5 ms·

Thinking to his issue over pronouns... He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred p

by beat 9y ago

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

renlo 9y ago
I want you to refer to me using the 'floop' pronoun. Here's an example sentence: `Floop was referring to floopself when floop said floop wanted to go home`. If you don't use my 'floop' pronoun you're an asshole and a bigot, just apologize to me and I will forgive you. In all seriousness, I have no issue with people who want to be referred to by traditional pronouns that they choose for themselves. I do have an issue when people make up pronouns and demand that you use them, and if you don't use them then it makes you a bigot and an asshole (as you mention yourself). There are enough difficulties in remembering things as it is, why do I need to remember what made up pronoun you want me to use?
- nkrisc 9y ago
  If you sincerely wanted that, then I would at least try to respect that. You don't need to. You can choose to or not to. And they can choose to think you're an asshole. That's their choice. You can't control what they think of you just as they can't control what you call them.
- kazinator 9y ago
  If it was even remotely plausible that being addressed using derivatives of "he" or "she" rather than "floop" caused you distress, I think I'd try to use "floop". If the "floop" thing is just wantonly imposing your will over how others speak, then the pendulum has swung the other way: you're now falling afoul of "don't be an asshole".
- beat 9y ago
  If you're serious about being called a floop, that's fine. I'll try to be good about it. If you're demanding to be called a floop when you don't see yourself as a floop, just so you can mock those who don't call you floop as an ironic metaphor for people who are actually serious about their pronouns, then you're not a floop. You're an asshole. And trust me as someone who has a lot of friends with unusual gender identities - if you're sincere, they won't be calling you an asshole and a bigot when you sometimes screw up, because they know you're trying, and they know it's hard. It's refusal that gets you called out, not accidents.
DanAndersen 9y ago
Respectfully, I'd like to put this in a different frame. "Being an asshole" isn't some universal quality. If someone is complaining that someone else is "being an asshole," what is essentially meant is that person "is doing something for which they should be socially shamed." There's nothing inherently right or wrong with having a system of shaming in a society, but it's something particular to a culture and a time. These things come about through consensus and if there isn't some consensus that that's the way things are, then those attempting to impose new norms are ironically also "being assholes." When you have moral society in recent decades changing very rapidly in terms of what is being considered acceptable or not (whether or not you consider that positive progress), it's going to feel like whiplash to people who are not on the vanguard of the latest new definition of what's acceptable. People say, "Wait a second, I was taught to be a decent person, I think I'm a decent person -- who are these people telling me that I'm now a hateful person for doing or not doing what seemed reasonable up until a couple years ago? Do the people telling me this have moral authority in my eyes?" Cultural practices take time to adjust or to be adjusted externally. Move too fast and people won't be happy about it, and that should be understood.
- beat 9y ago
  Most people with unusual gender identities understand this, and are understanding and patient with those who are making an effort to respect their wishes. It's those who consciously refuse, or mock their attempts to clarify their identities, that get called out, and they deserve it. Yeah, it's hard for us. Hell, I'm 52. I have a lot of adjustment to do. But I try to do it, because I respect my friends. (Patton Oswald did a really excellent speech about this, btw.) For my own part, a lot of my frustration is the loud and sincerely meant (if wrongheaded) declarations of victimhood by the privileged, simply for being asked to be nice to others. So when I hear Jordan Peterson say he's being oppressed by the evil forces of Marxist postmodernism for being asked to use preferred pronouns... I hear a comfortable, privileged person complaining about how he's a victim. And when he doubles down and says people shouldn't get to choose their own pronouns, their own identity, and instead society should choose for them? Then he's a hypocrite. And an asshole.
  - 9y ago
nouveaux 9y ago
Jordan Peterson is on record saying he would use preferred pronouns. He is opposed to the law and regulation of these pronouns: https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=21m39s https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=21m39s 23m16s is where he states he would use preferred pronouns.
- beat 9y ago
  I'm not surprised, because Jordan Peterson is thoughtful. And yet, a hundred thousand assholes gleefully share the video clip of him getting in the face of someone confronting him about pronouns, him talking about how it's oppressive, and they take it as the intellectual seal of approval for their refusal to use preferred pronouns, based on their contempt for those who ask for it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  - 1123581321 9y ago
    I notice you have used the insult “asshole” twice when no one else is, and you are using the mention of the word as proof someone is wrong. Would you consider writing what someone has specifically done wrong, rather than the insult? It’d be more clear, and we wouldn’t need to guess whether your overall assessment of people is reliable.
jnbiche 9y ago
There are some 4 or 5 new pronoun classes, totally over 30+ new gender pronouns recognized by some transgender rights activists. This UW LGBT Resource Center lists an additional 7 pronoun classes, totaling 35 new pronouns [1]. So imagine the typical college professor. They've got what? Three or four classes of up to 50 or 60 students? So you want them remember not only each student's name, but also which of these new pronoun class they prefer, as well as the proper declination of that pronoun class? And if someone prefers not to do this, it's because they're an asshole? My guess is that Peterson would have been happy to try to use preferred pronouns for his students, if only he weren't being forced to do so by some human rights act about pronouns and coerced by various activists groups. He's basically said as much before. For the record, I'm in favor of most transgender rights issues (re: employment, anti-violence, identity documents, etc). But you can't go passing laws to force changes in attitude. US lawmakers did the right thing by passing civil rights laws in the 1960s, but those lawmakers didn't then go and outlaw the use of the n-word. That would have been a bridge too far. People have to learn from those around them what is and isn't appropriate. You can't just force them to think and speak the way you want by force of law. Or at least, we don't typically try to do that in free societies. 1. http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/ http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/
- beat 9y ago
  It's very simple, really. You use what seems obvious, and if someone corrects you in one-on-one conversation, you finish the conversation doing the best you can to respect their wishes. And if you screw up, you apologize and self-correct. We're not talking about 200 students in this case. We're talking about one on one conversation with one person. That's when pronouns matter. Being unhappy about coercive regulation is an entirely separate issue from trying to do the decent and not terribly difficult thing. And using the coercion as justification for not doing it is, bluntly, an excuse. It's turning around and claiming yourself the victim of what you do to others.
  - jnbiche 9y ago
    > We're not talking about 200 students in this case. We're talking about one on one conversation with one person. That's when pronouns matter. Professors never engage in one-on-one conversation with their students? And they never refer to their students in the third-person within the classroom? > And using the coercion as justification for not doing it is, bluntly, an excuse. It's turning around and claiming yourself the victim of what you do to others. I don't think Peterson sees himself as a victim, at all. I think he's alarmed and outraged that proscriptive laws governing his speech have been passed. And as an American who's pretty happy with our 1st amendment, I agree with him. I mean, forget for a moment that this is concerning transgender rights. If a country like Canada continues to outlaw certain ways of speaking, at what point would that concern you? Or would it ever?
stcredzero 9y ago
He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole. AFAIK, he does use preferred pronouns. Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole. If one is faced with oppressive ideologues who refuse to engage in dialogue and just want to coerce you, the proper response is to stand up to them. He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism. I genuinely think that the critiques of Postmodern Social Construction are thoughtful and interesting. I also think they provide intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism, dressed up as "activism." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj28qAS8MWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj28qAS8MWU
lliamander 9y ago
> Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole. Let me ask you, do you think requests for preferred pronouns are rooted in a correct understanding of human nature? Or are you merely accommodating something you believe to be mistaken so as to not hurt someone who likely be (on net) hurt by a more honest approach?
- beat 9y ago
  Let me give you a libertarian answer... it's up to individuals to decide what their own identity is. When an individual identifies as one thing, and society refuses to accept that identity and imposes labels they find offensive, then they are being oppressed. And that's a much more substantial form of oppression than "Please don't say that" is. I'm utterly shocked (not really) how many people proudly wave a flag of liberty, but are quite content for society to denounce and punish harmless individual expression, if they aren't comfortable with that expression.
  - DashRattlesnake 9y ago
    > it's up to individuals to decide what their own identity is. When an individual identifies as one thing... That's actually not true and not workable. A very obvious example is a criminal who identifies as a good, upstanding person. IMHO there are actually two kinds of identity (at least). They are separate things, but related and often confused. 1. Self-identity: the identity that someone applies to themselves based on their own thoughts and aspirations. This is very closely related to one's inner life. This is the identity that you're referring to above. 2. Applied-identity (for lack of a better term): the identity that each person applies to someone else based on their own thoughts, beliefs, and experiences with that person. Someone's reputation is an example. If you try to force everyone's applied-identity of you to conform with your self-identity, that's also a form of oppression. What and how they think of you is their own business.
  - lliamander 9y ago
    I'm not sure that's a particularly libertarian answer. But whether your views belong to a particular political label or not is not my main concern. My question was whether you think such identity claims are true. Now maybe you don't think it matters, and that we should use preferred pronouns regardless. But at that point you are saying that people should lie for the sake of politeness. The request isn't just "Please don't say that"; it's "Please say this other thing even if you don't believe it's true".
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
I think I generally agree with your second paragraph. We should not deliberately be jerks to others, even if they are different from us. And also, we should not be under legal coercion to not be jerks - that way lies at least serious trouble, and maybe social madness. But I think I disagree with your third paragraph. People who have thoughtful, interesting things to say should say them. (They should also take care to specify what they don't mean, to discredit "followers" who run off in bad directions. Or else, if they agree with those followers, non-followers will conclude that the bad directions taint the thoughtful and interesting things.)
- beat 9y ago
  There's the rub, though. When you have something interesting to say that may well be taken the wrong way to justify things you despise (as I believe is the case here), you should take care to clarify as well as possible - and clarify up front, with caveats, to reduce the number of people hearing only the first half of your sentence. And even then, people will hear what they want to hear. However carefully Peterson speaks his thoughts on this manner, there will still be a lot of people who now think it's the intellectual thing to do to beat up a dude in a dress. Which makes speaking one's mind, however truthfully, an ethical dilemma. This is the hole below the waterline in the sinking ship of radical honesty. This is why "Don't be an asshole" is more complicated than it sounds. I kind of hate to beat on Peterson too hard for this, though. He's suddenly acquired a large and unexpected following that he didn't actively pursue. But he needs to deal with the ugly reality of what kind of people make up the bulk of that following, and how his words and ideas affect them. It's an ongoing learning experience.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Well, there's no way I can see that you can say anything and prevent people from reading into it what they want it to say. (This is especially true if they're doing it deliberately - trying to use your stuff as a smokescreen to give support for their pre-chosen position.) You can make it harder for them. But you can't stop them.
pluto9 9y ago
Perhaps the asshole is the person who expects the rest of the world to jump through linguistic hoops in order to protect their carefully maintained delusions.

by beat 9y ago

renlo 9y ago

I want you to refer to me using the 'floop' pronoun. Here's an example sentence: `Floop was referring to floopself when floop said floop wanted to go home`. If you don't use my 'floop' pronoun you're an asshole and a bigot, just apologize to me and I will forgive you. In all seriousness, I have no issue with people who want to be referred to by traditional pronouns that they choose for themselves. I do have an issue when people make up pronouns and demand that you use them, and if you don't use them then it makes you a bigot and an asshole (as you mention yourself). There are enough difficulties in remembering things as it is, why do I need to remember what made up pronoun you want me to use?

nkrisc 9y ago
If you sincerely wanted that, then I would at least try to respect that. You don't need to. You can choose to or not to. And they can choose to think you're an asshole. That's their choice. You can't control what they think of you just as they can't control what you call them.
kazinator 9y ago
If it was even remotely plausible that being addressed using derivatives of "he" or "she" rather than "floop" caused you distress, I think I'd try to use "floop". If the "floop" thing is just wantonly imposing your will over how others speak, then the pendulum has swung the other way: you're now falling afoul of "don't be an asshole".
beat 9y ago
If you're serious about being called a floop, that's fine. I'll try to be good about it. If you're demanding to be called a floop when you don't see yourself as a floop, just so you can mock those who don't call you floop as an ironic metaphor for people who are actually serious about their pronouns, then you're not a floop. You're an asshole. And trust me as someone who has a lot of friends with unusual gender identities - if you're sincere, they won't be calling you an asshole and a bigot when you sometimes screw up, because they know you're trying, and they know it's hard. It's refusal that gets you called out, not accidents.

DanAndersen 9y ago

Respectfully, I'd like to put this in a different frame. "Being an asshole" isn't some universal quality. If someone is complaining that someone else is "being an asshole," what is essentially meant is that person "is doing something for which they should be socially shamed." There's nothing inherently right or wrong with having a system of shaming in a society, but it's something particular to a culture and a time. These things come about through consensus and if there isn't some consensus that that's the way things are, then those attempting to impose new norms are ironically also "being assholes." When you have moral society in recent decades changing very rapidly in terms of what is being considered acceptable or not (whether or not you consider that positive progress), it's going to feel like whiplash to people who are not on the vanguard of the latest new definition of what's acceptable. People say, "Wait a second, I was taught to be a decent person, I think I'm a decent person -- who are these people telling me that I'm now a hateful person for doing or not doing what seemed reasonable up until a couple years ago? Do the people telling me this have moral authority in my eyes?" Cultural practices take time to adjust or to be adjusted externally. Move too fast and people won't be happy about it, and that should be understood.

beat 9y ago
Most people with unusual gender identities understand this, and are understanding and patient with those who are making an effort to respect their wishes. It's those who consciously refuse, or mock their attempts to clarify their identities, that get called out, and they deserve it. Yeah, it's hard for us. Hell, I'm 52. I have a lot of adjustment to do. But I try to do it, because I respect my friends. (Patton Oswald did a really excellent speech about this, btw.) For my own part, a lot of my frustration is the loud and sincerely meant (if wrongheaded) declarations of victimhood by the privileged, simply for being asked to be nice to others. So when I hear Jordan Peterson say he's being oppressed by the evil forces of Marxist postmodernism for being asked to use preferred pronouns... I hear a comfortable, privileged person complaining about how he's a victim. And when he doubles down and says people shouldn't get to choose their own pronouns, their own identity, and instead society should choose for them? Then he's a hypocrite. And an asshole.
- 9y ago

nouveaux 9y ago

Jordan Peterson is on record saying he would use preferred pronouns. He is opposed to the law and regulation of these pronouns: https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=21m39s https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=21m39s 23m16s is where he states he would use preferred pronouns.

beat 9y ago
I'm not surprised, because Jordan Peterson is thoughtful. And yet, a hundred thousand assholes gleefully share the video clip of him getting in the face of someone confronting him about pronouns, him talking about how it's oppressive, and they take it as the intellectual seal of approval for their refusal to use preferred pronouns, based on their contempt for those who ask for it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- 1123581321 9y ago
  I notice you have used the insult “asshole” twice when no one else is, and you are using the mention of the word as proof someone is wrong. Would you consider writing what someone has specifically done wrong, rather than the insult? It’d be more clear, and we wouldn’t need to guess whether your overall assessment of people is reliable.

jnbiche 9y ago

There are some 4 or 5 new pronoun classes, totally over 30+ new gender pronouns recognized by some transgender rights activists. This UW LGBT Resource Center lists an additional 7 pronoun classes, totaling 35 new pronouns [1]. So imagine the typical college professor. They've got what? Three or four classes of up to 50 or 60 students? So you want them remember not only each student's name, but also which of these new pronoun class they prefer, as well as the proper declination of that pronoun class? And if someone prefers not to do this, it's because they're an asshole? My guess is that Peterson would have been happy to try to use preferred pronouns for his students, if only he weren't being forced to do so by some human rights act about pronouns and coerced by various activists groups. He's basically said as much before. For the record, I'm in favor of most transgender rights issues (re: employment, anti-violence, identity documents, etc). But you can't go passing laws to force changes in attitude. US lawmakers did the right thing by passing civil rights laws in the 1960s, but those lawmakers didn't then go and outlaw the use of the n-word. That would have been a bridge too far. People have to learn from those around them what is and isn't appropriate. You can't just force them to think and speak the way you want by force of law. Or at least, we don't typically try to do that in free societies. 1. http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/ http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/

beat 9y ago
It's very simple, really. You use what seems obvious, and if someone corrects you in one-on-one conversation, you finish the conversation doing the best you can to respect their wishes. And if you screw up, you apologize and self-correct. We're not talking about 200 students in this case. We're talking about one on one conversation with one person. That's when pronouns matter. Being unhappy about coercive regulation is an entirely separate issue from trying to do the decent and not terribly difficult thing. And using the coercion as justification for not doing it is, bluntly, an excuse. It's turning around and claiming yourself the victim of what you do to others.
- jnbiche 9y ago
  > We're not talking about 200 students in this case. We're talking about one on one conversation with one person. That's when pronouns matter. Professors never engage in one-on-one conversation with their students? And they never refer to their students in the third-person within the classroom? > And using the coercion as justification for not doing it is, bluntly, an excuse. It's turning around and claiming yourself the victim of what you do to others. I don't think Peterson sees himself as a victim, at all. I think he's alarmed and outraged that proscriptive laws governing his speech have been passed. And as an American who's pretty happy with our 1st amendment, I agree with him. I mean, forget for a moment that this is concerning transgender rights. If a country like Canada continues to outlaw certain ways of speaking, at what point would that concern you? Or would it ever?

stcredzero 9y ago

He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole. AFAIK, he does use preferred pronouns. Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole. If one is faced with oppressive ideologues who refuse to engage in dialogue and just want to coerce you, the proper response is to stand up to them. He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism. I genuinely think that the critiques of Postmodern Social Construction are thoughtful and interesting. I also think they provide intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism, dressed up as "activism." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj28qAS8MWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj28qAS8MWU

lliamander 9y ago

> Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole. Let me ask you, do you think requests for preferred pronouns are rooted in a correct understanding of human nature? Or are you merely accommodating something you believe to be mistaken so as to not hurt someone who likely be (on net) hurt by a more honest approach?

beat 9y ago
Let me give you a libertarian answer... it's up to individuals to decide what their own identity is. When an individual identifies as one thing, and society refuses to accept that identity and imposes labels they find offensive, then they are being oppressed. And that's a much more substantial form of oppression than "Please don't say that" is. I'm utterly shocked (not really) how many people proudly wave a flag of liberty, but are quite content for society to denounce and punish harmless individual expression, if they aren't comfortable with that expression.
- DashRattlesnake 9y ago
  > it's up to individuals to decide what their own identity is. When an individual identifies as one thing... That's actually not true and not workable. A very obvious example is a criminal who identifies as a good, upstanding person. IMHO there are actually two kinds of identity (at least). They are separate things, but related and often confused. 1. Self-identity: the identity that someone applies to themselves based on their own thoughts and aspirations. This is very closely related to one's inner life. This is the identity that you're referring to above. 2. Applied-identity (for lack of a better term): the identity that each person applies to someone else based on their own thoughts, beliefs, and experiences with that person. Someone's reputation is an example. If you try to force everyone's applied-identity of you to conform with your self-identity, that's also a form of oppression. What and how they think of you is their own business.
- lliamander 9y ago
  I'm not sure that's a particularly libertarian answer. But whether your views belong to a particular political label or not is not my main concern. My question was whether you think such identity claims are true. Now maybe you don't think it matters, and that we should use preferred pronouns regardless. But at that point you are saying that people should lie for the sake of politeness. The request isn't just "Please don't say that"; it's "Please say this other thing even if you don't believe it's true".

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

I think I generally agree with your second paragraph. We should not deliberately be jerks to others, even if they are different from us. And also, we should not be under legal coercion to not be jerks - that way lies at least serious trouble, and maybe social madness. But I think I disagree with your third paragraph. People who have thoughtful, interesting things to say should say them. (They should also take care to specify what they don't mean, to discredit "followers" who run off in bad directions. Or else, if they agree with those followers, non-followers will conclude that the bad directions taint the thoughtful and interesting things.)

beat 9y ago
There's the rub, though. When you have something interesting to say that may well be taken the wrong way to justify things you despise (as I believe is the case here), you should take care to clarify as well as possible - and clarify up front, with caveats, to reduce the number of people hearing only the first half of your sentence. And even then, people will hear what they want to hear. However carefully Peterson speaks his thoughts on this manner, there will still be a lot of people who now think it's the intellectual thing to do to beat up a dude in a dress. Which makes speaking one's mind, however truthfully, an ethical dilemma. This is the hole below the waterline in the sinking ship of radical honesty. This is why "Don't be an asshole" is more complicated than it sounds. I kind of hate to beat on Peterson too hard for this, though. He's suddenly acquired a large and unexpected following that he didn't actively pursue. But he needs to deal with the ugly reality of what kind of people make up the bulk of that following, and how his words and ideas affect them. It's an ongoing learning experience.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Well, there's no way I can see that you can say anything and prevent people from reading into it what they want it to say. (This is especially true if they're doing it deliberately - trying to use your stuff as a smokescreen to give support for their pre-chosen position.) You can make it harder for them. But you can't stop them.

pluto9 9y ago

Perhaps the asshole is the person who expects the rest of the world to jump through linguistic hoops in order to protect their carefully maintained delusions.