Jordan Peterson and Bill Maher...

[YmirGF]

Oh, no worries. I'm not reading your mind.

No worries, Anna. I understood the barb, perfectly. I just chose not to bite down.

I hope you have a great day!

 

[Estro Felino]

Not doubting you @Estro Felino but as a native English speaker, though I understand what you are saying, to my ear, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. A tail of straw, literally has no meaning in English, as far I am aware (or have even heard of). Interesting idea though.

Indeed...idioms don't make sense, literally.
It's used whenever people feel offended for something that is not targeting them specifically.

 

[anna.]

No worries, Anna. I understood the barb, perfectly. I just chose not to bite down.

I hope you have a great day!

The barb was not aimed at you, it was aimed at Maher.

You have a great day too.

 

[YmirGF]

Indeed...idioms don't make sense, literally.
It's used whenever people feel offended for something that is not targeting them specifically.

Hehe.. We sort of call those types "snowflakes" or "thin-skinned" or "progressives". (I'm kidding about the progressives, but I just can't help myself, at times.)

 

[anna.]

Jordan Peterson is very good at making himself sound erudite and yet it's empty fluff. Pretending to know enough about climate science to pontificate on it. Pretending at a belief in God, without actually believing in God, because he can use the religious framework for a secular, Jungian model. His 12 rules are fluff. Lobsters. Makeup in the workplace. Patriarchy. If anyone's read or listened to him, they'll be familiar with the last few.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Jordan Peterson is very good at making himself sound erudite and yet it's empty fluff. Pretending to know enough about climate science to pontificate on it. Pretending at a belief in God, without actually believing in God, because he can use the religious framework for a secular, Jungian model. His 12 rules are fluff. Lobsters. Makeup in the workplace. Patriarchy. If anyone's read or listened to him, they'll be familiar with the last few.

Don't forget "postmodern neo-Marxists," a largely oxymoronic term—since much of Marxism is mutually exclusive with postmodernism—for a vaguely defined group whom he bashes but of whom he couldn't name a single example when Slavoj Zizek asked him to do so.

 

[Callisto]

Not doubting you @Estro Felino but as a native English speaker, though I understand what you are saying, to my ear, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. A tail of straw, literally has no meaning in English, as far I am aware (or have even heard of). Interesting idea though.

Seems to be an idiom that means embarrassment when caught at a disadvantage.

To have a straw tail
What it means: To have a guilty conscience

Why a straw tail? Do you have a colleague who is always late? Let’s imagine that one day they finally arrive on time. You are delighted and tell them how happy you are about this achievement. They might feel slightly embarrassed by the unexpected compliment. Not wanting to reveal their guilt, they might give a rude or grumpy reply. Having a straw tail describes a situation where their weakness has been exposed and can be easily seen by everyone – just like a straw tail catching fire.
- Unlocking Words.co.uk​

 

[crossfire]

One disconnect:
"Don't be afraid to use authority"
"The schools are fascist!" (in regards to pronoun use.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe just when he's not being a **** his day job is a psychologist.

Im aware. This thread is in the psychology board, but as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with psych.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you know why in English there is not the idiom "to have the tail of straw"?

Because in the US, UK, there is political correctness, so you feel entitled to feel offended.

Here in my country there is no such a right.
Because if I am speaking about undetermined groups, and you feel offended, it means you have the tail of straw.

And having the tail of straw is a big humiliation.

Then why don't you ever feel you giagantic straw tail the way you keep getting America so wrong you aren't anywhere close?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm at the stage where I blame this on marketing. This whole concept has not been "sold" to the public very well, at all.

Marketing? Not sold well? How about blaming the anti-science loons who can't even get evolution right?

 

[YmirGF]

Marketing?

Yep.

Not sold well?

Doesn't look like it.

How about blaming the anti-science loons who can't even get evolution right?

If you like. Failure to understand your messaging is in need of re-evaluation will simply continue the social divisions. Go team, eh?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

His 12 rules are fluff. Lobsters. Makeup in the workplace. Patriarchy. If anyone's read or listened to him, they'll be familiar with the last few.

I read 12 Rules. I learned more about lobsters. And I wouldn't say it's all fluff. Like talking more clearly. But that's a basic communication thing to speak directly and clearly and to not assume people are mind readers. It's been said countless times before him. But the lobster bits were fascinating, lmao.

Pretending at a belief in God, without actually believing in God, because he can use the religious framework for a secular, Jungian model.

That's another reason I think he does it for the money. He's too smart to have a brazenly illogical and inconsent belief that goes all over the board and make not a shred of sense in the end. But to the scores and masses of pseudo-intellectuals it's clever bends and twists weave a tapestry that goes to, for them, a new level that is beyond their ability to logically analyze and on such a high level they see something easy to swallow.

 

[Kenny]

Its worth thinking about when considering what the right to free speech is and what it is for. The framing of the question "Why does your right to free speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?" could be modified to replace 'Trans' with many other groups of people.

Suppose we are talking about cancer patients: Why does our right to free speech trump a cancer patient's right not to be offended? It rumps because sometimes in order to think you have to be offensive. Definitely I agree with Bill Moyer's criticism of what the president of the U. of Fresno said. Disrespect is included in the right to free speech and is part of it.

Or we could be talking about a politician. The right to disrespect them in our speech is a protected right. That is true.

I'm not sure about this application without morphing it into a different scenario. The context is the elevation of (Bill) sensitivity over truth or elevation of moral posturing over sensitivity of truth (Peterson)

Not sure how you can apply that to cancer patients... but even if I did, as a doctor--would he lie to a patient because of sensitivity over the truth of the fact they have cancer?

 

[Kenny]

Far more often than not, framing the usage of pronouns matching trans people's gender as a "free speech" issue strikes me as a red herring. In most settings and contexts where misgendering a trans person would not be allowed, one wouldn't be allowed to misgender a cis person either or go out of their way to harass or offend coworkers, classmates, students, etc. Professional and formal settings, which include universities and schools, don't have to abide by free speech laws to the same extent as a public setting does. Not allowing a professor to misgender students merely adds one more rule of courtesy to a long, age-old list of rules and conventions.

A litmus test I like using is this: Whenever someone presents a scenario where they believe a person should be able to freely misgender trans people in a given setting, I ask them whether referring to a cis man as "she" or an adult as "kid," among other examples, would be appropriate or allowed. If not, then the issue is not about public free speech laws; it's about rules of conduct in a professional or otherwise specific setting that differs from a public space such as a street or place of protest.

And yet, is it just as offensive to force someone to say something they don't want to say? Why is offense only a one way street? I can't offend you but your cna offend me?

 

[Kenny]

Obnoxious interviewing Pretentious. What did they even accomplish in this?

What I found interesting is how two people from different positions in so many other areas would find a commonality in how sensitivity has gone haywire.

 

[Kenny]

To my mind rights don't exist to be abused. They are for citizens to use their rights responsibly. The more citizens that abuse rights, the more society will decide there need to be limits.

Then we would also have to determine whose rights are being abused. Do you seeing forcing people to say something as an abuse of rights?

 

[Kenny]

Bill Maher is a vitriolically anti-religious, highly dismissive neoliberal. Jordan Peterson now works for the Daily Wire—a blatantly biased, ideologically slanted outlet that sows demonization and tribalism—while railing against "ideology" even though he works for such an outlet and also promulgates overgeneralized misrepresentations of groups with whom he disagrees, such as Marxists and "trans activists," both of whom he talks about as if they were uniform groups consisting of people who held the exact same views.

I would actually be more surprised if an interview involving both of these men were not mostly unproductive. Thankfully, both of them are far from being the most popular public figures among younger people (or any other age group, really).

This is what hit me... here we have two different philosophies of life and yet can find a commonality.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm not sure about this application without morphing it into a different scenario. The context is the elevation of (Bill) sensitivity over truth or elevation of moral posturing over sensitivity of truth (Peterson)

Not sure how you can apply that to cancer patients... but even if I did, as a doctor--would he lie to a patient because of sensitivity over the truth of the fact they have cancer?

I'm attempting to juice the video for a particular essence. He and Bill Moyer are discussing how the right to freedom of speech is being undervalued/not taught or taught against in some university systems. He is concerned about that, and that is his stated reason for refusing to be forced to use pronouns. He doesn't object to using other's pronouns but to being forced. He is saying that being forced to do it undermines freedom of speech, and he believes that freedom of speech is extremely important.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

And yet, is it just as offensive to force someone to say something they don't want to say? Why is offense only a one way street? I can't offend you but your cna offend me?

I think there's something to be said for taking another person's word about things, and allowing them their own personal autonomy.

For example, if someone were to tell me "You hurt my feelings", I assume that I did and apologize, I assume that I invaded their space in a bad way (or whatever they tell me or that I can see I did wrong), I don't say "But what about my feelings? How do you think you now being distant and mad at me will make me feel?"