3 ms·

You're being pedantic. I'm characterizing what he's saying using colorful language of my own, but the principles are the same. He objects to gender pronoun chan

by beat 9y ago

You're being pedantic. I'm characterizing what he's saying using colorful language of my own, but the principles are the same. He objects to gender pronoun changes because he sees them as postmodernism, he believes postmodernism derives from Marxism, and he sees Marxism as authoritarian oppression. So in Peterson's worldview, the difference between being asked to use ze and zim by someone, and sending Solzhenitsyn to a Siberian death camp, is merely a matter of degree, not of kind. And I'm quite sure he'd agree with my assessment here.

stcredzero 9y ago
I'm characterizing what he's saying using colorful language of my own, but the principles are the same. No. It's one thing to advocate that everyone should be nice and say "hello." It's an entirely different thing to advocate for a law that says you will be dragged before a kangaroo court for failing to say "hello," where a scientifically dubious "test of unconscious bias" will be used as evidence of your guilt. Either your bias is showing, or you're missing the distinction. So in Peterson's worldview, the difference between being asked to use ze and zim by someone, and sending Solzhenitsyn to a Siberian death camp, is merely a matter of degree, not of kind. If you study the detailed legal history of the Weimar Republic, then you'd be prone to agree. The Nazis didn't have to change the Weimar laws a whole lot, because the Left-leaning Weimar republic left loopholes in the law that basically amounted to, "...unless the state deems it for the common good." If you let "activists" erode due process and create "crimes" of "unconscious bias," then you are creating legal means for people to engage in the sorts of accusations which sent people to the Gulag. The Magna Carta and particularly Habeas Corpus came about because laws which were about one thing were abused out of poltical expedience.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > It's one thing to advocate that everyone should be nice and say "hello." It's an entirely different thing to advocate for a law that says you will be dragged before a kangaroo court for failing to say "hello," where a scientifically dubious "test of unconscious bias" will be used as evidence of your guilt. And it's yet another thing to criticize a law for saying that when, in fact, the law says nothing of the sort.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Only if you accept the dishonest sleight of hand, in that the Human Rights Tribunals are not courts of law. They are "kangaroo courts" by my estimation.

by beat 9y ago

stcredzero 9y ago

I'm characterizing what he's saying using colorful language of my own, but the principles are the same. No. It's one thing to advocate that everyone should be nice and say "hello." It's an entirely different thing to advocate for a law that says you will be dragged before a kangaroo court for failing to say "hello," where a scientifically dubious "test of unconscious bias" will be used as evidence of your guilt. Either your bias is showing, or you're missing the distinction. So in Peterson's worldview, the difference between being asked to use ze and zim by someone, and sending Solzhenitsyn to a Siberian death camp, is merely a matter of degree, not of kind. If you study the detailed legal history of the Weimar Republic, then you'd be prone to agree. The Nazis didn't have to change the Weimar laws a whole lot, because the Left-leaning Weimar republic left loopholes in the law that basically amounted to, "...unless the state deems it for the common good." If you let "activists" erode due process and create "crimes" of "unconscious bias," then you are creating legal means for people to engage in the sorts of accusations which sent people to the Gulag. The Magna Carta and particularly Habeas Corpus came about because laws which were about one thing were abused out of poltical expedience.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> It's one thing to advocate that everyone should be nice and say "hello." It's an entirely different thing to advocate for a law that says you will be dragged before a kangaroo court for failing to say "hello," where a scientifically dubious "test of unconscious bias" will be used as evidence of your guilt. And it's yet another thing to criticize a law for saying that when, in fact, the law says nothing of the sort.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Only if you accept the dishonest sleight of hand, in that the Human Rights Tribunals are not courts of law. They are "kangaroo courts" by my estimation.