For people who don't know who Jordan Peterson is or people who don't understand why he's hated, here's a small explanation. This is about Canada's Bill C-16, which Peterson's political commentary...
Exemplary
For people who don't know who Jordan Peterson is or people who don't understand why he's hated, here's a small explanation.
This is about Canada's Bill C-16, which Peterson's political commentary on skyrocketed him to fame amongst the right.
I'm going to make two simple assumptions about JP:
I assume he read the bill
I assume he understood the bill
These are not stupid assumptions. His entire platform is around the concept of him being an intellectual (which is also relevant to this news article), and the bill is incredibly short and simple.
Here are all the changes Bill C-16 made:
Originally the Canadian Human Rights Act offered protection from discrimination on grounds of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for [some types of offenses]".
The words "gender identity or expression" were added to this list in the two places the list appeared. No other text was added.
Originally the Criminal Code had what was called an 'identifiable group'. Hate crimes are defined in terms of this group. It was originally "evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,"
The words "or gender identity or expression" were added to this list in the two places the list appeared. No other text was added.
So what does this mean? Well;
Companies cannot refuse customers because they're trans, or refuse to hire people because they're trans, and things along those lines.
Existing crimes can potentially be 'upgraded' to 'hate crimes' if there is reasonable evidence that the crime occured against someone or someone was targeted because they are trans.
Jordan Peterson - along with various far right media like Rebel News - started a whole misinformation campaign around this. He intentionally lied about what the bill actually did (e.g. 'compelled speech', 'pronouns'), to the detriment of the trans rights movement. He's been a far-right bigot since the beginning.
Later on he tweeted about some guy who was "jailed for using the wrong pronouns" as a result of Bill C-16, except that the offense in question didn't have anything to do with pronouns nor had anything to do with Bill C-16.
I always have a hard time explaining to people why he's such a problem. His self help book is supposedly decent and people have had a positive experience with that... but he then leverages his...
For people who don't know who Jordan Peterson is or people who don't understand why he's hated, here's a small explanation.
I always have a hard time explaining to people why he's such a problem.
His self help book is supposedly decent and people have had a positive experience with that... but he then leverages his credentials and uses big words to sounds smart all while spewing nonsense.
His self help books are also only superficially okay. If you just read the chapter titles they're nothing awful, but if you read past his chapter titles then becomes drivel. His explanations are...
His self help books are also only superficially okay. If you just read the chapter titles they're nothing awful, but if you read past his chapter titles then becomes drivel.
His explanations are riddled with pseudoscience (e.g. lobsters...), theology (e.g. appeals to God and metaphysical Chaos & Order), misogyny (e.g. men are order and women are chaos), traditionalism (e.g. your ancestors were right and you shouldn't question them), an obsession with Jungian archetypes (more metaphysics), and reactionary rhetoric (e.g. 'cultural marxism', transphobia). All of that is present in his 12 Rules For Life.
And that is kind of his problem. He says stuff that superficially makes sense and looks useful (at least for his self help books) but then as he delves deeper into his reasonings it starts to become more and more crap. Often the actual advice given is incredibly bad and harmful, for example his appalling ideas on childcare.
Like his advice does help many men allegedly; my concern is that he also feeds them regressive social ideas at the same time.
Sorry, I should say that it's established that evolutionary psychologists rely on the psychology of animals that we share a common ancestor with at various branching points to understand human...
Sorry, I should say that it's established that evolutionary psychologists rely on the psychology of animals that we share a common ancestor with at various branching points to understand human psychology. I would say that at this level of analysis, the term "aggression" can become very fuzzy and that the neural pathways stimulated by serotonin in lobsters leading to "aggression" in lobsters may have an analog in humans, but that does not lead to visible "aggression" since it may be integrated into some larger structure.
There are a few juicy threads about this on Reddit but I'll hold back on posting the jokey stuff content from there even though it's pretty funny. This from the article is good enough though lol
There are a few juicy threads about this on Reddit but I'll hold back on posting the jokey stuff content from there even though it's pretty funny. This from the article is good enough though lol
“Jordan Peterson doesn’t understand that his ‘freedom of speech’ doesn’t trump a professional organization’s ‘freedom of association,’” a user said. “You make a career out of insisting all bridges must be made of marshmallows, the Architectural Association may opt to distance itself from you.”
Nobody should be compelled to associate with one another. But some associations also act as gatekeepers to the practice of certain professions. It seems a little excessive this association trying...
Nobody should be compelled to associate with one another. But some associations also act as gatekeepers to the practice of certain professions. It seems a little excessive this association trying to control the way Jordan Peterson expresses himself on social media. Besides, his most controversial posts on social media is more on philosophical topics than psicological topics, the latter which the association that's persecuting him supposedly regulates.
I mean, a licensed clinical psychologist (who has that in his Twitter bio) probably shouldn't be telling people to kill themselves on Twitter, for example. There are absolutely professional...
I mean, a licensed clinical psychologist (who has that in his Twitter bio) probably shouldn't be telling people to kill themselves on Twitter, for example. There are absolutely professional standards to be upheld on one's social media. Furthermore, since he hasn't been a practicing clinical psychologist since 2017, he doesn't lose anything if he gives up that license rather than going through training like this to avoif being disciplined... except the ability to represent himself as a clinical psychologist to give himself an air of authority. Which is absolutely something I think a licensing organization should be regulating.
To someone who didn't really know who Jordan Peterson is, the headline is pretty misleading through omission; without further context, it lends credence towards his free speech argument. So for...
To someone who didn't really know who Jordan Peterson is, the headline is pretty misleading through omission; without further context, it lends credence towards his free speech argument.
So for anyone else who is as out of the loop as I was, this isn't a circumstance of a court deciding that a controversial media influencer needs re-education. It's upholding a corrective action by a professional body regulating a profession Peterson is licensed in, which Peterson publicly uses to establish his bona fides. Two relevant quotes from the ruling:
"When individuals join a regulated profession, they do not lose their Charter right to freedom of expression. At the same time, however, they take on obligations and must abide by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression."
"Dr. Peterson maintains his membership in the College and refers to himself in his public statements as a clinical psychologist."
I suppose you're right that the article lacks a bit of context. Here's another, much longer, article for that.. And yet another article has examples of the things he's said which is why he is...
I suppose you're right that the article lacks a bit of context.
And yet another article has examples of the things he's said which is why he is being disciplined :
Referring to Catherine McKenney, an Ottawa city councillor, who prefers to use they/them pronouns, as an "appalling self-righteous moralizing thing."
A tweet in which he used the dead name of actor Elliot Page, stating: "Remember when pride was a sin. And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician."
A tweet in which he referred to Gerald Butts, the former principal secretary of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as a "prik" (sic).
His tweet in response to a Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover of a plus-sized model, in which he said: "Sorry. Not Beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that."
It bears repeating of course that he is free to say (almost) whatever he wants. But he can't do it while also using the title of psychologist that the College has given him. That's the crux of the matter.
He has to adhere to the College's rules to be allowed continued membership and whatnot. So no matter how much he complains about whether or not Canada has free speech.. he is very clearly mistaken:
The college's complaints committee concluded his controversial public statements could amount to professional misconduct and ordered Peterson to pay for a media coaching program — noting failure to comply could mean the loss of his licence to practice psychology in the province.
Peterson filed for a judicial review, arguing his political commentary is not under the college's purview.
Three Ontario Divisional Court judges unanimously dismissed Peterson's application, ruling that the college's decision falls within its mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest and does not affect his freedom of expression.
Actually, he isn't, not really, unless he wants to go to jail. And IMO nobody should have that absolute freedom of speech without facing potential consequences when they cross the line of what is...
It bears repeating of course that he is free to say whatever he wants.
Actually, he isn't, not really, unless he wants to go to jail. And IMO nobody should have that absolute freedom of speech without facing potential consequences when they cross the line of what is acceptable speech in a society mindful of the paradox of tolerance.
Thanks, edited my comment! Totally agree with you by the way. I am certainly no free speech absolutist and in Denmark we have similar laws about hate speech, for which I am glad.
Thanks, edited my comment!
Totally agree with you by the way. I am certainly no free speech absolutist and in Denmark we have similar laws about hate speech, for which I am glad.
I like to say "free speech does not mean free of consequences." To what degree the state should be able to enforce those consequences is up for debate, but that's fundementally why it's always...
I like to say "free speech does not mean free of consequences."
To what degree the state should be able to enforce those consequences is up for debate, but that's fundementally why it's always morally OK to punch a Nazi.
There's a long history of anti-fascist activism and the consensus is that you usually end up having to punch nazis, so you may as well do it early and avoid the time wasted in trying to talk to...
There's a long history of anti-fascist activism and the consensus is that you usually end up having to punch nazis, so you may as well do it early and avoid the time wasted in trying to talk to them while they're causing harm to your society.
Agreed. At some point it no longer makes sense to be civil with people who are actively trying to kill you or make your life miserable if you belong to certain progressive groups. Especially when...
Agreed. At some point it no longer makes sense to be civil with people who are actively trying to kill you or make your life miserable if you belong to certain progressive groups. Especially when those people adhere to a completely alternate reality where facts no longer matter. Eventually enough is enough.
This one was satisfying to read https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58678848-gangsters-vs-nazis?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=ozcR4ASRDn&rank=1 Gangsters vs. Nazis: How Jewish Mobsters...
Again, the seperation between law and morality. Violence is not evil in and of itself. It is the how and why of that violence that matters. Killing someone to steal their wallet is wrong, killing...
Again, the seperation between law and morality. Violence is not evil in and of itself. It is the how and why of that violence that matters. Killing someone to steal their wallet is wrong, killing someone to stop them from killing someone else is not.
Sure, I could sit in prison for hitting a human piece of garbage whom advocates mass slaughter, while they walk free. But I'll sleep better at night knowing that piece of shit might think twice before trying to recruit in public.
If someone went on a murder spree of public self-identified Nazis, I would certainly expect them to be convicted for it. If I were in charge of sentencing though, their conviction would come with a minimal punishment and a commemorative medal.
I agree and changed over the title to better represent the situation.
To someone who didn't really know who Jordan Peterson is, the headline is pretty misleading through omission; without further context, it lends credence towards his free speech argument.
I agree and changed over the title to better represent the situation.
I see Dr Peterson's content and I see it more as an old guy who cannot get his head around how much more progressive we've become as a society in the past two decades. On a scale of 1 to Andrew...
I see Dr Peterson's content and I see it more as an old guy who cannot get his head around how much more progressive we've become as a society in the past two decades.
On a scale of 1 to Andrew Tate, he's about a 6 in terms of how problematic he is.
It's easy to minimize or ignore the harm Peterson has done when you're not a member of the groups his hateful rhetoric targets. But as a Canadian, and queer person, IMO he is incredibly dangerous,...
It's easy to minimize or ignore the harm Peterson has done when you're not a member of the groups his hateful rhetoric targets. But as a Canadian, and queer person, IMO he is incredibly dangerous, especially due to his credentials and emeritus position at UofT, which he regularly flaunts and uses to legitimize his hateful beliefs and opinions. And he's a national embarrassment, to boot.
Andrew Tate is more dangerous in my opinion. He's influenced millions of kids into being all 'alpha male' and thinking women don't deserve rights. He is literally somebody who chuckles with glee...
Andrew Tate is more dangerous in my opinion. He's influenced millions of kids into being all 'alpha male' and thinking women don't deserve rights. He is literally somebody who chuckles with glee over the idea of a woman being killed for adultery. Despite being banned from platforms like Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, etc, his content is still there in huge quantities because it's being proliferated by third-party accounts run by the chumps who buy into his MLM 'online masterclass' schemes, a.k.a. Hustler's University The War Room.
Peterson on the other hand has definitely been more careful to tow the line between what social media finds acceptable and would deem a TOS violation.
Even when the Tate brothers have been arrested, detained and criminally charged by one of the more conservative Eastern European nations and has a rap sheet of damn compelling human sex trafficking offences piled against him, there are brainwashed sheep who think 'the matrix is out to get him' and a lot of the pro-Tate propaganda has been pushing takes to "prove" his innocence.
My sister-in-law works as a teacher in a decent school. The amount of toxic views she's heard regurgitated from pupils who follow Andrew Tate is alarming. Imagine what it's like in a school that is getting more scrutiny from Ofsted.
And Peterson has done similar damage to the minds those who follow him when it comes to LGBT+ issues, and other progressive political causes. Tate may be more prolific nowadays, but Peterson was...
Exemplary
And Peterson has done similar damage to the minds those who follow him when it comes to LGBT+ issues, and other progressive political causes. Tate may be more prolific nowadays, but Peterson was basically the Tate of 5 years ago, but is more insidious because (unlike Tate) he provides a veneer of credibility and legitimacy to his hateful views, and often gets taken seriously by those in academic circles as a result. Trying to rank them in terms of how dangerous they are or how much harm they have done is rather pointless and counterproductive though, since both are absolute awful human beings.
I actually agree with you there when it comes to the issue of transphobia. Tate by comparison has (strangely enough) barely touched on transgender issues. Peterson isn't somebody who I'm...
I actually agree with you there when it comes to the issue of transphobia. Tate by comparison has (strangely enough) barely touched on transgender issues.
Peterson isn't somebody who I'm exonerating by any means. He strikes me as somebody who sticks to very old and traditional sociological views, and may be getting sponsored to do so by rich conservative organisations. The content he pushes is horrible for the trans community and has done as much, if not more to harm the progress we've made than J.K. Rowling.
Even then, I still consider him less dangerous than an alleged sex trafficker who has come the closest out of anybody to making incel and red-pill rhetoric mainstream...
It really isn't. This isn't me being dismissive of trans issues, I just don't personally identify with them because I am a cisgender male, albeit one with friends who either identify as...
It really isn't.
This isn't me being dismissive of trans issues, I just don't personally identify with them because I am a cisgender male, albeit one with friends who either identify as transgender or are strong trans allies, so I'm not completely ignorant of them.
There are two sides of the conservative coin; there are those people who are genuinely just ignorant and lack a capacity to really think critically, who get easily taken along on the propaganda...
There are two sides of the conservative coin; there are those people who are genuinely just ignorant and lack a capacity to really think critically, who get easily taken along on the propaganda ride.
And then on the other side of the coin you have people who are smart enough to parse the truth behind the facts but they won't allow themselves to do so out of either ego or they have a financial interested in promoting ignorance.
Peterson is the latter -- he is high on his own sense of intellectual authority and his ego perceives the idea of being wrong as a threat to it's existence. No one can fool themselves quite as thoroughly as an intellectual person.
This is so true. The best liars always start with themselves, especially when they can hide behind the guise of I'm smart, I know better than everyone else, ever
This is so true. The best liars always start with themselves, especially when they can hide behind the guise of I'm smart, I know better than everyone else, ever
I've honestly exhausted my rage for these kinds of people at this point. All I can do is feel sorry for them. Being stressed out all of the time because mechanisms that are entirely of their own...
I've honestly exhausted my rage for these kinds of people at this point. All I can do is feel sorry for them. Being stressed out all of the time because mechanisms that are entirely of their own mental construction must be a terrible way to live. And because the things they say are so terrible, the push away all the good people and surround themselves with the kinds of terrible people who likely agree with all the shitty things they espouse. And to make things worse, they have managed to "other" everyone who tells him his problems, which just makes him dig in further and ruins his life even more.
But given that there are entire crowds of people who reinforce this kind of thing, who can and do cause damage to society, there's a limit to how much sympathy I can muster.
People like Peterson are bad, but the worst are those who try to draw baseless connections to the LGBTQ community and pedophiles. Given how child sexual predators are often targeted with violence,...
People like Peterson are bad, but the worst are those who try to draw baseless connections to the LGBTQ community and pedophiles. Given how child sexual predators are often targeted with violence, vilified and ostracized, it's incredibly dangerous that this anger is being weaponised by the right-wing to target a community of consenting adults whose behaviour in the bedroom should not be policed by the state.
I live in a country where multiple family-friendly LGBTQ shows (think things like Drag Queen Story Hour) have been cancelled by bigots picketing the theatres and threatening violence agains the cast.
I should mention that I'm still upset and still have a drive to act against them. I'm just tired of being filled with rage. Besides, anger just makes the onlookers think you're the bad guy; the...
I should mention that I'm still upset and still have a drive to act against them. I'm just tired of being filled with rage.
Besides, anger just makes the onlookers think you're the bad guy; the best way is to calmly demonstrate why the things they are saying are so stupid. Showing anger just gets them to dig their heels in more.
I understand that with my own unrelated problems. You really can't win because arguing with conservatives is like playing chess with a rooster. No matter what you say or do, the rooster will just...
I understand that with my own unrelated problems. You really can't win because arguing with conservatives is like playing chess with a rooster.
No matter what you say or do, the rooster will just knock over the pieces, defecate all over the board, and strut around triumphantly.
Yes, it's impossible to use facts with some of these people. They live in a world entirely of their own making with their own "facts". At some point I just threw up my hands and decided to leave...
Yes, it's impossible to use facts with some of these people. They live in a world entirely of their own making with their own "facts". At some point I just threw up my hands and decided to leave them to their own devices.
I'll definitely preface my comment with: You are 100% correct that it is abhorrent how righties try to equate being gay with pedophillia. Because here's a glimpse of that anger. You god damn right...
I'll definitely preface my comment with: You are 100% correct that it is abhorrent how righties try to equate being gay with pedophillia. Because here's a glimpse of that anger.
Given how child sexual predators are often targeted with violence, vilified and ostracized.
You god damn right they are. I'm fairly firmly against the death penalty, but child sex abuse is the hard exception. A good solid beating with a bat is what I'd call a good start. I'd litterally kill my best friend if he abused my kid. And I have no shame in admitting that and would serve my time with pride.
My wife was abused by her Dad's best friend when she was 12. She's in her late 30's now, but the other day she was at the grocery store alone and some guy came up to her and called her a dirty skank in her ear and triggered some PTSD and she's been reeling since.
I have no doubts some of the homophobia is projection of how mysoginists lust after young girls...thinking that this must be how gay men are with boys. I've heard "is she legal" too god damn many times in my life by people whom are far too old to be asking.
If they ask you, the answer is 'fuck no you creep'.
I see him as a grifter who realized there's enough dipshit incels out there desperate to buy self-help books that he could base a lucrative career off of it.
I see him as a grifter who realized there's enough dipshit incels out there desperate to buy self-help books that he could base a lucrative career off of it.
No comment on ruling itself, I'm not close to the details. I am however unsure how to participate in discussions around these issues. They are just so heated right now. I happened to like JPs maps...
No comment on ruling itself, I'm not close to the details. I am however unsure how to participate in discussions around these issues. They are just so heated right now. I happened to like JPs maps of meaning lecture series. I found it very thought provoking, perhaps even profound. As a result I've keep loose tabs on his controversies over the years. I tend to agree with some of his positions. And I'm pretty moderate to left leaning in my political views. I can only assume others do agree and would agree as well if healthy discussions could be had.
For me there are just plenty of other people out there with, say, positive advice about cleaning your room or actual psychology expertise or whatever that don't have the bonus feature of...
For me there are just plenty of other people out there with, say, positive advice about cleaning your room or actual psychology expertise or whatever that don't have the bonus feature of transphobia and pseudoscience nonsense to go along with.
It's not that even the worst person never says anything useful, it's that they're still the worst person for all those other reasons. Platforming them for an interesting thought is a net negative.
I'm open to what things he says that you think others would be on board with. I'm not sure I've heard much worth listening to from him, but I'm open to hearing your thoughts.
Well from the maps of meaning lecture I absolutely love the idea that we act things out before we can articulate what it means. Its how we learn from when we're young (we mimic our parents). And...
Well from the maps of meaning lecture I absolutely love the idea that we act things out before we can articulate what it means. Its how we learn from when we're young (we mimic our parents). And from that idea, stories (rather the actions of characters in stories) contain embedded information. Some of which we don't understand the significance of (yet). And that suggests the stories that keep getting passed from generation to generation across cultures contain the most profound information. we can feel it. Otherwise, it stands to reason these stories would not capture our attention and be lost to time.
On the hot button issues, I find his position that children shouldn't be allowed to self identify their gender, get pharmaceutical treatment, or surgical treatments pretty reasonable.
Part of the problem is that his views on trans people is built on a pillar of lies and half-truths. For example, children are not being given gender affirming surgery or irreversible treatments...
Exemplary
Part of the problem is that his views on trans people is built on a pillar of lies and half-truths. For example, children are not being given gender affirming surgery or irreversible treatments and there is no meaningful movement on the left trying to change that.
Also, what's wrong with kids self-identifying how they like? Is a boy in a skirt who's trying out feminine pronouns an actual problem?
I don't have a problem with it. But I think parents guiding their kids to the gender traditionally assigned to their sex is a reasonable thing to do. The idea that children need guidance on almost...
Also, what's wrong with kids self-identifying how they like? Is a boy in a skirt who's trying out feminine pronouns an actual problem?
I don't have a problem with it. But I think parents guiding their kids to the gender traditionally assigned to their sex is a reasonable thing to do. The idea that children need guidance on almost all aspect of being but don't need guidance on this is, I guess, what I get stuck on.
Outside of obvious things like parents not guiding their kids sexual orientation, there's a bit of debate on the impact parents have on their kids. Genetics play a large role, and there is a...
children need guidance on almost all aspect of being
Outside of obvious things like parents not guiding their kids sexual orientation, there's a bit of debate on the impact parents have on their kids. Genetics play a large role, and there is a "nurture" component, but Judith Rich Harris and others make a good case for the role parents play being overstated.
I find his position that children shouldn't be allowed to self identify their gender, get pharmaceutical treatment, or surgical treatments pretty reasonable.
Regardless, Peterson's view on trans youth isn't "it should be up to the family", it is things like:
The phrase "gender-affirming" care is a criminally evil lie
...and:
There is no such thing as "gender-affirming" medical or psychological care.
Complicated medical questions should be left up to professionals and families. I trust the AMA and related institutions a lot more than the guy who got addicted to benzos (PhD in psych claiming he didn't know they were addictive) after an adverse reaction to a meat-only "Lion Diet" who went to Russia for a risky detox-by-coma procedure.
Most parents do in fact do that by default. I've seen no evidence that "genderless parenting" has an increased chance of raising trans kids (though they may be more accepting of such kids)....
Most parents do in fact do that by default. I've seen no evidence that "genderless parenting" has an increased chance of raising trans kids (though they may be more accepting of such kids). "Correcting" kids on their gender doesn't seem to change internal feelings it just tells the kid to hide it.
Letting them socially try out the label seems to be far more effective at a) building trust with your kids, b) letting the kid see if these feelings are accurate or not and c) benefitting their mental health. And at young ages this is a fully social transition.
I wish my folks hadn't taken that route. 20+ years later, I'm dealing with the emotional aftermath of their policy of trying to force a round peg through a square hole. I suffered a great deal of...
I wish my folks hadn't taken that route. 20+ years later, I'm dealing with the emotional aftermath of their policy of trying to force a round peg through a square hole. I suffered a great deal of abuse from a stepfather who didn't want a boy with sometimes feminine tendencies in his house.
I'm sorry to hear that. I used softer language on purpose. Guiding vs. forcing, reasonable vs. right/correct. I believe people are complex and there's no one size fits all.
I'm sorry to hear that. I used softer language on purpose. Guiding vs. forcing, reasonable vs. right/correct. I believe people are complex and there's no one size fits all.
The problem is that anti-trans campaigners only apply this to trans children. They, for example, have no problem with AMAB boys saying "I am a boy" and wearing jeans, and they have no problem with...
, I find his position that children shouldn't be allowed to self identify their gender, get pharmaceutical treatment, or surgical treatments pretty reasonable.
The problem is that anti-trans campaigners only apply this to trans children.
They, for example, have no problem with AMAB boys saying "I am a boy" and wearing jeans, and they have no problem with AFAB girls saying "I am a girl" and wearing a dress -- and the only way we can explain their choice to be okay with cis children self-declaring gender and opposed to trans children doing the same is that they hold anti-trans views, formed by listening to disinformation.
They have no problem with puberty blockers being used to halt precocious puberty, but do when these are used to halt puberty in trans children. They say stupid shit like "why can't you just wait until they're adults before you use puberty blockers?" or "these meds are experimental". Puberty blockers are created and licensed for halting puberty in children, and that's a much better situation that many paediatric meds which are only licensed for adults, and sometimes are only licensed in adults for different uses.
The number of children getting gender confirming surgery is far too high. Anti-trans campaigners are not aware that LGBTQIA+ people already campaign against this and have done for many years. The surgery in question is gender confirming surgery given to intersex children against their will and without their knowledge. You don't hear anti trans campaigners saying much if anything about this. The number of trans children getting gender confirming surgery is approximately zero.
We fundamentally disagree on trans kids - who don't generally get surgery except at much older ages. Especially about "self-identifying gender" as that's a literal stage of development and social...
We fundamentally disagree on trans kids - who don't generally get surgery except at much older ages. Especially about "self-identifying gender" as that's a literal stage of development and social transition and family affirmation of gender reduce suicidality but something like 8x. Most children medically get puberty blockers which are not just prescribed for
So I rather hope you're wrong about many people agreeing with you on the left, since these are major right wing talking points and will absolutely lead to an increase in child suicidality. I work with college students and many trans students as part of my job. There's so much tragedy in a young adult having to work their life around fear of their parents' rejection. But when they don't they're often so unhappy they want to die. And when they do get to live as themselves, they're so freaking happy. Watching one of my students light up when they realize this adult will respect them means the world to me in my work.
And they only get to college without that fear and trepidation if they come from affirming families in the first place. And far too many don't make it this far. Medical recommendations should be managed by medical professionals and their governing bodies. And I don't know about Canada, but I do know that transition is the recommended treatment for gender dysphoria by the APA among others in the US.
Maps of Meaning, the concept sounds interesting, I'm a big believer in the stories we tell mattering to us as people but it sounds like it branches from psychology to anthropology or even philosophy which is out of both his expertise and my field of practice. A quick search turns up criticism of the work as a whole piece, but I'll have to educate myself on it before I could form a direct opinion on any particular piece from it.
So you're conservative? Not even letting kids express themselves? What would you do to stop your kids from expressing their gender? Church, pray the gay away, conversion camp, grounded, beatings?
So you're conservative? Not even letting kids express themselves? What would you do to stop your kids from expressing their gender? Church, pray the gay away, conversion camp, grounded, beatings?
That is what is insidious about it. He does absolutely have true and inspiring things to say, which is how he acquired such a large following. I myself find him to be a very compelling speaker,...
That is what is insidious about it. He does absolutely have true and inspiring things to say, which is how he acquired such a large following. I myself find him to be a very compelling speaker, and I think he addresses people who desperately need to be addressed — to be empathized with and given the kind of path forward he offers (or at least purports to offer).
That's what's so insidious about leaders like him, though. They are masters of subtlety and persuasion. When they begin espousing their darker messages, new listeners are shocked and disgusted; but experienced listeners have been gradually primed to regard these messages without skepticism.
Jordan Peterson is extremely far from the first or only person to do this. Honestly, I expect that some percentage of the people I truly respect and look up to will turn out to be like him — maybe even more insidious him (both more charming and more odious in their beliefs). I just don't know which ones.
All I can do is try my best to maintain my intellectual independence. No matter how much I respect someone, I always try to find something serious to criticize, and I nurse and develop my counterarguments with devotion so that I don't get so swept up in the speaker's influence that I stop really hearing and assessing their message. I try to maintain enough emotional distance that I won't be completely heartbroken (or, far worse, incredulous) at evidence that their opinions are not actually true or good.
As such, there is no person, no organization, no political movement, nothing, that I fully agree with. Even with the two people whose thought processes are most like my own (my dad and my partner), we still have fundamental disagreements in some areas and can get into some pretty heated discussion about it. If I ever stop disagreeing with them, it probably won't be because they're just that correct about everything; it will be because I've let my emotional conception of them override my judgement.
This... concerns me. Like on one hand, it is rather funny to think about him sitting and stewing in a mandated sensitivity training session that he will learn absolutely nothing from. But on the...
This... concerns me. Like on one hand, it is rather funny to think about him sitting and stewing in a mandated sensitivity training session that he will learn absolutely nothing from. But on the other, he can and almost assuredly will play up this experience with his base, likely to cause even greater harm overall. The conservative ragebait about the whole thing practically writes itself: "the government is forcing him to undergo woke indoctrination" and so on. I honestly don't know what the best approach is in a situation like this, but I do see some rather worrying downsides with this one. I hope I'm overblowing them.
He might decide that he wants to change countries which is frightening. Here in the US we have our own problematic characters. We don't want him. And under our laws we would find it harder to rein...
He might decide that he wants to change countries which is frightening. Here in the US we have our own problematic characters. We don't want him. And under our laws we would find it harder to rein him in.
I understand the concern, but it already doesn't matter. It never has. All he needs is a platform and followers. The physical location means nothing. Maybe that's only true in the US where he...
I understand the concern, but it already doesn't matter. It never has. All he needs is a platform and followers. The physical location means nothing. Maybe that's only true in the US where he would be just another part of the noise, though. You may have some national-reputation reasons to want to offload him, and I don't blame you.
It actually does matter though, and this ruling is an example of why; Peterson can only get away with saying so much while still a Canadian because unlike in the US we have hate speech laws up...
It actually does matter though, and this ruling is an example of why; Peterson can only get away with saying so much while still a Canadian because unlike in the US we have hate speech laws up here, and professional/governing bodies (like the Ontario College of Psychologists) that also have to ensure licensed members abide by those laws, and their own codes of ethics. So while Peterson often dances dangerously close to the line of what might potentially qualify as hate speech here in Canada, he still has to make sure he doesn't cross it unless he wants to lose his license or even go to prison. But if he was to renounce his Canadian citizenship, give up his professional license, and become solely an American, he would be able to cross that line into spewing hate speech with impunity. And that would make him far more dangerous, IMO.
I'm pointing to two things. First we already have bad actors in the antiwoke space and don't need more to amplify their voice. Second our constitution grants more leeway for freedom of speech than...
I'm pointing to two things. First we already have bad actors in the antiwoke space and don't need more to amplify their voice. Second our constitution grants more leeway for freedom of speech than other countries.
Does the law have regulations based on the license that the College grants? If it does, I don't think the College's freedom of association extends so far as to exclude members based on any...
Does the law have regulations based on the license that the College grants? If it does, I don't think the College's freedom of association extends so far as to exclude members based on any criteria of their speech and it would worry me what precedent this would set. I think there's a good argument that Jordan Peterson is not fit to be seeing patients, but that would be because of what his speech signals about his current mental state than his speech itself.
Is this really a “science” story? Maybe you can massage it to be about professional responsibilities for someone who may engage in research, but at the end of the day this is just another politics...
Is this really a “science” story? Maybe you can massage it to be about professional responsibilities for someone who may engage in research, but at the end of the day this is just another politics fight about a social media troll.
~misc isn't really a group that is meant to house anything permanently unless there is no other group where the topic actually fits. But this definitely shouldn't be in ~science, even though...
~misc isn't really a group that is meant to house anything permanently unless there is no other group where the topic actually fits. But this definitely shouldn't be in ~science, even though psychology is technically a science, since the field is not the actual focus of this article. @mycketforvirrad is likely still pretty swamped keeping up with all the topic tagging these days though, so probably just saw the psychology tag and moved it to ~science based on that. I think in this case the topic should probably be in ~news though, so I have moved it there instead.
I would recommend that the community does not decide that the social sciences are not science. If it shouldn't appear as a science article, then it shouldn't appear as as a social science article....
I would recommend that the community does not decide that the social sciences are not science. If it shouldn't appear as a science article, then it shouldn't appear as as a social science article. I actually think it should appear in science. People think science only involves methods and results (plus communication)z but that is not the case.
Nobody is saying social sciences aren't sciences, but the distinction between them and the "natural/life/physical" sciences is still a valuable one, IMO. Especially from an organizational...
Nobody is saying social sciences aren't sciences, but the distinction between them and the "natural/life/physical" sciences is still a valuable one, IMO. Especially from an organizational standpoint, since users who subscribe to ~science are likely only looking for the former (e.g. biology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc), not the latter (e.g. political science, psychology, linguistics, etc). And that would also allow us to move anthropology and archaeology out of ~humanities, where they don't technically belong either. I personally wouldn't be opposed to ~science.social instead of a new top level group though, so as not to repute their validity as sciences.
I think a ~science.social would be a good solution, but only if there will be a ~science.physical. You may not be in the field but it is endlessly tiring to be treated like a second-class set of...
I think a ~science.social would be a good solution, but only if there will be a ~science.physical. You may not be in the field but it is endlessly tiring to be treated like a second-class set of sciences when we are doing things that are much harder to measure reliably and validly.
I'm not a scientist of any field, and have no strong opinion one way or the other when it comes to also adding a ~science.physical group alongside ~science.social, so would gladly defer to people...
I'm not a scientist of any field, and have no strong opinion one way or the other when it comes to also adding a ~science.physical group alongside ~science.social, so would gladly defer to people with more experience and knowledge on the subject. It does sound fair to add both though, so as not to relegate one to the sidelines over another.
Thanks. I'm one with a lot of knowledge and experience in favor of not isolating social science from science. We can at least separate the levels of analysis instead of acting like social science...
Thanks. I'm one with a lot of knowledge and experience in favor of not isolating social science from science. We can at least separate the levels of analysis instead of acting like social science is a lesser field.
Going a bit off topic, but it's unfortunate that we feel that something must be science to be credible. Non-scientific epistemology is relevant and valuable, but, because of the trend of "it only...
Going a bit off topic, but it's unfortunate that we feel that something must be science to be credible. Non-scientific epistemology is relevant and valuable, but, because of the trend of "it only matters if it's science", every field has a tendency to forcefully "scientize" their search for knowledge.
I don't personally see it as a matter of credibility, per se, but more about the elevated value of physical evidence, practicality, and focusing on tangibility. Non-scientific epistemology is...
I don't personally see it as a matter of credibility, per se, but more about the elevated value of physical evidence, practicality, and focusing on tangibility. Non-scientific epistemology is still valid approach to understanding/interpreting the world, but it often feels to me as being a bit more like navel gazing, and less practical. But, admittedly, in some places the distinction is a bit moot, e.g. despite being sciences, pure maths, and formal logic are quite navel gazely, more focused on the intangible, and arguably less practical too.
It is. And science isn't only non-social sciences. Social science is not a halfway point between science and humanities. It's just application of scientific principles to human pursuits.
It is. And science isn't only non-social sciences. Social science is not a halfway point between science and humanities. It's just application of scientific principles to human pursuits.
Which is not the same as being experimentally verifiable in the way that chemistry or physics is. But I was not trying for a theoretical debate, just following the practice in major universities...
Which is not the same as being experimentally verifiable in the way that chemistry or physics is.
But I was not trying for a theoretical debate, just following the practice in major universities and libraries. But human behavior is fuzzy and variable and hard to study.
This is entirely a misunderstanding. Human studies can be strictly experimental. When they can be they are. When the can't be, it's because there is no ethical way to give a participant a...
This is entirely a misunderstanding. Human studies can be strictly experimental. When they can be they are. When the can't be, it's because there is no ethical way to give a participant a disorder, disease, injury, or unnecessary health-endangering intervention.
It's hard to study, but we study it, and we can quantify how well we do.
That's fair and I apologize. I do however think that some of the so called social sciences are less scientific than others in their methods. Looking at you economics.
That's fair and I apologize. I do however think that some of the so called social sciences are less scientific than others in their methods. Looking at you economics.
Yeah, I agree. From an organizational standpoint alone a ~science.social group make sense to have, even if the group isn't super active. cc: @Deimos, any chance we could get that, even thought the...
Yeah, I agree. From an organizational standpoint alone a social_science~science.social group make sense to have, even if the group isn't super active. cc: @Deimos, any chance we could get that, even thought the last new group round was so recent?
I see. I’ve noticed several other stories where I’ve thought the same thing, and I’ll keep in mind in the future that the cause may be moderators just doing their best to keep the site organized.
I see. I’ve noticed several other stories where I’ve thought the same thing, and I’ll keep in mind in the future that the cause may be moderators just doing their best to keep the site organized.
Yeah, we're generally just trying to keep things organized, but pobody's nerfect. Next time, feel free to just give me a ping if you have any problems with where things were moved, tags that were...
Yeah, we're generally just trying to keep things organized, but pobody's nerfect. Next time, feel free to just give me a ping if you have any problems with where things were moved, tags that were applied, etc and I can try to address the issue for you.
Fair enough. I can see the connection due to it being about an Ontario College of Psychologists mandate, and Canadian legal ruling on that, but I don't think it's what most ~science subscribers...
Fair enough. I can see the connection due to it being about an Ontario College of Psychologists mandate, and Canadian legal ruling on that, but I don't think it's what most ~science subscribers would want or expect to see there. This feels to me more like a basic news item about Peterson himself than it does about anything actually pertinent to the field of psychology.
On this site in particular, law content is distributed widely depending on the facts of the case. You could have five stories about antitrust in five different forums with the on featuring Google...
On this site in particular, law content is distributed widely depending on the facts of the case. You could have five stories about antitrust in five different forums with the on featuring Google in ~tech
For people who don't know who Jordan Peterson is or people who don't understand why he's hated, here's a small explanation.
This is about Canada's Bill C-16, which Peterson's political commentary on skyrocketed him to fame amongst the right.
I'm going to make two simple assumptions about JP:
I assume he read the bill
I assume he understood the bill
These are not stupid assumptions. His entire platform is around the concept of him being an intellectual (which is also relevant to this news article), and the bill is incredibly short and simple.
Here are all the changes Bill C-16 made:
Originally the Canadian Human Rights Act offered protection from discrimination on grounds of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for [some types of offenses]".
The words "gender identity or expression" were added to this list in the two places the list appeared. No other text was added.
Originally the Criminal Code had what was called an 'identifiable group'. Hate crimes are defined in terms of this group. It was originally "evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,"
The words "or gender identity or expression" were added to this list in the two places the list appeared. No other text was added.
So what does this mean? Well;
Companies cannot refuse customers because they're trans, or refuse to hire people because they're trans, and things along those lines.
Existing crimes can potentially be 'upgraded' to 'hate crimes' if there is reasonable evidence that the crime occured against someone or someone was targeted because they are trans.
Jordan Peterson - along with various far right media like Rebel News - started a whole misinformation campaign around this. He intentionally lied about what the bill actually did (e.g. 'compelled speech', 'pronouns'), to the detriment of the trans rights movement. He's been a far-right bigot since the beginning.
Later on he tweeted about some guy who was "jailed for using the wrong pronouns" as a result of Bill C-16, except that the offense in question didn't have anything to do with pronouns nor had anything to do with Bill C-16.
I always have a hard time explaining to people why he's such a problem.
His self help book is supposedly decent and people have had a positive experience with that... but he then leverages his credentials and uses big words to sounds smart all while spewing nonsense.
His self help books are also only superficially okay. If you just read the chapter titles they're nothing awful, but if you read past his chapter titles then becomes drivel.
His explanations are riddled with pseudoscience (e.g. lobsters...), theology (e.g. appeals to God and metaphysical Chaos & Order), misogyny (e.g. men are order and women are chaos), traditionalism (e.g. your ancestors were right and you shouldn't question them), an obsession with Jungian archetypes (more metaphysics), and reactionary rhetoric (e.g. 'cultural marxism', transphobia). All of that is present in his 12 Rules For Life.
And that is kind of his problem. He says stuff that superficially makes sense and looks useful (at least for his self help books) but then as he delves deeper into his reasonings it starts to become more and more crap. Often the actual advice given is incredibly bad and harmful, for example his appalling ideas on childcare.
Like his advice does help many men allegedly; my concern is that he also feeds them regressive social ideas at the same time.
What’s his point about lobsters? The internet says that he basically says lobsters have serotonin and have hierarchies. Is that the whole of it?
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-psychologist-jordan-peterson-lobsters-human.html
Sorry, I should say that it's established that evolutionary psychologists rely on the psychology of animals that we share a common ancestor with at various branching points to understand human psychology. I would say that at this level of analysis, the term "aggression" can become very fuzzy and that the neural pathways stimulated by serotonin in lobsters leading to "aggression" in lobsters may have an analog in humans, but that does not lead to visible "aggression" since it may be integrated into some larger structure.
His "self help book" does nothing but help his bank account.
There are a few juicy threads about this on Reddit but I'll hold back on posting the jokey stuff content from there even though it's pretty funny. This from the article is good enough though lol
Nobody should be compelled to associate with one another. But some associations also act as gatekeepers to the practice of certain professions. It seems a little excessive this association trying to control the way Jordan Peterson expresses himself on social media. Besides, his most controversial posts on social media is more on philosophical topics than psicological topics, the latter which the association that's persecuting him supposedly regulates.
I mean, a licensed clinical psychologist (who has that in his Twitter bio) probably shouldn't be telling people to kill themselves on Twitter, for example. There are absolutely professional standards to be upheld on one's social media. Furthermore, since he hasn't been a practicing clinical psychologist since 2017, he doesn't lose anything if he gives up that license rather than going through training like this to avoif being disciplined... except the ability to represent himself as a clinical psychologist to give himself an air of authority. Which is absolutely something I think a licensing organization should be regulating.
To someone who didn't really know who Jordan Peterson is, the headline is pretty misleading through omission; without further context, it lends credence towards his free speech argument.
So for anyone else who is as out of the loop as I was, this isn't a circumstance of a court deciding that a controversial media influencer needs re-education. It's upholding a corrective action by a professional body regulating a profession Peterson is licensed in, which Peterson publicly uses to establish his bona fides. Two relevant quotes from the ruling:
"When individuals join a regulated profession, they do not lose their Charter right to freedom of expression. At the same time, however, they take on obligations and must abide by the rules of their regulatory body that may limit their freedom of expression."
"Dr. Peterson maintains his membership in the College and refers to himself in his public statements as a clinical psychologist."
I suppose you're right that the article lacks a bit of context.
Here's another, much longer, article for that..
And yet another article has examples of the things he's said which is why he is being disciplined :
It bears repeating of course that he is free to say (almost) whatever he wants. But he can't do it while also using the title of psychologist that the College has given him. That's the crux of the matter.
He has to adhere to the College's rules to be allowed continued membership and whatnot. So no matter how much he complains about whether or not Canada has free speech.. he is very clearly mistaken:
Actually, he isn't, not really, unless he wants to go to jail. And IMO nobody should have that absolute freedom of speech without facing potential consequences when they cross the line of what is acceptable speech in a society mindful of the paradox of tolerance.
And in Canada we have limits on our free expression for that exact reason, and due to the "Reasonable limits" clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And "Advocating genocide", as well as "Public incitement of hatred, Wilful promotion of hatred, and Wilful promotion of antisemitism" are just some of those restrictions.
Thanks, edited my comment!
Totally agree with you by the way. I am certainly no free speech absolutist and in Denmark we have similar laws about hate speech, for which I am glad.
I like to say "free speech does not mean free of consequences."
To what degree the state should be able to enforce those consequences is up for debate, but that's fundementally why it's always morally OK to punch a Nazi.
There's a long history of anti-fascist activism and the consensus is that you usually end up having to punch nazis, so you may as well do it early and avoid the time wasted in trying to talk to them while they're causing harm to your society.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Physical-Resistance-Hundred-Years-Anti-Fascism/dp/1780991770
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Militant-Anti-Fascism-Hundred-Years-Resistance-ebook/dp/B00W0LPL06
Agreed. At some point it no longer makes sense to be civil with people who are actively trying to kill you or make your life miserable if you belong to certain progressive groups. Especially when those people adhere to a completely alternate reality where facts no longer matter. Eventually enough is enough.
This one was satisfying to read
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58678848-gangsters-vs-nazis?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=ozcR4ASRDn&rank=1
Gangsters vs. Nazis: How Jewish Mobsters Battled Nazis in Wartime America
Michael Benson
Again, the seperation between law and morality. Violence is not evil in and of itself. It is the how and why of that violence that matters. Killing someone to steal their wallet is wrong, killing someone to stop them from killing someone else is not.
Sure, I could sit in prison for hitting a human piece of garbage whom advocates mass slaughter, while they walk free. But I'll sleep better at night knowing that piece of shit might think twice before trying to recruit in public.
If someone went on a murder spree of public self-identified Nazis, I would certainly expect them to be convicted for it. If I were in charge of sentencing though, their conviction would come with a minimal punishment and a commemorative medal.
Of course he's free to say whatever he wants, anyone is. What you aren't free from is the consequences of what is said.
I agree and changed over the title to better represent the situation.
I see Dr Peterson's content and I see it more as an old guy who cannot get his head around how much more progressive we've become as a society in the past two decades.
On a scale of 1 to Andrew Tate, he's about a 6 in terms of how problematic he is.
It's easy to minimize or ignore the harm Peterson has done when you're not a member of the groups his hateful rhetoric targets. But as a Canadian, and queer person, IMO he is incredibly dangerous, especially due to his credentials and emeritus position at UofT, which he regularly flaunts and uses to legitimize his hateful beliefs and opinions. And he's a national embarrassment, to boot.
Andrew Tate is more dangerous in my opinion. He's influenced millions of kids into being all 'alpha male' and thinking women don't deserve rights. He is literally somebody who chuckles with glee over the idea of a woman being killed for adultery. Despite being banned from platforms like Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, etc, his content is still there in huge quantities because it's being proliferated by third-party accounts run by the chumps who buy into his MLM 'online masterclass' schemes, a.k.a.
Hustler's UniversityThe War Room.Peterson on the other hand has definitely been more careful to tow the line between what social media finds acceptable and would deem a TOS violation.
Even when the Tate brothers have been arrested, detained and criminally charged by one of the more conservative Eastern European nations and has a rap sheet of damn compelling human sex trafficking offences piled against him, there are brainwashed sheep who think 'the matrix is out to get him' and a lot of the pro-Tate propaganda has been pushing takes to "prove" his innocence.
My sister-in-law works as a teacher in a decent school. The amount of toxic views she's heard regurgitated from pupils who follow Andrew Tate is alarming. Imagine what it's like in a school that is getting more scrutiny from Ofsted.
And Peterson has done similar damage to the minds those who follow him when it comes to LGBT+ issues, and other progressive political causes. Tate may be more prolific nowadays, but Peterson was basically the Tate of 5 years ago, but is more insidious because (unlike Tate) he provides a veneer of credibility and legitimacy to his hateful views, and often gets taken seriously by those in academic circles as a result. Trying to rank them in terms of how dangerous they are or how much harm they have done is rather pointless and counterproductive though, since both are absolute awful human beings.
I actually agree with you there when it comes to the issue of transphobia. Tate by comparison has (strangely enough) barely touched on transgender issues.
Peterson isn't somebody who I'm exonerating by any means. He strikes me as somebody who sticks to very old and traditional sociological views, and may be getting sponsored to do so by rich conservative organisations. The content he pushes is horrible for the trans community and has done as much, if not more to harm the progress we've made than J.K. Rowling.
Even then, I still consider him less dangerous than an alleged sex trafficker who has come the closest out of anybody to making incel and red-pill rhetoric mainstream...
It's not a contest.
It really isn't.
This isn't me being dismissive of trans issues, I just don't personally identify with them because I am a cisgender male, albeit one with friends who either identify as transgender or are strong trans allies, so I'm not completely ignorant of them.
Peterson is poison, do not get me wrong.
There are two sides of the conservative coin; there are those people who are genuinely just ignorant and lack a capacity to really think critically, who get easily taken along on the propaganda ride.
And then on the other side of the coin you have people who are smart enough to parse the truth behind the facts but they won't allow themselves to do so out of either ego or they have a financial interested in promoting ignorance.
Peterson is the latter -- he is high on his own sense of intellectual authority and his ego perceives the idea of being wrong as a threat to it's existence. No one can fool themselves quite as thoroughly as an intellectual person.
This is so true. The best liars always start with themselves, especially when they can hide behind the guise of I'm smart, I know better than everyone else, ever
I've honestly exhausted my rage for these kinds of people at this point. All I can do is feel sorry for them. Being stressed out all of the time because mechanisms that are entirely of their own mental construction must be a terrible way to live. And because the things they say are so terrible, the push away all the good people and surround themselves with the kinds of terrible people who likely agree with all the shitty things they espouse. And to make things worse, they have managed to "other" everyone who tells him his problems, which just makes him dig in further and ruins his life even more.
But given that there are entire crowds of people who reinforce this kind of thing, who can and do cause damage to society, there's a limit to how much sympathy I can muster.
People like Peterson are bad, but the worst are those who try to draw baseless connections to the LGBTQ community and pedophiles. Given how child sexual predators are often targeted with violence, vilified and ostracized, it's incredibly dangerous that this anger is being weaponised by the right-wing to target a community of consenting adults whose behaviour in the bedroom should not be policed by the state.
I live in a country where multiple family-friendly LGBTQ shows (think things like Drag Queen Story Hour) have been cancelled by bigots picketing the theatres and threatening violence agains the cast.
I should mention that I'm still upset and still have a drive to act against them. I'm just tired of being filled with rage.
Besides, anger just makes the onlookers think you're the bad guy; the best way is to calmly demonstrate why the things they are saying are so stupid. Showing anger just gets them to dig their heels in more.
I understand that with my own unrelated problems. You really can't win because arguing with conservatives is like playing chess with a rooster.
No matter what you say or do, the rooster will just knock over the pieces, defecate all over the board, and strut around triumphantly.
Yes, it's impossible to use facts with some of these people. They live in a world entirely of their own making with their own "facts". At some point I just threw up my hands and decided to leave them to their own devices.
I'll definitely preface my comment with: You are 100% correct that it is abhorrent how righties try to equate being gay with pedophillia. Because here's a glimpse of that anger.
You god damn right they are. I'm fairly firmly against the death penalty, but child sex abuse is the hard exception. A good solid beating with a bat is what I'd call a good start. I'd litterally kill my best friend if he abused my kid. And I have no shame in admitting that and would serve my time with pride.
My wife was abused by her Dad's best friend when she was 12. She's in her late 30's now, but the other day she was at the grocery store alone and some guy came up to her and called her a dirty skank in her ear and triggered some PTSD and she's been reeling since.
I have no doubts some of the homophobia is projection of how mysoginists lust after young girls...thinking that this must be how gay men are with boys. I've heard "is she legal" too god damn many times in my life by people whom are far too old to be asking.
If they ask you, the answer is 'fuck no you creep'.
I see him as a grifter who realized there's enough dipshit incels out there desperate to buy self-help books that he could base a lucrative career off of it.
No comment on ruling itself, I'm not close to the details. I am however unsure how to participate in discussions around these issues. They are just so heated right now. I happened to like JPs maps of meaning lecture series. I found it very thought provoking, perhaps even profound. As a result I've keep loose tabs on his controversies over the years. I tend to agree with some of his positions. And I'm pretty moderate to left leaning in my political views. I can only assume others do agree and would agree as well if healthy discussions could be had.
For me there are just plenty of other people out there with, say, positive advice about cleaning your room or actual psychology expertise or whatever that don't have the bonus feature of transphobia and pseudoscience nonsense to go along with.
It's not that even the worst person never says anything useful, it's that they're still the worst person for all those other reasons. Platforming them for an interesting thought is a net negative.
I'm open to what things he says that you think others would be on board with. I'm not sure I've heard much worth listening to from him, but I'm open to hearing your thoughts.
Well from the maps of meaning lecture I absolutely love the idea that we act things out before we can articulate what it means. Its how we learn from when we're young (we mimic our parents). And from that idea, stories (rather the actions of characters in stories) contain embedded information. Some of which we don't understand the significance of (yet). And that suggests the stories that keep getting passed from generation to generation across cultures contain the most profound information. we can feel it. Otherwise, it stands to reason these stories would not capture our attention and be lost to time.
On the hot button issues, I find his position that children shouldn't be allowed to self identify their gender, get pharmaceutical treatment, or surgical treatments pretty reasonable.
Part of the problem is that his views on trans people is built on a pillar of lies and half-truths. For example, children are not being given gender affirming surgery or irreversible treatments and there is no meaningful movement on the left trying to change that.
Also, what's wrong with kids self-identifying how they like? Is a boy in a skirt who's trying out feminine pronouns an actual problem?
I don't have a problem with it. But I think parents guiding their kids to the gender traditionally assigned to their sex is a reasonable thing to do. The idea that children need guidance on almost all aspect of being but don't need guidance on this is, I guess, what I get stuck on.
Outside of obvious things like parents not guiding their kids sexual orientation, there's a bit of debate on the impact parents have on their kids. Genetics play a large role, and there is a "nurture" component, but Judith Rich Harris and others make a good case for the role parents play being overstated.
Regardless, Peterson's view on trans youth isn't "it should be up to the family", it is things like:
...and:
Complicated medical questions should be left up to professionals and families. I trust the AMA and related institutions a lot more than the guy who got addicted to benzos (PhD in psych claiming he didn't know they were addictive) after an adverse reaction to a meat-only "Lion Diet" who went to Russia for a risky detox-by-coma procedure.
Most parents do in fact do that by default. I've seen no evidence that "genderless parenting" has an increased chance of raising trans kids (though they may be more accepting of such kids). "Correcting" kids on their gender doesn't seem to change internal feelings it just tells the kid to hide it.
Letting them socially try out the label seems to be far more effective at a) building trust with your kids, b) letting the kid see if these feelings are accurate or not and c) benefitting their mental health. And at young ages this is a fully social transition.
Edited typo
How far does this go? Girls should be nurses not doctors? Boys should be car mechanics not early years teachers?
I wish my folks hadn't taken that route. 20+ years later, I'm dealing with the emotional aftermath of their policy of trying to force a round peg through a square hole. I suffered a great deal of abuse from a stepfather who didn't want a boy with sometimes feminine tendencies in his house.
I'm sorry to hear that. I used softer language on purpose. Guiding vs. forcing, reasonable vs. right/correct. I believe people are complex and there's no one size fits all.
The problem is that anti-trans campaigners only apply this to trans children.
They, for example, have no problem with AMAB boys saying "I am a boy" and wearing jeans, and they have no problem with AFAB girls saying "I am a girl" and wearing a dress -- and the only way we can explain their choice to be okay with cis children self-declaring gender and opposed to trans children doing the same is that they hold anti-trans views, formed by listening to disinformation.
They have no problem with puberty blockers being used to halt precocious puberty, but do when these are used to halt puberty in trans children. They say stupid shit like "why can't you just wait until they're adults before you use puberty blockers?" or "these meds are experimental". Puberty blockers are created and licensed for halting puberty in children, and that's a much better situation that many paediatric meds which are only licensed for adults, and sometimes are only licensed in adults for different uses.
The number of children getting gender confirming surgery is far too high. Anti-trans campaigners are not aware that LGBTQIA+ people already campaign against this and have done for many years. The surgery in question is gender confirming surgery given to intersex children against their will and without their knowledge. You don't hear anti trans campaigners saying much if anything about this. The number of trans children getting gender confirming surgery is approximately zero.
We fundamentally disagree on trans kids - who don't generally get surgery except at much older ages. Especially about "self-identifying gender" as that's a literal stage of development and social transition and family affirmation of gender reduce suicidality but something like 8x. Most children medically get puberty blockers which are not just prescribed for
So I rather hope you're wrong about many people agreeing with you on the left, since these are major right wing talking points and will absolutely lead to an increase in child suicidality. I work with college students and many trans students as part of my job. There's so much tragedy in a young adult having to work their life around fear of their parents' rejection. But when they don't they're often so unhappy they want to die. And when they do get to live as themselves, they're so freaking happy. Watching one of my students light up when they realize this adult will respect them means the world to me in my work.
And they only get to college without that fear and trepidation if they come from affirming families in the first place. And far too many don't make it this far. Medical recommendations should be managed by medical professionals and their governing bodies. And I don't know about Canada, but I do know that transition is the recommended treatment for gender dysphoria by the APA among others in the US.
Maps of Meaning, the concept sounds interesting, I'm a big believer in the stories we tell mattering to us as people but it sounds like it branches from psychology to anthropology or even philosophy which is out of both his expertise and my field of practice. A quick search turns up criticism of the work as a whole piece, but I'll have to educate myself on it before I could form a direct opinion on any particular piece from it.
So you're conservative? Not even letting kids express themselves? What would you do to stop your kids from expressing their gender? Church, pray the gay away, conversion camp, grounded, beatings?
That is what is insidious about it. He does absolutely have true and inspiring things to say, which is how he acquired such a large following. I myself find him to be a very compelling speaker, and I think he addresses people who desperately need to be addressed — to be empathized with and given the kind of path forward he offers (or at least purports to offer).
That's what's so insidious about leaders like him, though. They are masters of subtlety and persuasion. When they begin espousing their darker messages, new listeners are shocked and disgusted; but experienced listeners have been gradually primed to regard these messages without skepticism.
Jordan Peterson is extremely far from the first or only person to do this. Honestly, I expect that some percentage of the people I truly respect and look up to will turn out to be like him — maybe even more insidious him (both more charming and more odious in their beliefs). I just don't know which ones.
All I can do is try my best to maintain my intellectual independence. No matter how much I respect someone, I always try to find something serious to criticize, and I nurse and develop my counterarguments with devotion so that I don't get so swept up in the speaker's influence that I stop really hearing and assessing their message. I try to maintain enough emotional distance that I won't be completely heartbroken (or, far worse, incredulous) at evidence that their opinions are not actually true or good.
As such, there is no person, no organization, no political movement, nothing, that I fully agree with. Even with the two people whose thought processes are most like my own (my dad and my partner), we still have fundamental disagreements in some areas and can get into some pretty heated discussion about it. If I ever stop disagreeing with them, it probably won't be because they're just that correct about everything; it will be because I've let my emotional conception of them override my judgement.
This... concerns me. Like on one hand, it is rather funny to think about him sitting and stewing in a mandated sensitivity training session that he will learn absolutely nothing from. But on the other, he can and almost assuredly will play up this experience with his base, likely to cause even greater harm overall. The conservative ragebait about the whole thing practically writes itself: "the government is forcing him to undergo woke indoctrination" and so on. I honestly don't know what the best approach is in a situation like this, but I do see some rather worrying downsides with this one. I hope I'm overblowing them.
He might decide that he wants to change countries which is frightening. Here in the US we have our own problematic characters. We don't want him. And under our laws we would find it harder to rein him in.
I understand the concern, but it already doesn't matter. It never has. All he needs is a platform and followers. The physical location means nothing. Maybe that's only true in the US where he would be just another part of the noise, though. You may have some national-reputation reasons to want to offload him, and I don't blame you.
It actually does matter though, and this ruling is an example of why; Peterson can only get away with saying so much while still a Canadian because unlike in the US we have hate speech laws up here, and professional/governing bodies (like the Ontario College of Psychologists) that also have to ensure licensed members abide by those laws, and their own codes of ethics. So while Peterson often dances dangerously close to the line of what might potentially qualify as hate speech here in Canada, he still has to make sure he doesn't cross it unless he wants to lose his license or even go to prison. But if he was to renounce his Canadian citizenship, give up his professional license, and become solely an American, he would be able to cross that line into spewing hate speech with impunity. And that would make him far more dangerous, IMO.
I'm pointing to two things. First we already have bad actors in the antiwoke space and don't need more to amplify their voice. Second our constitution grants more leeway for freedom of speech than other countries.
Does the law have regulations based on the license that the College grants? If it does, I don't think the College's freedom of association extends so far as to exclude members based on any criteria of their speech and it would worry me what precedent this would set. I think there's a good argument that Jordan Peterson is not fit to be seeing patients, but that would be because of what his speech signals about his current mental state than his speech itself.
Is this really a “science” story? Maybe you can massage it to be about professional responsibilities for someone who may engage in research, but at the end of the day this is just another politics fight about a social media troll.
I posted it to ~misc but an admin moved it to ~science. Don't know why 🤷♀️
~misc isn't really a group that is meant to house anything permanently unless there is no other group where the topic actually fits. But this definitely shouldn't be in ~science, even though psychology is technically a science, since the field is not the actual focus of this article. @mycketforvirrad is likely still pretty swamped keeping up with all the topic tagging these days though, so probably just saw the psychology tag and moved it to ~science based on that. I think in this case the topic should probably be in ~news though, so I have moved it there instead.
I would recommend that the community does not decide that the social sciences are not science. If it shouldn't appear as a science article, then it shouldn't appear as as a social science article. I actually think it should appear in science. People think science only involves methods and results (plus communication)z but that is not the case.
Nobody is saying social sciences aren't sciences, but the distinction between them and the "natural/life/physical" sciences is still a valuable one, IMO. Especially from an organizational standpoint, since users who subscribe to ~science are likely only looking for the former (e.g. biology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc), not the latter (e.g. political science, psychology, linguistics, etc). And that would also allow us to move anthropology and archaeology out of ~humanities, where they don't technically belong either. I personally wouldn't be opposed to ~science.social instead of a new top level group though, so as not to repute their validity as sciences.
cc: @Deimos
I think a ~science.social would be a good solution, but only if there will be a ~science.physical. You may not be in the field but it is endlessly tiring to be treated like a second-class set of sciences when we are doing things that are much harder to measure reliably and validly.
I'm not a scientist of any field, and have no strong opinion one way or the other when it comes to also adding a ~science.physical group alongside ~science.social, so would gladly defer to people with more experience and knowledge on the subject. It does sound fair to add both though, so as not to relegate one to the sidelines over another.
Thanks. I'm one with a lot of knowledge and experience in favor of not isolating social science from science. We can at least separate the levels of analysis instead of acting like social science is a lesser field.
Going a bit off topic, but it's unfortunate that we feel that something must be science to be credible. Non-scientific epistemology is relevant and valuable, but, because of the trend of "it only matters if it's science", every field has a tendency to forcefully "scientize" their search for knowledge.
I don't personally see it as a matter of credibility, per se, but more about the elevated value of physical evidence, practicality, and focusing on tangibility. Non-scientific epistemology is still valid approach to understanding/interpreting the world, but it often feels to me as being a bit more like navel gazing, and less practical. But, admittedly, in some places the distinction is a bit moot, e.g. despite being sciences, pure maths, and formal logic are quite navel gazely, more focused on the intangible, and arguably less practical too.
It's just that I've seen things like scientific dancing... I don't think that's good for either dancing or science :P
I don't think it's about science vs non science, but a lot of times social sciences make more sense in ~humanities.
But why?
That is just how we are used to do here. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just a custom and an unwritten guideline.
We could really use ~social science. We have both ~science and ~humanities but this is neither.
It is. And science isn't only non-social sciences. Social science is not a halfway point between science and humanities. It's just application of scientific principles to human pursuits.
Which is not the same as being experimentally verifiable in the way that chemistry or physics is.
But I was not trying for a theoretical debate, just following the practice in major universities and libraries. But human behavior is fuzzy and variable and hard to study.
This is entirely a misunderstanding. Human studies can be strictly experimental. When they can be they are. When the can't be, it's because there is no ethical way to give a participant a disorder, disease, injury, or unnecessary health-endangering intervention.
It's hard to study, but we study it, and we can quantify how well we do.
That's fair and I apologize. I do however think that some of the so called social sciences are less scientific than others in their methods. Looking at you economics.
Yeah, I agree. From an organizational standpoint alone a
social_science~science.social group make sense to have, even if the group isn't super active. cc: @Deimos, any chance we could get that, even thought the last new group round was so recent?I don't get it. I hope you rethink it.
I see. I’ve noticed several other stories where I’ve thought the same thing, and I’ll keep in mind in the future that the cause may be moderators just doing their best to keep the site organized.
Yeah, we're generally just trying to keep things organized, but pobody's nerfect. Next time, feel free to just give me a ping if you have any problems with where things were moved, tags that were applied, etc and I can try to address the issue for you.
See my comment immediately above yours.
I still think it belongs in ~science, but I'll defer to the consensus.
Fair enough. I can see the connection due to it being about an Ontario College of Psychologists mandate, and Canadian legal ruling on that, but I don't think it's what most ~science subscribers would want or expect to see there. This feels to me more like a basic news item about Peterson himself than it does about anything actually pertinent to the field of psychology.
On this site in particular, law content is distributed widely depending on the facts of the case. You could have five stories about antitrust in five different forums with the on featuring Google in ~tech
It is. Most scientific organizations have an ethics code, and that varies by jurisdiction. Science is not just the methods and findings.