Serious PC thread

[tented]

They were kids up for adoption, so they weren’t old enough to join the bandwagon. The problem being that the DCF (Department of Children and Families) authorities want children to be abused and to transition, and the chances of that are less when they’re in a Catholic household that teach them right from wrong…

Catholics aren’t the only people who would teach them right from wrong.

 

[Kieran]

it's really sad that Jamelle doesn't care about the Asian kids who have to obscure their race to increase their chances of admission. And he had no answer for the fact that black immigrants like Nigerians who dominate minority admissions should be excluded from affirmative action. I would love for them have explored why that is. I believe what they would find is that their family units are largely intact, and that's a more potent factor in educational success.

Jamelle didn’t seem to care about much other than promoting the vague and badly defined idea of group inequalities. It’s a popular idea but it didn’t make sense when other members of that group who are successful can be ignored without questioning why they succeed. And the Asian thing is a scandal. A tragedy. It seems Asians are the ones who face actual systemic racism.

You know, when somebody complains using such broad and non specific terms while at the same time demanding equally broad but very specific policies to address their complaint, policies that suit only themselves and their particular racial group, I have to think there’s something wrong.

But I think the format didn’t encourage more rigorous confrontation between them. Statements were left unchallenged and they moved on. TED folded to the activists in agreeing to host this debate, but they should have allowed more aggressive pushback from both sides..

 

[Kieran]

Catholics aren’t the only people who would teach them right from wrong.

Who said they were? The couple in this case are Catholics, and this was the basis of them being targeted for exclusion..

 

[tented]

Who said they were? The couple in this case are Catholics, and this was the basis of them being targeted for exclusion..

Sorry, I misread your post. My bad.

 

[Kieran]

Sorry, I misread your post. My bad.

You have nothing to apologise for, my friend!

 

[tented]

Richard Dawkins interviews Helen Joyce, discussing gender, sexuality, etc. [51 minutes]

 

[Kieran]

Have a look at this brief video, it’s 4 minutes long, a discussion between two professors on we hold somebody accountable for what they say, without cancelling them.

For me it’s interesting because the first professor says, we don’t hold them accountable, we accept that there are different views. The second professor basically says, we hold them accountable until they agree us, and if they keep repeating etc, and I have to say, the certainty of her view is why we have so many people getting cancelled just for holding heterodox views.

 

[Federberg]

fascinating conversation about Hollywood...

 

[Federberg]

Have a look at this brief video, it’s 4 minutes long, a discussion between two professors on we hold somebody accountable for what they say, without cancelling them.

For me it’s interesting because the first professor says, we don’t hold them accountable, we accept that there are different views. The second professor basically says, we hold them accountable until they agree us, and if they keep repeating etc, and I have to say, the certainty of her view is why we have so many people getting cancelled just for holding heterodox views.

the final parts of what she said made some sense to me, at least if you're in the business of being ok with the concept of cancelling. One thing Haidt made me consider is the fact that those who support cancellation, are also the ones who superficially promote diversity. But it's limited diversity and constrained to the physical or social realm. True diversity should include diversity of thought. The reality is that these people do not support diversity in its truest form. They try to enforce a unitary vision. Scary...

There are precious few new things under the sun. We need to be equipping people with the tools to engage in dialectic. Let's hear everything, don't hide the hate. Put it out in the sun, let's discuss, and win the argument! Cancelling is the polar opposite

 

[tented]

Have a look at this brief video, it’s 4 minutes long, a discussion between two professors on we hold somebody accountable for what they say, without cancelling them.

For me it’s interesting because the first professor says, we don’t hold them accountable, we accept that there are different views. The second professor basically says, we hold them accountable until they agree us, and if they keep repeating etc, and I have to say, the certainty of her view is why we have so many people getting cancelled just for holding heterodox views.

I agree with both of them, especially the part about not providing any room for forgiveness. When people say something which others (correctly or incorrectly) think is stupid or offensive, then the goal would be to get the people to change their minds. But if there’s no chance of having them be forgiven, then there’s no incentive to change.

 

[Kieran]

I agree with both of them, especially the part about not providing any room for forgiveness. When people say something which others (correctly or incorrectly) think is stupid or offensive, then the goal would be to get the people to change their minds. But if there’s no chance of having them be forgiven, then there’s no incentive to change.

Yeah but my problem there is that nowadays that logic of getting people to change their views or be cancelled could be applied to so-called transphobes and anyone who didn’t want to get vaccinated. And that’s how I read her.

I agree about forgiveness, especially when it comes to people exhuming tweets from 8 years ago or whatever. Nobody seems to believe that people can evolve in their views, anymore…

 

[tented]

Yeah but my problem there is that nowadays that logic of getting people to change their views or be cancelled could be applied to so-called transphobes and anyone who didn’t want to get vaccinated. And that’s how I read her.

I got the impression she and Haidt were in agreement, so I didn’t read her any differently.

I agree about forgiveness, especially when it comes to people exhuming tweets from 8 years ago or whatever. Nobody seems to believe that people can evolve in their views, anymore…

Exactly. This culture of being unforgiving (a.k.a. cancel culture) will eventually devour itself through hatred and intolerance, while preaching against hatred and intolerance.

 

[Federberg]

I got the impression she and Haidt were in agreement, so I didn’t read her any differently.

she seemed to say that cancellation is acceptable in some circumstances. I felt that she was on firmer ground that this new thing where woke-istas trawl people social media history to find something they said way back is bad. Personally I think that people should be able to clarify their mis-statements without having to completely retreat. That to me is more consistent with the real world. Sometimes we overstep. We should be allowed to clarify our statements without having to feel like we need to completely retract. Does that make sense?

 

[Kieran]

she seemed to say that cancellation is acceptable in some circumstances. I felt that she was on firmer ground that this new thing where woke-istas trawl people social media history to find something they said way back is bad. Personally I think that people should be able to clarify their mis-statements without having to completely retreat. That to me is more consistent with the real world. Sometimes we overstep. We should be allowed to clarify our statements without having to feel like we need to completely retract. Does that make sense?

Yeah, and that’s why I liked Jonathon Haidt’s whole view on this. We used to be able to live with all this stuff but now there’s so much ‘accountability’ it’s almost making most mistakes, or awkwardly expressed but perfectly fine opinions, seem like they’re Earth shattering catastrophes, rather than just humans talking freely…

 

[Federberg]

 

[Kieran]

So Jordan Peterson has lost a case in Canada after refusing an order by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to take a course in social media training. Basically, they found his social media activity to be lacking in professionalism and harming their profession. He argued otherwise and a court upheld their ruling.

He states that this interferes with his free speech. The court ruling stated:

“The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression," the decision written by Justice Paul Schabas reads, in part.

Peterson had said his statements were not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist, but instead were "off-duty opinions" — an argument the court rejected.

"Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist 'in the broad public space' where he claims to be helping 'millions of people,"' Schabas wrote.

"Peterson cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity."

The offensive tweets included:

• 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."

Now, we all know Jordan Peterson, even at a distance. And we know what he’s against. These tweets show that too. So isn’t it the case that this ruling happened because he’s critical of one ideology above others? He’s critical of protected ideas and protected minorities. He’s critical of cultural Marxism and the territorial claims of the Alphabet+++ gang and their political enablers.

Isn’t this ruling a dangerous but clear example of ideological overreach in the courts? And this can happen because the prevailing culture sees no difficulty in silencing and trying to humiliate anybody who disagrees it. It’s redolent of the old Soviet Union re-education camps. Imagine - you can lose your job if you don’t think the way a far left government wants you to think.

He says he’s going to take the course and broadcast it, I suppose to reverse the humiliation due to the frivolity of the course and its contents, and also to highlight this course which had as its aim control of how people think, and also because he will not allow them to take away his license, which he has earned…

 

[Federberg]

So Jordan Peterson has lost a case in Canada after refusing an order by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to take a course in social media training. Basically, they found his social media activity to be lacking in professionalism and harming their profession. He argued otherwise and a court upheld their ruling.

He states that this interferes with his free speech. The court ruling stated:



The offensive tweets included:




Now, we all know Jordan Peterson, even at a distance. And we know what he’s against. These tweets show that too. So isn’t it the case that this ruling happened because he’s critical of one ideology above others? He’s critical of protected ideas and protected minorities. He’s critical of cultural Marxism and the territorial claims of the Alphabet+++ gang and their political enablers.

Isn’t this ruling a dangerous but clear example of ideological overreach in the courts? And this can happen because the prevailing culture sees no difficulty in silencing and trying to humiliate anybody who disagrees it. It’s redolent of the old Soviet Union re-education camps. Imagine - you can lose your job if you don’t think the way a far left government wants you to think.

He says he’s going to take the course and broadcast it, I suppose to reverse the humiliation due to the frivolity of the course and its contents, and also to highlight this course which had as its aim control of how people think, and also because he will not allow them to take away his license, which he has earned…

I think at this stage his stance is one of principle. He could easily just quit the profession and continue with his life. The man earns in excess of a million dollars per month.. easily. I'm conflicted on this, but let me just say that I'm generally a big fan of Peterson. I think he has a lot of important and interesting things to say about Western culture and society. I try to separate his political views, which I mostly agree with, but for me it's the socio-cultural commentary that is compelling. Having said that, I won't say that I completely discount the concerns of the professional body. I think that their opposition to him is definitely political but at the same time, they might have a case. Imagine a medical doctor tweeting opposition to vaccinations - and I mean vaccinations in general, not the covid vax - such a thing would definitely be in conflict with the professional body of medical doctors, and could be considered to be harmful to their profession. The question becomes... has he done the equivalent? Based off those tweets it's hard to say definitively.. but it's messy... they might have a case

 

[Kieran]

I think at this stage his stance is one of principle. He could easily just quit the profession and continue with his life. The man earns in excess of a million dollars per month.. easily. I'm conflicted on this, but let me just say that I'm generally a big fan of Peterson. I think he has a lot of important and interesting things to say about Western culture and society. I try to separate his political views, which I mostly agree with, but for me it's the socio-cultural commentary that is compelling. Having said that, I won't say that I completely discount the concerns of the professional body. I think that their opposition to him is definitely political but at the same time, they might have a case. Imagine a medical doctor tweeting opposition to vaccinations - and I mean vaccinations in general, not the covid vax - such a thing would definitely be in conflict with the professional body of medical doctors, and could be considered to be harmful to their profession. The question becomes... has he done the equivalent? Based off those tweets it's hard to say definitively.. but it's messy... they might have a case

Yeah I kind of feel the same about him - he speaks common sense most of the time and he’s certainly more honest and thoughtful about the topics than his questioners tend to be. I stopped watching him for a while because it’s sometimes too intense, but I definitely think his detractors are wrong in how they represent his views.

Which is kind of why he ended up in court. When I think about it, that a court can decide that a grown educated person needs sensitivity training in how they tweet based simply on the basis of what crybullies want, while the same crybullies can incite violence on Twitter and say what they want, well, it’s obviously the world is strange, and getting stranger.

I get what you’re saying about them probably having a case, but his defence against that is that he was speaking freely as an individual and not as a psychologist. His public work as a psychologist has benefited so many people in their lives, but this one corner of this has trodden in the toes of cultural Marxists - and in Canada that can have you l lose your job - or have your bank account frozen - unless you learn to toe the politburo line.

With scientists dissenting, by the way, we saw a lot of that during covid, and scientists of similar credentials became either privileged or outcast depending on whether they repeated the new orthodoxies, or not..

 

[Federberg]

Yeah I kind of feel the same about him - he speaks common sense most of the time and he’s certainly more honest and thoughtful about the topics than his questioners tend to be. I stopped watching him for a while because it’s sometimes too intense, but I definitely think his detractors are wrong in how they represent his views.

Which is kind of why he ended up in court. When I think about it, that a court can decide that a grown educated person needs sensitivity training in how they tweet based simply on the basis of what crybullies want, while the same crybullies can incite violence on Twitter and say what they want, well, it’s obviously the world is strange, and getting stranger.

I get what you’re saying about them probably having a case, but his defence against that is that he was speaking freely as an individual and not as a psychologist. His public work as a psychologist has benefited so many people in their lives, but this one corner of this has trodden in the toes of cultural Marxists - and in Canada that can have you l lose your job - or have your bank account frozen - unless you learn to toe the politburo line.

With scientists dissenting, by the way, we saw a lot of that during covid, and scientists of similar credentials became either privileged or outcast depending on whether they repeated the new orthodoxies, or not..

yes it's a dangerous balance, which was why I was careful to take covid out of it. It's increasingly clear that the use of mRna is not settled science, and on reflection some of the dissenting voices should have been taken a bit more seriously. Which to me is one of the great tragedies of the Trump era, he made it political. But, going back to Peterson, I can't help feeling that part of his contesting the case is for clout. He's vastly wealthy now. And I don't believe that he would realistically go back to his previous academic profession. So why bother. It would actually be quite the F U to just rip up his membership card and tell them to buzz off imho

 

[Kieran]

yes it's a dangerous balance, which was why I was careful to take covid out of it. It's increasingly clear that the use of mRna is not settled science, and on reflection some of the dissenting voices should have been taken a bit more seriously. Which to me is one of the great tragedies of the Trump era, he made it political. But, going back to Peterson, I can't help feeling that part of his contesting the case is for clout. He's vastly wealthy now. And I don't believe that he would realistically go back to his previous academic profession. So why bother. It would actually be quite the F U to just rip up his membership card and tell them to buzz off imho

I know what you mean and part of me thinks that too, but I think he’s right to bother about this. Remember, Trudeau froze people’s bank accounts, they couldn’t pay their mortgages, they couldn’t access their funds because they wouldn’t agree with this tyrannical infant. I believe he’s lied about doing that, since. Sensitivity training is only another way to keep the citizenry in line.

Peterson has said he wants to retain his licence.

"I deserve it. I earned it. I haven't done anything to justify suspending it, and I don't want to give the hyenas their bones," he said earlier this year.

That’s kind of good reasoning even though he’ll have to do their thought-control program as a sufferance…