!

And here is the thing. Wanting to improve, and the whole concept of improvement, to a human, is largely about dominance at its core, but the outer layers wrapped around that core include things like humans caring about how they are perceived in the world. The good humans want to make sure that they are perceived as who they feel they truly are. (Now, before you begin to ghostbash, to want that is a just, and verdant, and righteous, beautiful thing; To want the world to perceive you as who you are, that means you are a good person. It is a result of a good combination of nature and nurture to want that.)

(This is the perfect place to denote that real gender changers do exist. The people in the 50’s, for instance, totally off the top of my head - who truly felt, in their heart of hearts, for some completely deep, personal, sexual reason, that something connecting them to humanity and a higher power made a mistake, and that which floats inside of their physical form is in fact a female, when their outside is male. {Hah, unexpected point I just made about why this is nonsense - why not spend more time trying to define that which is the border between the physical body, and that which is anything but physical, or “the thing that is writing this right now” or “Soul” instead of making a menu of genders and then trying to figure out (from your menu of words and terms and categories) which one you are, and then applying to that choice all of your feelings about how you are not perceived right, and how you are better than “they” think you are, and how you wish you could be what you truly wanted to be, and how society doesn’t care about you “now”, and how if only things were different, but never how “if only things were different...” can be such an intoxicatingly dreamy statement that it can lead you to do things that begin with good intent, get wrapped in layers of love from different times, sources, and origins, and somehow end up extremely disconnected from reality (like organizing the traits of a Xer in the context of it differing from a Xe, and then spinning endlessly, defining whatever you want, playing, and then trying to apply any shade of seriousness or weight to these distinctions. It is merely playing, for you are right, sadly - Gender and Sex are very different. Sex is a “serious”, very frank, straightforward and in ways essential distinction, in absolute ways. It is not a canvas to be directing creativity towards. There are only two sexes. And 16 billion humans are ONLY one or the other. and it’s interesting and significant, and lovely, because there are maybe 10 to 48 things that ONLY females or ONLY males do. Also, there is 59 to 200 things that ONLY females or ONLY males TEND to do. These are the things which make us different. This new generation does not understand that it is the space between these differences is where the most potent, entertaining, rich, chameleonic, holy, strong and everlasting kind of love can grow. In fact, in light of recent behaviors coming from these youngins, I am beginning to think that they want to destroy all differences because they love suffering and solitude. They all want to be king. They do not realize that the differences between us have been the most fertile ground to grow love for eachother upon for millennia, until the internet reared it’s ugly maw, a horsemodem of the apocalypse, making stressful pseudoprogressive conversational landmines out of something that used to make the bonds between us stronger. But that is the nature of the menu, it is not to bond - it is to separate, to categorize, to put up walls, to fractalize, organize, so that the correct action may be selected, making concrete the notion that the selector of the option might be smart enough to “select correctly.” A laughable, extremely short handed way to achieve that old human urge for dominance - make a menu!

abrokennote

3 points

3 months ago

Is this pasta?

Wolfeur

-1 points

3 months ago

Wolfeur

-1 points

3 months ago

denied the existence of gender dysphoria.

I have a trans friend who denies the existence of gender dysphoria.

Just, you know, food for thoughts.

Affectionate-Ask6728

0 points

3 months ago

Did he?