Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 172 posts

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#51

Post by jrs95 »

stcredzero wrote: post #35
savanaly wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In everyday life I've never found it to be too inconvenient to be as accommodating as possible to others and communicate with them on their own terms, whether that means remembering to use the pronouns they want or using alternative terminology if they think some word is offensive. I've never had to think about how my outlook might change if all of that got a lot more inconvenient though (if more people start requiri…

Much less have I thought about what if I were compelled by force/law to do the thing I've been doing voluntarily all along. Have you never made a mistake in common courtesy? What if any mistake in common courtesy meant that you could be hauled before a kangaroo court which can use a scientifically dubious "test of unconscious bias" against you as evidence? What if that kangaroo court could get you kicked out of your…

This is different! A mistake in common courtesy could cause one of these oppressed people to commit suicide. It has everything to do with pronouns and absolutely nothing to do with mental illness.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#52

Post by kazinator »

rosser wrote: post #40
stcredzero wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention scientifically dubious tests of "unconscious bias" used against you as evidence in kangaroo courts -- enshrined into law. That's something that might be in Room 101 in the world of Orwell's1984. Also, enshrining into law of scientifically false statements. (Anyone remember the bit about Indiana doing that with pi == 3?)

The pi thing never actually happened. The bill was proposed but did not pass . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

All those who jumped on that bandwagon found they couldn't get it rolling, because the wheels looked like hexagons in order to make d = 2πr work out.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#53

Post by ihsw2 »

mizzack wrote: post #23

I think the "danger" around Jordan Peterson goes beyond the pronoun debate. Individualism and wariness of ideological collectivism seem to be tenets of what he espouses. No surprise, then, that ideological collectivists are his most vocal enemies.

I'd be surprised if he shunned collectivism if it were a kind that he agreed with, ie: the Judeo-Christian pro-family values (ie: men and women are destined to for monogamous marriage, homosexuality is sinful) collectivism.

He sounds like a hardcore libertarian but I think it's a smokescreen for ideologically-driven oppression under another name.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#54

Post by scribu »

sincerely wrote: post #21

>He believes that the insistence on the use of gender-neutral pronouns is rooted in postmodernism, which he sees as thinly disguised Marxism. I've only been studying theory for a few years but how is this interpretation of postmodernism possible? It seems to run counter to one of what I understand to be the foundations of the movement - the rejection of metanarratives.

I’ve never encountered this interpretation before either.

The only way I can make some sense of it is by drawing a correspondence between postmodernism’s “there is no absolute truth, only convenient fictions” and marxism’s class warfare.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#55

Post by [deleted] »

rosser wrote: post #40
stcredzero wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention scientifically dubious tests of "unconscious bias" used against you as evidence in kangaroo courts -- enshrined into law. That's something that might be in Room 101 in the world of Orwell's1984. Also, enshrining into law of scientifically false statements. (Anyone remember the bit about Indiana doing that with pi == 3?)

The pi thing never actually happened. The bill was proposed but did not pass . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

[deleted]

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#56

Post by mcmacintosh »

jrs95 wrote: post #51
stcredzero wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much less have I thought about what if I were compelled by force/law to do the thing I've been doing voluntarily all along. Have you never made a mistake in common courtesy? What if any mistake in common courtesy meant that you could be hauled before a kangaroo court which can use a scientifically dubious "test of unconscious bias" against you as evidence? What if that kangaroo court could get you kicked out of your…

This is different! A mistake in common courtesy could cause one of these oppressed people to commit suicide. It has everything to do with pronouns and absolutely nothing to do with mental illness.

You’re not helping your case when you say that a mistake in common courtesy could lead to suicide.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#57

Post by DiffEq »

stcredzero wrote: post #28
tomsthumb wrote: post #8

It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se. So many people get this wrong. He is against being compelled to use a variety of gender pronouns by legislation which is internally inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate, and additionally lacks clarity by punting process and standards to the Ontario human rights commission which can change their process and defi…

Not to mention scientifically dubious tests of "unconscious bias" used against you as evidence in kangaroo courts -- enshrined into law. That's something that might be in Room 101 in the world of Orwell's1984. Also, enshrining into law of scientifically false statements. (Anyone remember the bit about Indiana doing that with pi == 3?)

Well pi does equal 3 if you round it down.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#58

Post by acjohnson55 »

tomsthumb wrote: post #8

It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se. So many people get this wrong. He is against being compelled to use a variety of gender pronouns by legislation which is internally inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate, and additionally lacks clarity by punting process and standards to the Ontario human rights commission which can change their process and defi…

> It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se.

At some point, what someone literally says they are or aren't against starts to pale in comparison to the perception of their stance. And if that perception persists, at some point, one has to call into question their sincerity.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#59

Post by nkrisc »

renlo wrote: post #42
beat wrote: post #24

Thinking to his issue over pronouns... He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole . Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole. And this is the real headache with Jordan Peterson. He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for…

I want you to refer to me using the 'floop' pronoun. Here's an example sentence: `Floop was referring to floopself when floop said floop wanted to go home`. If you don't use my 'floop' pronoun you're an asshole and a bigot, just apologize to me and I will forgive you. In all seriousness, I have no issue with people who want to be referred to by traditional pronouns that they choose for themselves. I do have an issue…

If you sincerely wanted that, then I would at least try to respect that.

You don't need to. You can choose to or not to. And they can choose to think you're an asshole. That's their choice.

You can't control what they think of you just as they can't control what you call them.

Re: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

#60

Post by stcredzero »

sincerely wrote: post #21

>He believes that the insistence on the use of gender-neutral pronouns is rooted in postmodernism, which he sees as thinly disguised Marxism. I've only been studying theory for a few years but how is this interpretation of postmodernism possible? It seems to run counter to one of what I understand to be the foundations of the movement - the rejection of metanarratives.

There's the academic philosophical postmodernism, which rejects metanarratives. Then there's a derived ideology taken up as the basis for a lot of Intersectional activism which can be termed "Social Constructionism." As is the case for many activist derivations of ideology, there is some straying away from the original academic version.

While postmodernism claims it rejects metanarratives, like the one in Marxism, the derived ideologies share a lot of parallels in effect. They both result in opposing groups which can't effectively talk to each other, so must coerce each other by force. (Doesn't this remind you of the Intersectional "Stack Ranking" and the "Oppression Olympics?") They both effectively result in a rejection of logic. They both effectively create their own forms of obscurantist alternative "logic." The ideological effect of both Marxism and Social Constructionism is to come up with a pretext for rejecting existing standards and tearing society apart -- one which is ideologically sealed against negotiation, logic, and adaptation to evidence.

Post reply on HN