3 ms·

I wouldn't say your point about how he cultivated attention is accurate. At every possible opportunity, in every interview and discussion, he's stated that his

by ac2u 9y ago

I wouldn't say your point about how he cultivated attention is accurate. At every possible opportunity, in every interview and discussion, he's stated that his problem is not the use of these words, it's the prospect of forcing their use through policy and categorizing this as a form of forcing speech. I agree with you that overall it's ended up as a net positive for him, at least income and publicity wise.

notahacker 9y ago
If his criticisms of policies were restricted to traditional freedom of speech arguments like those made by many others he'd have attracted little attention (and would still have a monetised YouTube channel instead of a big alt-right following on Patreon). Instead, he's taken the approach of arguing that the gender pronouns themselves promote murderous communism and his colleagues should be ashamed of using them. Lest one think he is more crusader for academic freedom with a minor in hyperbole than latter day wannabe McCarthyist with a minor in hypocrisy, he combines that with interviews demanding that "counter-civilization" women's studies programmes be defunded along with half the rest of the humanities department because they're "dangerous" and "revolutionary" . At every possible opportunity, in every interview and discussion, he's made it abundantly clear that he's the exact mirror image of the most paranoid, censorious and utterly impervious to reason "social justice warriors" on campus - just somebody that wants to class everything they disagree with as Marxism rather than hate speech
- ac2u 9y ago
  |Instead, he's taken the approach of arguing that the gender pronouns themselves promote murderous communism I mean, at the risk of repeating myself, I just said that every statement he has ever made on the issue that I can find focuses on compelled speech via policy rather than disagreeing with using the words by free will. Rather than come back with sources, you just repeated the assertion. | and his colleagues should be ashamed of using them Again, please show where he said this. You're simply doubling down rather than having a reasoned discussion with it. You're straw-manning the whole situation by saying "If his criticisms of policies were restricted to traditional freedom of speech arguments like those made by many others he'd have attracted little attention". That's basically saying "I'm saying this is the REAL reason why he's popular".
  - notahacker 9y ago
    Here's a not-atypical example in which he: (i) acknowledges the controversy surrounded his statements wouldn't use certain pronouns under any circumstances because they were Marxist (ii) spends several paragraphs repeating this claim about Marxism, and lambasts his fellow professors for being Marxists (though you'll have to go elsewhere for his many arguments in favour of defunding the ones he thinks are dangerous revolutionaries) (iii) concludes by arguing people don't have the right to choose their preferred pronoun because multiple gender identities are harmful Sure, he also expresses concern that his free speech might be constrained. But I don't think that anyone can argue in good faith that the thrust of that argument is channelling Voltaire rather than insisting that gender nonconformism is a Marxist plot. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-the-right-to-be-politically-incorrect http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-the-right-to... But yeah, I'm sure I'm straw-manning and really he's earned his recently notoriety and $50k per month on Patreon for having the same view on campus speech as the ACLU...
    - ac2u 9y ago
      > and lambasts his fellow professors for being Marxists I suspect You're employing a little slight of hand here that reads like he's shouting "marxist!" at all professors rather than some professors, that is, the professors who he claims promote that ideology. If he suspects that some professors have that aim, he's entitled to call out what he sees without people painting it like he's screaming at shadows. We could argue around in circles about this, although I think we might agree on what we're debating. - He argues that using non-traditional gender pronouns is road to gulags. (paraphrasing your first comment) vs - He argues that compelling speech through policy is a road to gulags, and the noun issue at hand happens to be a vehicle in this particular instance. I'm not saying that I agree with his thoughts on the nouns in question, but it seems that your focus is the hill he chose to stand on, whereas I'd argue that it's important that people stand on hills when it comes to laws that compel speech. When you say that he argues that people don't have the right to choose their own nouns, I think it's lacking context from his lectures. He explains in his talks that he sees rights as something that become the responsibilities of other people. So in essence here he's simply repeating his assertion that his speech, and therefore his thoughts (if you accept his premise that control of speech is a tool to shape thought), shouldn't be compelled by demands of other people to control speech via policy. I'd concede that it's not the readers fault that the context is lacking in the writing, and that leaves it open for you to reasonably argue that he didn't make that statement with this context in mind. Anecdotally from watching hours of interviews and lectures, I'd make a claim that the context is important.

by ac2u 9y ago

notahacker 9y ago

If his criticisms of policies were restricted to traditional freedom of speech arguments like those made by many others he'd have attracted little attention (and would still have a monetised YouTube channel instead of a big alt-right following on Patreon). Instead, he's taken the approach of arguing that the gender pronouns themselves promote murderous communism and his colleagues should be ashamed of using them. Lest one think he is more crusader for academic freedom with a minor in hyperbole than latter day wannabe McCarthyist with a minor in hypocrisy, he combines that with interviews demanding that "counter-civilization" women's studies programmes be defunded along with half the rest of the humanities department because they're "dangerous" and "revolutionary" . At every possible opportunity, in every interview and discussion, he's made it abundantly clear that he's the exact mirror image of the most paranoid, censorious and utterly impervious to reason "social justice warriors" on campus - just somebody that wants to class everything they disagree with as Marxism rather than hate speech

ac2u 9y ago
|Instead, he's taken the approach of arguing that the gender pronouns themselves promote murderous communism I mean, at the risk of repeating myself, I just said that every statement he has ever made on the issue that I can find focuses on compelled speech via policy rather than disagreeing with using the words by free will. Rather than come back with sources, you just repeated the assertion. | and his colleagues should be ashamed of using them Again, please show where he said this. You're simply doubling down rather than having a reasoned discussion with it. You're straw-manning the whole situation by saying "If his criticisms of policies were restricted to traditional freedom of speech arguments like those made by many others he'd have attracted little attention". That's basically saying "I'm saying this is the REAL reason why he's popular".
- notahacker 9y ago
  Here's a not-atypical example in which he: (i) acknowledges the controversy surrounded his statements wouldn't use certain pronouns under any circumstances because they were Marxist (ii) spends several paragraphs repeating this claim about Marxism, and lambasts his fellow professors for being Marxists (though you'll have to go elsewhere for his many arguments in favour of defunding the ones he thinks are dangerous revolutionaries) (iii) concludes by arguing people don't have the right to choose their preferred pronoun because multiple gender identities are harmful Sure, he also expresses concern that his free speech might be constrained. But I don't think that anyone can argue in good faith that the thrust of that argument is channelling Voltaire rather than insisting that gender nonconformism is a Marxist plot. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-the-right-to-be-politically-incorrect http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-the-right-to... But yeah, I'm sure I'm straw-manning and really he's earned his recently notoriety and $50k per month on Patreon for having the same view on campus speech as the ACLU...
  - ac2u 9y ago
    > and lambasts his fellow professors for being Marxists I suspect You're employing a little slight of hand here that reads like he's shouting "marxist!" at all professors rather than some professors, that is, the professors who he claims promote that ideology. If he suspects that some professors have that aim, he's entitled to call out what he sees without people painting it like he's screaming at shadows. We could argue around in circles about this, although I think we might agree on what we're debating. - He argues that using non-traditional gender pronouns is road to gulags. (paraphrasing your first comment) vs - He argues that compelling speech through policy is a road to gulags, and the noun issue at hand happens to be a vehicle in this particular instance. I'm not saying that I agree with his thoughts on the nouns in question, but it seems that your focus is the hill he chose to stand on, whereas I'd argue that it's important that people stand on hills when it comes to laws that compel speech. When you say that he argues that people don't have the right to choose their own nouns, I think it's lacking context from his lectures. He explains in his talks that he sees rights as something that become the responsibilities of other people. So in essence here he's simply repeating his assertion that his speech, and therefore his thoughts (if you accept his premise that control of speech is a tool to shape thought), shouldn't be compelled by demands of other people to control speech via policy. I'd concede that it's not the readers fault that the context is lacking in the writing, and that leaves it open for you to reasonably argue that he didn't make that statement with this context in mind. Anecdotally from watching hours of interviews and lectures, I'd make a claim that the context is important.