Jordan Peterson

#29
#29
n_huffhines said:
Timely

Jordan Peterson is a Conservative, Not a Classical Liberal
Click to expand...

This article seems to make a lot of assumptions. They claim he isn't liberal because he believes in the supremacy of hierarchy. However, he has never claimed that hierarchies are inherently good. His argument is that they are natural and that we should be very careful when trying to optimize or deconstruct them because they are also irreducibly complicated. Irreducibly complicated systems tend towards entropy when they are lifted up off their foundations and smashed. Don't see how that is grounds to not be considered liberal. Then there's the bill C-16 issue. People like to chalk up his opposition to this bill as conservative minded xenophobia. He has said on multiple occasions that he will call a trans person by their preferred pronoun if requested by that individual. His argument is that the government ought not have a damn say in the issue. How could any classical liberal possibly disagree with that?
 
#31
#31
He is not a politician, just a psychologist/author. Who cares, just another guy who the press tried to crucify because he spoke out against their agenda. Canada made it a law to use new age vocabulary when speaking to a trans person, yee instead of you or something like that. He spoke out against the government making words a legal issue and the press acted like he was anti transgender. Ends up they made him famous for nothing, par for the course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad
#33
#33
SamRebel35 said:
This article seems to make a lot of assumptions. They claim he isn't liberal because he believes in the supremacy of hierarchy. However, he has never claimed that hierarchies are inherently good. His argument is that they are natural and that we should be very careful when trying to optimize or deconstruct them because they are also irreducibly complicated. Irreducibly complicated systems tend towards entropy when they are lifted up off their foundations and smashed. Don't see how that is grounds to not be considered liberal. Then there's the bill C-16 issue. People like to chalk up his opposition to this bill as conservative minded xenophobia. He has said on multiple occasions that he will call a trans person by their preferred pronoun if requested by that individual. His argument is that the government ought not have a damn say in the issue. How could any classical liberal possibly disagree with that?
Click to expand...

Did the author argue that he said hierarchy is "inherently good"?

Maybe that interpretation of his teachings doesn't exclude a classically liberal ideology, but it certainly isn't classically liberal to justify a hierarchy. That's more of a conservative thing to do.

Whether it's driven by xenophobia or not, it's not classically liberal to oppose the free movement of people.

Was the article objecting to that aspect of his transgender position?
 
#34
#34
IPleadInsanity said:
He is not a politician, just a psychologist/author. Who cares, just another guy who the press tried to crucify because he spoke out against their agenda. Canada made it a law to use new age vocabulary when speaking to a trans person, yee instead of you or something like that. He spoke out against the government making words a legal issue and the press acted like he was anti transgender. Ends up they made him famous for nothing, par for the course.
Click to expand...
No, C-16 did nothing of the sort. That's his mischaracterization of the bill--he assumes that not using preferred pronouns is tantamount to hate speech.
 
#35
#35
Wafflestomper said:
No, C-16 did nothing of the sort. That's his mischaracterization of the bill--he assumes that not using preferred pronouns is tantamount to hate speech.
Click to expand...

Point is, why should the government legislate anything regarding speech? Doesn't matter what it is. Should the government require you to address elders as sir?
 
#36
#36
IPleadInsanity said:
Point is, why should the government legislate anything regarding speech? Doesn't matter what it is. Should the government require you to address elders as sir?
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating for the government to regulate speech. I'm saying Peterson wrongly claimed that under C-16 he could be fined or imprisoned for not using preferred pronouns.
 
#37
#37
Wafflestomper said:
I'm not advocating for the government to regulate speech. I'm saying Peterson wrongly claimed that under C-16 he could be fined or imprisoned for not using preferred pronouns.
Click to expand...


I don't know you may be right but when they start talking about criminal code and taking into consideration when sentencing, sounds pretty serious to me.

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.
 
#38
#38
n_huffhines said:
Did the author argue that he said hierarchy is "inherently good"?

Maybe that interpretation of his teachings doesn't exclude a classically liberal ideology, but it certainly isn't classically liberal to justify a hierarchy. That's more of a conservative thing to do.

Whether it's driven by xenophobia or not, it's not classically liberal to oppose the free movement of people.

Was the article objecting to that aspect of his transgender position?
Click to expand...

Free movement of people? What am I missing here?
 
#39
#39
SamRebel35 said:
Free movement of people? What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

Do you think it would be libertarian for you to vote for a law that prevents people from existing on land that you don't own and from voluntarily entering into work contracts with companies you have no say in?
 
#40
#40
Wafflestomper said:
I'm not advocating for the government to regulate speech. I'm saying Peterson wrongly claimed that under C-16 he could be fined or imprisoned for not using preferred pronouns.
Click to expand...

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has a policy guideline saying that “refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun” could constitute gender-based harassment.
 
#41
#41
n_huffhines said:
Do you think it would be libertarian for you to vote for a law that prevents people from existing on land that you don't own and from voluntarily entering into work contracts with companies you have no say in?
Click to expand...

No. Would it be very libertarian to vote for a bill which limits free speech and conversely seeks to enforce compelled speech?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#47
#47
H
n_huffhines said:
No, and I'm wondering why you ask?
Click to expand...

Huff, I'm not understanding what you're trying to debate. I read the article you posted. My thoughts are that the author uses a few distinguishing factors to say "see, how could he be libertarian? " They claim he believes freedom will lead to chaos. He has never said that. He talks about hierarchies often. He talks about how they are imperfect and complex. His main remark about them is that if a hierarchy is based on competence and is vastly complex, be careful when you're trying to destroy it because God knows what else you will destroy with it. He never claims that freedom can't exist simultaneously with the existence of hierarchies of competence.

The article goes on to say that if you're against bill c-16, you can't be libertarian because it is a bill about discrimination. Jordan Peterson does not believe in discrimination of anyone. He also happens to believe that poorly worded laws that will most certainly be used to compel "correct" speech are not harmonious with the ideals of a free society.
 
#48
#48
n_huffhines said:
I think I misunderstood your original comment about C-16. The xenophobia part threw me off, because I can't figure out what that has to do with trans?
Click to expand...

Oh whoops. My bad. I shouldn't have used that. Bigotry of trans people is what I was referring to.
 
#49
#49
SamRebel35 said:
The Ontario Human Rights Commission has a policy guideline saying that “refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun” could constitute gender-based harassment.
Click to expand...
What I found on their website said that gender-based harassment could include refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun. Constitute implies that only that is required to make an action gender-based harassment.

I think I remember reading that Ontario has had the gender-based harassment laws since 2012. I wonder how many people have been prosecuted/fined for simply using the "wrong" pronoun?
 
#50
#50
SamRebel35 said:
This article seems to make a lot of assumptions. They claim he isn't liberal because he believes in the supremacy of hierarchy. However, he has never claimed that hierarchies are inherently good. His argument is that they are natural and that we should be very careful when trying to optimize or deconstruct them because they are also irreducibly complicated. Irreducibly complicated systems tend towards entropy when they are lifted up off their foundations and smashed. Don't see how that is grounds to not be considered liberal. Then there's the bill C-16 issue. People like to chalk up his opposition to this bill as conservative minded xenophobia. He has said on multiple occasions that he will call a trans person by their preferred pronoun if requested by that individual. His argument is that the government ought not have a damn say in the issue. How could any classical liberal possibly disagree with that?
Click to expand...

Because liberals are really totalitarians
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top