Harris, Peterson and the evils and spread of Postmodernism

[icehorse]

Earlier this year Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson had a podcast debate (link below). In the first 25 minutes or so, Peterson expressed a perspective on postmodernism that seemed to me to provide a powerful perspective from which to look at a lot of what's going on "on the left", that's been bugging me.

Here's wikipedia on postmodernism:

Postmodernism describes a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture and criticism which marked a departure from modernism.[1][2][3] While encompassing a broad range of ideas, postmodernism is typically defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony or rejection toward grand narratives, ideologies and various tenets of universalism, including objective notions of reason, human nature, social progress, moral universalism, absolute truth, and objective reality.[4] Instead, it asserts to varying degrees that claims to knowledge and truth are products of social, historical or political discourses or interpretations, and are therefore contextual or socially constructed. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, irreverence and self-referentiality.[4]

The term postmodernism has been applied both to the era following modernity and to a host of movements within that era (mainly in art, music, and literature) that reacted against tendencies in modernism.[5] Postmodernism includes skeptical critical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, history, linguistics, economics, architecture, fiction, feminist theory, and literary criticism. Postmodernism is often associated with schools of thought such as deconstruction and post-structuralism, as well as philosophers such as Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, and Frederic Jameson.

Here's a summary of some of Peterson's concerns from the from the first 25 minutes or so:

- Canada's Bill C-16 which - according to Jordan - makes some speech mandatory. Specifically, it empowers the "gender fluid" to be able to legally demand that you use their arbitrary and fluid gender labels when addressing them, on pain of prosecution.

- Many postmodernists do not believe in dialog.

- Canada is making it illegal to believe that biology has anything to do with gender identity, in other words the social constructionist philosophy is becoming law.

- In a separate video, Peterson says that humanities studies should be defunded. He claims that 80% of recent humanities publications have zero citations, and that they don't meet any established scientific standards. This of course would be a great example of postmodernism.

== This perspective helps me connect a lot of dots for things that have bugged me:

- Where's the science behind "micro-aggressions"?
- Do statistics back up the concerns of BLM?
- Why are Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and a host of other speakers being disinvited from speaking on campuses?
- Aren't "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" antithetical to the goal of universities as a place to disrupt and open minds?
- Why would the Women's March include the Sharia espousing Linda Sarsour as one of their keynote speakers?
- Why would cultural relativism have gained such universal traction?
- Why do so many people think that their opinion can go toe to toe with facts?
- Why is science so devalued?
- Why can politicians get away with "alternative facts"?

And so on.

It seems to me that maybe many or all of these ills can be traced back to postmodernism!?

harris - peterson - postmodernism

 

[Nous]

- Canada's Bill C-16 which - according to Jordan - makes some speech mandatory. Specifically, it empowers the "gender fluid" to be able to legally demand that you use their arbitrary and fluid gender labels when addressing them, on pain of prosecution.

The Canadian Bar Association and the Supreme Court directly addressed the issue of freedom of expression, refuting Jordan's claim here:

Hate Crimes and Freedom of Expression

For hate crimes, Bill C-16 adds “gender identity or expression” to the identifiable groups protected from those who advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace or wilfully promote hatred against them. The Supreme Court of Canada found subsection 319(2) (wilful promotion of hatred) to be

. . . a narrowly confined offence which suffers from neither overbreadth nor vagueness . . . the provision possesses a stringent mens rea requirement, necessitating either an intent to promote hatred or knowledge of the substantial certainty of such, and is also strongly supported by the conclusion that the meaning of the word “hatred” is restricted to the most severe and deeply-felt form of opprobrium. Additionally, however, the conclusion that s. 319(2) represents a minimal impairment of the freedom of expression gains credence through the exclusion of private conversation from its scope, the need for the promotion of hatred to focus upon an identifiable group and the presence of the s. 319(3) defences.12 For those compelled to speak and act in truth, however unpopular, truth is included in those defences. Nothing in the section compels the use or avoidance of particular words in public as long as they are not used in their most “extreme manifestations” with the intention of promoting the “level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection”13 that produces feelings of hatred against identifiable groups.
​

Those concerned that they could be criminalized for their repugnant or offensive ideas fail to understand a crucial distinction in the law. As the Supreme Court of Canada has explained:

The distinction between the expression of repugnant ideas and expression which exposes groups to hatred is crucial to understanding the proper application of hate speech prohibitions. Hate speech legislation is not aimed at discouraging repugnant or offensive ideas. It does not, for example, prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups in society. It only restricts the use of expression exposing them to hatred as a part of that debate. It does not target the ideas, but their mode of expression in public and the effect that this mode of expression may have.14
​

[. . .]

Human rights legislation and freedom of expression

For human rights legislation, the CHRA prohibits denying or differentiating adversely in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public, commercial or residential accommodation, or, employment on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Act applies to federal and federally regulated entities.

The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens. Nor will it hamper the evolution of academic debates about sex and gender, race and ethnicity, nature and culture, and other genuine and continuing inquiries that mark our common quest for understanding of the human condition. The amendment will, however, make explicit the existing requirement for the federal government and federally regulated providers of goods and services to ensure that personal information, like sex or gender, is collected only for legitimate purposes and not used to perpetuate discrimination or undermine privacy rights. In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.
​

http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

- Canada is making it illegal to believe that biology has anything to do with gender identity, in other words the social constructionist philosophy is becoming law.

What law is this?

I mean, really, Icehorse, do you truly believe that Canada is passing legislation dictating what people can believe?

I love the better examples of postmodern architecture and design:

Postmodern philosophy, however, is nonsense that has never provided and will never provide any insight into any subject.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

- Canada is making it illegal to believe that biology has anything to do with gender identity, in other words the social constructionist philosophy is becoming law.

Gender identity is an issue of medicine, not postmodernism.

- Canada's Bill C-16 which - according to Jordan - makes some speech mandatory. Specifically, it empowers the "gender fluid" to be able to legally demand that you use their arbitrary and fluid gender labels when addressing them, on pain of prosecution.

His view is often challenged, and I can find nothing about the bill that backs up this claim. In fact, what I am finding isn't actually criticisms of the bill, but rather anti-trans rhetoric that fails established science fact.

- Where's the science behind "micro-aggressions"?

Have you never been berated for not believing in a god? Have you ever had someone try to invasively pry into your sexual orientation, preference, and life? What about surprising people that you can talk "plain English?"

- Do statistics back up the concerns of BLM?

Have you not looked up these statistics yourself? Black people are pulled over, arrested, convicted, and killed by police at a very disproportionate rate compared to every other group.

- Why would cultural relativism have gained such universal traction?

Probably because there is no actual universal set of morals. At best, we can make appeals based on various reasons, as we cannot objectively prove or demonstrate the superiority and/or inferiority of any particular system.

- Why do so many people think that their opinion can go toe to toe with facts?
- Why is science so devalued?
- Why can politicians get away with "alternative facts"?

Not that these points are exclusive to the Right, they nevertheless seem to be more common within the Right.

- Why are Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and a host of other speakers being disinvited from speaking on campuses?

I suspect ultimately this may be due to the fact that universities are having to switch to "business models" of operation to meet not the demands of education but the demands of the bottom dollar.And, of course, stories such as these overwhelmingly come from places like UC Berkley, and doesn't seem to be something you're likely to see in any random-chosen college.

- Aren't "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" antithetical to the goal of universities as a place to disrupt and open minds?

Is it really a problem is students are given prior notification if a text they have to read includes a graphic rape scene? Is there really a problem for members of a specific group/demograph to occasionally "get away" from comments of outsiders (to speak on a personal note, I couldn't even go to a Secular Student Alliance meeting without a Christian being there to insist his twisted and incorrect interpretation of my views is what I actually believe, which makes it pretty pointless to be in a group of "like minded individuals")

- Why would the Women's March include the Sharia espousing Linda Sarsour as one of their keynote speakers?

This part I do wonder about myself.

 

[icehorse]

icehorse: Canada is making it illegal to believe that biology has anything to do with gender identity, in other words the social constructionist philosophy is becoming law.

@Nous : What law is this?

Same bill, C-16. The bill declares that gender identity is ENTIRELY the decision of the person.

As for the interpretation of the law, when Peterson declared he would NOT use the arbitrary pronouns demanded by "gender fluid" people, two university lawyers wrote to him advising him that he should be careful because such a refusal might be criminal.

BTW, LOVE the photos, that's what's always come to my mind as well

 

[icehorse]

Gender identity is an issue of medicine, not postmodernism.

Well I agree with you, but Bill C16 says we're wrong. That instead, gender identity is ENTIRELY determined by the individual.

His view is often challenged, and I can find nothing about the bill that backs up this claim. In fact, what I am finding isn't actually criticisms of the bill, but rather anti-trans rhetoric that fails established science fact.

His university lawyers informed him in writing that should he refuse to use the gender pronouns he might be demanded to use, he could be committing a crime.

(i'm going to skip the micro-aggressions for now, unless you'd like me to respond)

Have you not looked up these statistics yourself? Black people are pulled over, arrested, convicted, and killed by police at a very disproportionate rate compared to every other group.

Have you looked at the related crime rates?

Probably because there is no actual universal set of morals. At best, we can make appeals based on various reasons, as we cannot objectively prove or demonstrate the superiority and/or inferiority of any particular system.

Ah man, the topic of cultural relativism ALSO needs a separate thread - yikes!

(also skipping dis-invitations for now as well, feel free to ask again and i'll respond)

Is it really a problem is students are given prior notification if a text they have to read includes a graphic rape scene? Is there really a problem for members of a specific group/demograph to occasionally "get away" from comments of outsiders (to speak on a personal note, I couldn't even go to a Secular Student Alliance meeting without a Christian being there to insist his twisted and incorrect interpretation of my views is what I actually believe, which makes it pretty pointless to be in a group of "like minded individuals")

The problems start when such spaces are demanded as an entitlement, a right.

This part I do wonder about myself.

Yeah, feminists and Sarsour certainly confuse me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well I agree with you, but Bill C16 says we're wrong. That instead, gender identity is ENTIRELY determined by the individual.

Ultimately, the individual is our only real indication, and any identity markers used by a given society require a degree of artificial construction (especially once we move beyond biology, which itself isn't always very clear).

His university lawyers informed him in writing that should he refuse to use the gender pronouns he might be demanded to use, he could be committing a crime.

Could be committing, but yet he still has his teaching job and has not been convicted or formally accused of committing any crime.

Have you looked at the related crime rates?

Yes. Crime statistics are a bit hazy, but overwhelmingly black people face the brunt-end of the American legal/criminal justice system.

Ah man, the topic of cultural relativism ALSO needs a separate thread - yikes!

True, but ultimately when you try to posit that a given set of morality is a goal, you are really saying my ways are better than your ways. Obviously there is no universal morality, and complicated questions that make morality anything but black-and-white, and what we are really left with is our ideals of how society should best function.

The problems start when such spaces are demanded as an entitlement, a right.

It should be asked why do such students feel they are an entitlement and right? Is this really all on the student, or could this be a reflection of our hyper-competitive economy/society, and instilling into people's minds while young that they can be anything, are as special and unique as a snowflake, and are entitled to a world of privileges. Afterall, American society was decadent before post-modernism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To point out I am not a defender, advocate, or fan of post-modernism, but, rather, disassembling it requires pointing out its logical shortcomings (such as how factually a great many things are known as objective facts, universal/objective truths, and using reason and logic to dissolve philosophies that aren't too big into them), rather than focusing on anti-discrimination laws that are backed by science and led by cries of potential martyrdom that never come, the cries of a disparaged minority as in issue (rather than the issues causing their distress), and issues that are related to different and unrelated issues (such as the Conservative devaluing of science being based on religious-faith rather than the bogeymen of anti-vaccine/GMO liberals).
But the Sarsour issue I agree with. There is no reason to support or defend such heavily repressive and misogynist cultures, and any article of clothing that exists solely because women are held accountable for the sexual crimes of men has absolutely no place in anything remotely to feminism, not unless it's used as evidence of the social progress women have made in many places, with a pleaful call to action that more must be done globally because far too many women are still repressed by ancient symbols of ancient dogmas and superstitions that hold her accountable for the wrong-doings of men.

 

[icehorse]

Ultimately, the individual is our only real indication, and any identity markers used by a given society require a degree of artificial construction (especially once we move beyond biology, which itself isn't always very clear).

Who the h#ll wants to move past biology in such situations? Think of the ramifications and possible consequences of such a law.

True, but ultimately when you try to posit that a given set of morality is a goal, you are really saying my ways are better than your ways. Obviously there is no universal morality, and complicated questions that make morality anything but black-and-white, and what we are really left with is our ideals of how society should best function.

That approach isn't working. Instead we should try supporting universal human rights

It should be asked why do such students feel they are an entitlement and right? Is this really all on the student, or could this be a reflection of our hyper-competitive economy/society, and instilling into people's minds while young that they can be anything, are as special and unique as a snowflake, and are entitled to a world of privileges. Afterall, American society was decadent before post-modernism.

My claim isn't that this is on the student, but on postmodernist teaching.

 

[Nous]

icehorse: Canada is making it illegal to believe that biology has anything to do with gender identity, in other words the social constructionist philosophy is becoming law.

@Nous : What law is this?

Same bill, C-16. The bill declares that gender identity is ENTIRELY the decision of the person.

No, it doesn't!! And what difference would it make if it did? And it doesn't force Canadians to believe anything about gender identity!!

I don't understand why you're spewing such inanities about this law that does nothing more than add “gender identity or expression” to Canada's Human Rights Act and its Criminal Code as a basis for an identifiable group, along with other such designations as sex, ethnic origin, religion and sexual orientation. You have evidently gotten your ideas from idiots on a podcast who don't know what their talking about. Read the law: C-16 (42-1) - Royal Assent - An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code - Parliament of Canada

Honestly, you owe every transgendered person an apology for spreading disinformation about this Canadian law that protects them. The United States will probably have a similar law in a hundred years or so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who the h#ll wants to move past biology in such situations? Think of the ramifications and possible consequences of such a law.

Biology doesn't even give us that luxury. If we went strictly by chromosomes, a number of women who were declared female at birth would suddenly be considered men. Intersexuals do not fit either category. Really, it's not much different than trying to rely on arguments than heterosexuality is biologically natural and the norm, when so very clearly nature just doesn't give us such a simple foundation for our sexuality.

That approach isn't working. Instead we should try supporting universal human rights

While I agree with the notion of universal human rights, that is still me acknowledging that such an idea is better than say having Biblical law as state legislation, and you still have to actually state reasons beyond "it's just wrong" to explain why something like slavery is wrong, even though others will claim it is right.

My claim isn't that this is on the student, but on postmodernist teaching.

And such entitled thinking has been around longer than post-modernism. Such as, the idea that a college degree is the magic ticket to success comes more from the post-WWII boom (when a college education did advance an entire class) rather than post-modern philosophy. We have largely always been a nation that believes whatever we want is ours for the taking, that we are entitled to establish colonies after freeing ourselves from colonial rule, the belief of a nation that can do no wrong, and a consumerist culture that tells people what the "American standard of living" is, even though this "standard" is an unsustainable fantasy.

 

[Nous]

That approach isn't working. Instead we should try supporting universal human rights

Both the US and Canada support universal human rights. Here's the declaration: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Inclusion of specific bases in statutes criminalizing hate crimes and various forms of discrimination does not mean that a nation or state or municipality does not support universal human rights.

 

[icehorse]

No, it doesn't!! And what difference would it make if it did? And it doesn't force Canadians to believe anything about gender identity!!

I don't understand why you're spewing such inanities about this law that does nothing more than add “gender identity or expression” to Canada's Human Rights Act and its Criminal Code as a basis for an identifiable group, along with other such designations as sex, ethnic origin, religion and sexual orientation. You have evidently gotten your ideas from idiots on a podcast who don't know what their talking about. Read the law: C-16 (42-1) - Royal Assent - An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code - Parliament of Canada

Honestly, you owe every transgendered person an apology for spreading disinformation about this Canadian law that protects them. The United States will probably have a similar law in a hundred years or so.

I might have made an error of attribution, my bad. But this is from Canada's DOJ:

Gender Identity
Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender. It is their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum.

A person’s gender identity may be the same as or different from the gender typically associated with their sex assigned at birth. When a person’s gender identity is different from the gender typically associated with their sex assigned at birth, this is often described as transgender or simply trans.

Gender identity is not the same as a person’s sexual orientation.

About Gender Identity and Gender Expression

Now then, I never criticized any individuals did I? My criticism is of laws.

 

[icehorse]

Biology doesn't even give us that luxury. If we went strictly by chromosomes, a number of women who were declared female at birth would suddenly be considered men. Intersexuals do not fit either category. Really, it's not much different than trying to rely on arguments than heterosexuality is biologically natural and the norm, when so very clearly nature just doesn't give us such a simple foundation for our sexuality.

See my post #12 above. This definition of gender puts the matter entirely in the hands of the individual, and removes any consideration of biology.

While I agree with the notion of universal human rights, that is still me acknowledging that such an idea is better than say having Biblical law as state legislation, and you still have to actually state reasons beyond "it's just wrong" to explain why something like slavery is wrong, even though others will claim it is right.

I agree with you from a strict philosophical perspective. IMO, arguing from the position of relativism is a way to scuttle any debate on morality. So we MUST operate from at least one (admittedly arbitrary), axiom. I proposed that axiom to be a set of axioms, i.e. the UDHR. I don't think you're arguing for total anarchy, but maybe I'm wrong?

And such entitled thinking has been around longer than post-modernism. Such as, the idea that a college degree is the magic ticket to success comes more from the post-WWII boom (when a college education did advance an entire class) rather than post-modern philosophy. We have largely always been a nation that believes whatever we want is ours for the taking, that we are entitled to establish colonies after freeing ourselves from colonial rule, the belief of a nation that can do no wrong, and a consumerist culture that tells people what the "American standard of living" is, even though this "standard" is an unsustainable fantasy.

Being entitled to an education is distinct from feeling that you're entitled to your own facts. It's this postmodern idea that "facts are subjective" that I'm criticizing.

 

[Nous]

I might have made an error of attribution, my bad. But this is from Canada's DOJ:

Gender Identity

Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender. It is their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum.

A person’s gender identity may be the same as or different from the gender typically associated with their sex assigned at birth. When a person’s gender identity is different from the gender typically associated with their sex assigned at birth, this is often described as transgender or simply trans.

Gender identity is not the same as a person’s sexual orientation.

About Gender Identity and Gender Expression

What do you disagree with in what you have quoted here from Canada's DOJ?

Now then, I never criticized any individuals did I? My criticism is of laws.

You've made a bunch of blatantly false statements about a law that does nothing more than include "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited basis in perpetrating hate crimes and discrimination.

 

[Nous]

It's this postmodern idea that "facts are subjective" that I'm criticizing.

I criticize that along with you. Postmodernism in philosophy is drivel, and probably, in a sense, dangerous.

 

[icehorse]

What do you disagree with in what you have quoted here from Canada's DOJ?

First off, can we agree that we need to take written laws seriously? Can we agree that the "oh they would never do that", arguments should be off the table? Laws are written carefully, and people can and will make use of these laws.

That said, this law could be used to:

- avoid military service
- allow men access to women's bathrooms and locker rooms
- apply for gender-specific grants
- muddy all gender discrimination issues

And so on.

 

[Nous]

First off, can we agree that we need to take written laws seriously? Can we agree that the "oh they would never do that", arguments should be off the table? Laws are written carefully, and people can and will make use of these laws.

That said, this law could be used to:

- avoid military service
- allow men access to women's bathrooms and locker rooms
- apply for gender-specific grants
- muddy all gender discrimination issues

And so on.

Is that what you do--use your gender to break laws and get unfair advantage?

So you oppose all hate crime laws and all anti-discrimination laws? Or do you just oppose including transgender people in them?

How many cases do you know where people who are not transgendered have used anti-discrimination and hate crime laws wrongfully or for unfair advantage?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

First off, can we agree that we need to take written laws seriously? Can we agree that the "oh they would never do that", arguments should be off the table? Laws are written carefully, and people can and will make use of these laws.

That said, this law could be used to:

- avoid military service
- allow men access to women's bathrooms and locker rooms
- apply for gender-specific grants
- muddy all gender discrimination issues

And so on.

^Transphobic garbage.

 

[icehorse]

@Nous @Saint Frankenstein

I'm not "trans-phobic", I'm poorly-written-laws-phobic. It's not what I'll do, it's how people WILL take advantage of poorly crafted laws.

I'm also concerned about how this law ignores science. Why not say that the race you "identify with" is also a personal choice? E.g. "Well I might not look black to you, but I identify as black and I'm applying for an affirmative action benefit".

If you think that people won't do that sort of stuff, that's incredibly naive.

 

[Nous]

@Nous @Saint Frankenstein

I'm not "trans-phobic", I'm poorly-written-laws-phobic.

Quote what is "poorly-written" in the actual law (not the lunatic ideas about the law that you have gotten from idiots on a podcast).

I'm also concerned about how this law ignores science.

The law doesn't say anything about science. What scientific facts do you say should be included in the law?

If you think that people won't do that sort of stuff, that's incredibly naive.

I asked you these questions, which you didn't answer:

Is that what you do--use your gender to break laws and get unfair advantage?

So you oppose all hate crime laws and all anti-discrimination laws? Or do you just oppose including transgender people in them?

How many cases do you know where people who are not transgendered have used anti-discrimination and hate crime laws wrongfully or for unfair advantage?​

How about answering?