71–80 of 172 posts
>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.
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're demanding to be called a floop when you don't see yourself as a floop, just so you can mock those who don't call you floop as an ironic metaphor for people who are actually serious about their pronouns, then you're not a floop. You're an asshole.
And trust me as someone who has a lot of friends with unusual gender identities - if you're sincere, they won't be calling you an asshole and a bigot when you sometimes screw up, because they know you're trying, and they know it's hard. It's refusal that gets you called out, not accidents.
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…
https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=21m39s
23m16s is where he states he would use preferred pronouns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
You are calling someone's sincerity into question because other people have an incorrect perception of what they are saying?
A lack of condemnation can, not unreasonably, be construed as a tacit endorsement.
But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think about. There are problems with it, and it deserves to be criticized (Peterson would be the first to agree). There are also profound insights that can help elevate your thinking if you can incorporate them. Lots of people don't have the intellectual background or ability to do so. But everyone can form a 2 second hot take on one of his more recent controversial statements, so that is what gets discussed.
>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.
It's still great to read but rereading I noticed at the core the same oppression narrative that seems to appear out of all postmodern discourse at some point and which JBP associates with Marxism. Here the programmer is oppressed by stuck up programming languages, Perl reverses the roles and is happy to be like a butler/slave. Which is fine for a programming language, but offers problems when reversing the oppressor/oppressed roles is the only solution you can think of, the only interpretation you wish to dwell on however flimsy the interpretation is (which seems to be where postmodernism went wrong / taken over by Marxists), and each side involves real people.
I would place myself in the conservative corner, but I find Peterson quite problematic. 1. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures. But if you don’t „follow“ and instead analyze what he is saying and how he forms an argument, then you realize that he is not arguing but just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That’s why it’s so appealing. Bu…
Pretty much like a TED talk. Actually, if you look up TED talks about how to be an effective speaker, you will find the advice to talk in simple language and to use metaphors. Also, they advise you to throw in sentiments to which your audience will agree.
2. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.)
Do you actually think he says that life is only suffering? Sorry, but that seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of his views. What evidence do you have that Dr. Peterson is anti-joy? Here's an exercise: find evidence in what he says that shows he values joy.
3. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining.
Let's go right for the most disturbing: The Gulag Archipelago. It's disturbing as an indictment of the worst human beings can do, while those same people are spouting the most positive sounding utopian ideology. It's not going to depress anyone in the West, unless they have already tied up their identity and self worth in a similar ideology.
As for a silver lining -- to buck up, bear your burdens, and strive to live a worthwhile life -- strikes me as a worthwhile and positive message.
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…
Respectfully, I'd like to put this in a different frame. "Being an asshole" isn't some universal quality. If someone is complaining that someone else is "being an asshole," what is essentially meant is that person "is doing something for which they should be socially shamed." There's nothing inherently right or wrong with having a system of shaming in a society, but it's something particular to a culture and a time.…
Yeah, it's hard for us. Hell, I'm 52. I have a lot of adjustment to do. But I try to do it, because I respect my friends. (Patton Oswald did a really excellent speech about this, btw.)
For my own part, a lot of my frustration is the loud and sincerely meant (if wrongheaded) declarations of victimhood by the privileged, simply for being asked to be nice to others. So when I hear Jordan Peterson say he's being oppressed by the evil forces of Marxist postmodernism for being asked to use preferred pronouns... I hear a comfortable, privileged person complaining about how he's a victim. And when he doubles down and says people shouldn't get to choose their own pronouns, their own identity, and instead society should choose for them? Then he's a hypocrite. And an asshole.
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…
Respectfully, I'd like to put this in a different frame. "Being an asshole" isn't some universal quality. If someone is complaining that someone else is "being an asshole," what is essentially meant is that person "is doing something for which they should be socially shamed." There's nothing inherently right or wrong with having a system of shaming in a society, but it's something particular to a culture and a time.…
To your point, failing to accommodate this, and expecting everyone to immediately change because you have, is its own flavor of "being an asshole."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re not helping your case when you say that a mistake in common courtesy could lead to suicide.
I agree. If being mistaken as the wrong gender causes someone significant enough distress to make them commit suicide, they need (and likely are getting) serious mental health attention. It is not the burden of anyone to cater to a stranger's mental illness. If you look vaguely male, I will say "excuse me sir, could I get past you?" (and "madam" for a vaguely female looking person). And there is no place where that s…