Did any of you lot catch this interview, live or afterwards? Those of us who happen to like Jordan Peterson far more than our current Prime Minister were quite amused.
Canuck Many thanks for the link above. I confess. for my sins, that I knew little about your Mr.Peterson but I have just remedied this by going to Amazon UK and buying both his autobiography and his "12 Rules for life", both, I hasten to add, on Kindle. Ron
So I have listened to about 2/3 of that particular talk. Hm... I don't really want to get into a row with posters on the forum, particularly. If you want to hear my point of view I can write more later, though.
I'll be interested in your comments Ron. We're now in the Barracks. Quite telling when the point is reached where facts, rational thinking and common sense are now controversial.
Ok, well, I will try to keep things reasonable then. Peterson to his credit is a very good speaker and remains calm and seems reasonable. ---- He first came to prominence over his objection to Canadian bill C-16 on which point he says in the interview in the first post that he was "not going to cede the linguistic territory to radical leftists". The problem is that he is objecting to a phantom. Bill C-16 does the following things: (1) It adds "gender identity and expression" to the following clause in the Canadian Human Rights Act: "The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices" [long list which now includes "gender identity and expression"] (2) in the criminal code under a section regarding advocating genocide, it adds "gender identity and expression" as an identifiable group. i.e. It's now against the law to advocate genocide against trans people. (3) in the criminal code again, in determining sentencing, the sentence is supposed to include consideration if "that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, .... or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor" In short what I am trying to say is that Peterson is arguing against a phantom that doesn't exist. I think it is barely conceivable that if someone was persistently treating someone unfairly in the workplace because they were trans, the trans person could file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. But this is also, you know, the same law that would cover "don't be racist towards your employees". The fact that in Canada we have a human rights law and a human rights tribunal is a ship that sailed decades ago. ---- In the above interview, Peterson and the interviewer spend a lot of time talking about the pay gap between men and women. Peterson's position seems to simply boil down to "there's a lot of factors and fundamentally there isn't any problem". I have a couple of issues with this. For instance, a 2016 study of female engineering students in the US came up with an estimate that 40% quit or never entered the field basically because of workplace sexism. (Why Do So Many Women Who Study Engineering Leave the Field?) I have no idea whether this problem also exists in Scandinavia (referenced in the video), but maybe the situation there where he talks about how engineering is dominated by men and nursing by women isn't really as simple and clear cut as he'd like us to believe. So yeah, I don't really buy his argument. I bet if you dug down into those multi-variant studies he seems to love, you'd find that a number of those variables ARE skewed one way or the other. ---- Peterson proposed a website which "would enable students to enter university course descriptions, as well as professors’ names, disciplines and places of work, to find out if the course was in what he judges to be a “corrupt” discipline" "Eventually the website would contain a list of “courses and professors and disciplines that should be avoided.” He added that women’s, ethnic and racial studies “have to go, and the faster the better.” (U of T prof’s proposed website would target professors teaching women’s and ethnic studies | Toronto Star) I find this incredibly alarming. ---- There is a video in which Peterson has talked about oppression. (I see it up on youtube as "Jordan Peterson his finest moment") Aside from the fact that he is pretty flip about it - "oh, maybe you're too short, and you, you're not as smart as you could have been" - he says that life is suffering and in the face of oppression, well maybe you could improve yourself. Which is true and fine and definitely worth pursuing... but. We don't have a 40 hour work week or weekends because, in the face of oppression, people worked on improving themselves. We have those things and many other fine things because, in the face of oppression, people got together and organized and fought to make this world a better place. That's my $0.02.
One thing is for sure......... If you are going to enter a debate with Mr.Peterson you had better get your facts right ! Ron (who has just watched the interview with Cathy Newman in it's entirety of 30 minutes and was very impressed with him)
Just started reading Peterson's "12 Rules for Life" and in the first chapter came across a quotation of Samuel Clement's that I had not previously seen. It goes: Mark Twain once said, “It’s not what we don’t know that gets us in trouble. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.” Thank's again Canuck ! Ron
Chris, Sorry for the delayed reply. Home renovations took precedence this weekend over more philosophical pursuits. I’ve had a few minutes late today to consider a reply to your post. Peterson has indeed become a phenomenon since late 2016. In fact, that Channel 4 interview has garnered 7.3 million views, so far. Without getting into a long dissertation, I believe he has struck a chord with millions of people by expressing in an educated, outspoken and articulate manner their growing discomfort with far left and so-called progressive ideologies. He has shown no small amount of courage in doing so and appeals to many people, myself included, who are sick and tired of the post-modernist nonsense. Your description of Bill C-16 is correct, however, Peterson's opposition was specific only to the Gender Pronoun provisions and the threat to free speech through "compelled language". Bill C-16, the Liberal government’s legislation adds “gender identity or expression” to grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has stated, that, “refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, will be seen as discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.” Peterson expressed strong opposition over his university’s attempt to force him to use these invented pronouns. At last count there were 71 of these "contrived" pronouns, such as ze, zim and zer, coined by so-called progressives and meant to apply to students who “self-identify” as other than man or woman. Failure to use a person’s pronoun of choice, most of which no one has ever heard of, under the Bill is enough to put you in front of a Commission where a correction, apology, re-education, fines or, in cases of continued non-compliance, incarceration for contempt of court. Compelling citizens, under the threat of state punishment, for failure to use artificially prescribed speech is a very dangerous precedent. Many do not view these Tribunals as a "ship that has sailed". Several Provinces have disbanded these overly powerful, unelected, quasi-judicial kangaroo courts in the past few years. Most complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are thinly designed attempts to secure financial compensation. The reason Ms. Newman was so thoroughly eviscerated in that interview was Peterson’s ability to expose the obvious flaws in her rigidly held but badly flawed, radical feminist ideology. A gender pay gap between men and women doing the same work is an absolute myth. That alleged discrimination has been debunked time and time again. As for the broader pay differential across the entire population, ascribing that gap to a single factor is preposterous and patently untrue. You simply cannot use gender alone to explain a complex situation and ignore choices people make, personal circumstances, education, experience, hours worked and aptitude, etc. etc. At the heart of the leftist philosophy around identity politics is the desire to impose an “equality of outcome”. Peterson is quite adamant about his preference for equality of opportunity, a far more desirable state. The dominance by men or women, in certain career fields is also a complex study and any examination of Peterson’s previous comments clearly indicate that he does not regard them as simple and clear cut. They, like most societal dynamics, are only explained by careful multivariate analysis. That Peterson is calling out the pronounced left-wing bias among academics, especially in the arts, humanities and social sciences is not alarming to me, it’s absolutely refreshing and long overdue. The youngest of my three children will graduate with her Masters this spring. I have closely followed the education of all three and beginning in grade school, it is nothing short of neo-marxist indoctrination. By definition, these people believe that Western civilization is a corrupt patriarchy that must be dismantled. Not on my tax dollar, thank you. The intolerant SJW’s spawned by current university curriculums and faculty have much to answer for and shining a bright light on what passes for higher education in Canada’s schools is a much needed examination. Peterson has not yet launched the website you spoke of but recent debacles as seen at Wilfred Laurier are having the effect of heightened scrutiny. To be sure, Peterson is taking on some sacred cows and offering controversial opinions. His focus on free speech and the value of the individual are tenets I hold dear but it may surprise you that I don’t agree with all of his philosophy or comments. But, on balance, he is a man of principle and courage, preaching responsibility, independence, self-discipline, critical thinking and goal-setting in a world where those values are badly needed. His popularity is a testament to that need and the debates which result are an effective counter to the politically correct culture which stifles all of us.
I listed to the interview for about 80%. just too long without adding extra quality. I had the chance to get him on German TV, I would do it. I was not happy with the interviewer. There was a large gap She tried hard, but I think was not well prepared but could not corner Jordan.Too cool, so calm throughout. Stefan.
