Jordan Peterson and Bill Maher...

[Debater Slayer]

None of which somehow make your post #10 salient.

Your assessment of whether it is salient isn't of concern to me. I commented on the ideas proposed in the interview and also found it useful to highlight the backgrounds and ideology of both participants involved therein.

I think I might have finally figured out what you really mean by your handle "debate slayer". It's not that you win debates, it's that you destroy them so that no deep conversation or nuance is possible.

It is perfectly possible to reject hyperbole and ideologically slanted misrepresentations of laws while acknowledging nuance. Just because someone strongly opposes those doesn't mean "deep conversation" isn't possible; it simply means they disagree with the presented arguments.

 

[YmirGF]

Using the wrong pronouns repeatedly and deliberately would start the process of repercussions, but the jail would be for lack of compliance as it would be for any other instance of ignoring court orders.

Which is precisely how Peterson has explained this process every time I've heard him discuss it. It's the law that sets up the conditions whereby one could possibly find themselves in a jail cell.

As for Peterson, I don't think there's any need to misunderstand what he's saying. He has made his positions and ideology quite clear for people to see many times over the years.

Indeed. He certainly is a breath of fresh air in this claustrophobic world, ain't he?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Which is precisely how Peterson has explained this process every time I've heard him discuss it. It's the law that sets up the conditions whereby one could possibly find themselves in a jail cell.

Then he's objecting to the very existence of the law (Bill C-16) itself, because the same process applies to ignoring a court order based on any other law. If he wants people to be free to repeatedly and deliberately misgender or harass trans people in professional and academic settings, he's thankfully out of luck. That wouldn't be acceptable to do to any group. I don't see why trans people should be treated differently.

Also, the bill brings protections for trans people in line with protections for other groups. It doesn't somehow introduce something radical or novel. Boiling it down to "wrong pronoun usage means jail" is an exaggerated oversimplification.

Indeed. He certainly is a breath of fresh air in this claustrophobic world, ain't he?

Whether on the right or the left, the world has no shortage of bitter, resentful ideologues who fixate on specific groups. He's not the first or the last one, and he's also far from the most influential (again, thankfully so).

 

[icehorse]

Your assessment of whether it is salient isn't of concern to me. I commented on the ideas proposed in the interview and also found it useful to highlight the backgrounds and ideology of both participants involved therein.

You're attempting to justify your ad hominem attack.

It is perfectly possible to reject hyperbole and ideologically slanted misrepresentations of laws while acknowledging nuance. Just because someone strongly opposes those doesn't mean "deep conversation" isn't possible; it simply means they disagree with the presented arguments.

EVERYBODY brings their biases to debate and conversation. That's no excuse. I think you ought to try making posts with zero ad hominems for a while, you might find it more challenging than you think.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You're attempting to justify your ad hominem attack.

No, since I see zero need to justify anything. I'm free to post my thoughts on both the interview and participants in it. Others are free to agree or disagree with me.

EVERYBODY brings their biases to debate and conversation.

But not everybody lets their biases reach the point of making them oversimplify and campaign against a bill protecting a certain group's rights. You were talking about nuance. Here's a situation where it matters.

That's no excuse. I think you ought to try making posts with zero ad hominems for a while, you might find it more challenging than you think.

Thanks for the tip, but I mean this genuinely: Based on the number of threads you've made about trans people and the support for harmful beliefs and policies toward them, I think I'll manage perfectly fine without your advice on anything related to this subject. I have no need for resentful beliefs in my life.

I've seen you describe disagreement with your views as "personal attacks," and I'm not really interested in locking myself in that pointless tangent. If you're objecting to my criticism of two public figures who have made it a point to broadcast their views to the world, you're free to tell them to make themselves less public if they want to avoid criticism.

 

[metis]

As people are polarizing, violence is increasing in all directions and towards anyone that doesn't agree with them... of course, my solution is Jesus.

There's a story of Jesus walking with the Apostles, and they came across a man cussing up a storm while trying to pull his donkey out of a muddy ditch, and he asked Jesus "Could you help me with this?", and Jesus obliged.

Further down the road they came across another man with the same problem who was on his knees praying and asking God to get his donkey out, but Jesus just walked on by with the Twelve. In bewilderment, they asked him why he didn't help the latter man but did the first one, and Jesus said: "The first man was willing to help me, whereas the second man wanted me to do all the work".

 

[icehorse]

No, since I see zero need to justify anything

yet you did

But not everybody lets their biases reach the point of making them oversimplify and campaign against a bill protecting a certain group's rights. You were talking about nuance. Here's a situation where it matters.

In this video clip, they were not talking about pronouns. You are one of the people bringing the pronoun debate into this thread. That's not nuance, that's your agenda.

Thanks for the tip, but I mean this genuinely: Based on the number of threads you've made about trans people and the support for harmful beliefs and policies toward them, I think I'll manage perfectly fine without your advice on anything related to this subject. I have no need for resentful beliefs in my life.

And I mean this genuinely and sincerely: I know I'm compassionate, and I believe you to be as well. That said, I strongly believe that giving puberty blockers to minors is a horrific mistake. I say this out of compassion. I know you disagree, but I am absolutely NOT being resentful - that's something you've created in your mind. Another way of dodging the actual topic.

I've seen you describe disagreement with your views as "personal attacks," and I'm not really interested in locking myself in that pointless tangent.

I'm very open to disagreements. But in general, if a person has a strong argument why would they need to stoop to personal attacks? What I've experienced frequently on this topic is that my opponents - including you - will respond by both discussing the ideas AND by adding a slur of some sort. That weakens your position, it does not strengthen it. And I think it's fair to conclude that if you feel the need to add a slur, you probably don't have a strong argument. Unless you're just an angry person in general.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In this video clip, they were not talking about pronouns. You are one of the people bringing the pronoun debate into this thread. That's not nuance, that's your agenda.

The whole "free speech" issue Peterson brought up was connected to his exaggerations about Bill C-16, and vice versa. The context of the discussion matters.

And I mean this genuinely and sincerely: I know I'm compassionate, and I believe you to be as well. That said, I strongly believe that giving puberty blockers to minors is a horrific mistake. I say this out of compassion. I know you disagree, but I am absolutely NOT being resentful - that's something you've created in your mind. Another way of dodging the actual topic.

This thread is not about puberty blockers, nor were those what I had in mind when posting my previous response.

I'm very open to disagreements. But in general, if a person has a strong argument why would they need to stoop to personal attacks? What I've experienced frequently on this topic is that my opponents - including you - will respond by both discussing the ideas AND by adding a slur of some sort. That weakens your position, it does not strengthen it. And I think it's fair to conclude that if you feel the need to add a slur, you probably don't have a strong argument. Unless you're just an angry person in general.

I suppose you'll have to say that to people who use slurs. I know I've never done that in my exchanges with you, and I'm not falling for the rhetorical quicksand of "you did" and "no, I didn't."

Then again, based on some previous posts I've seen, I guess it's possible that the way you're using "slur" is so expanded as to include pushback or mere disagreement, in which case that's not anyone else's problem to handle.

 

[icehorse]

I suppose you'll have to say that to people who use slurs. I know I've never done that in my exchanges with you

The denial is strong with this one, young Jedi...

 

[Debater Slayer]

The denial is strong with this one young Jedi...

Believe what you want. I don't really see a productive point to this exchange.

To recap for anyone else who might be reading: My thoughts on the interview are summarized in posts #7, #28, and #72.

 

[icehorse]

The whole "free speech" issue Peterson brought up was connected to his exaggerations about Bill C-16, and vice versa. The context of the discussion matters.

Peterson has said publicly, many times, that he would be courteous to any individual on a one-on-one basis who requested he use special pronouns. You continue to try to shift the conversation to the idea of someone repeatedly misgendering an individual.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Peterson has said publicly, many times, that he would be courteous to any individual on a one-on-one basis who requested he use special pronouns. You continue to try to shift the conversation to the idea of someone repeatedly misgendering an individual.

The law handles, among many other things, harassment and repeated, deliberate misgendering (and other groups are already protected from harassment in professional and academic settings), so in that case, Peterson should have no worries about it.

 

[icehorse]

Believe what you want. I don't really see a productive point to this exchange.

To recap for anyone else who might be reading: My thoughts on the interview are summarized in posts #7, #28, and #72.

One need look no farther back than your post #105 to see how habitual it is for you to throw slurs. I could allow for the possibility that at this point you're not even aware that you do it

 

[Debater Slayer]

One need look no farther back than your post #105 to see how habitual it is for you to throw slurs. I could allow for the possibility that at this point you're not even aware that you do it

Since you've made that accusation, quote the part where there's a slur. If you can't, it means you're misrepresenting my words.

Go ahead.

 

[icehorse]

I have no need for resentful beliefs in my life.

let the tap dancing begin...

 

[Debater Slayer]

@icehorse (Tagging because the software doesn't allow members to quote empty posts.)

If this is what you consider to be a "slur," I'm not surprised you're claiming that it's so common for others to use "slurs."

I have no need for resentful beliefs in my life.

I stand by what I said in all of my previous posts.

 

[icehorse]

@icehorse (Tagging because the software doesn't allow members to quote empty posts.)

If this is what you consider to be a "slur," I'm not surprised you're claiming that it's so common for others to use "slurs."



I stand by what I said in all of my previous posts.

So why add that sentence at all? It has nothing to do with the ideas. What was the purpose of that sentence?

 

[Debater Slayer]

So why add that sentence at all? It has nothing to do with the ideas. What was the purpose of that sentence?

Because a lot of the ideas I've seen in these threads strike me as resentful, unevidenced, and overly fixated on a specific group, so I'm not interested in debate "advice" following from the same reasoning that produces and sustains such beliefs. That includes the attempt to say that I shouldn't have expressed my criticism of Peterson's and Maher's overarching ideologies and track records even though 1) the criticism is primarily about their views, and 2) I've already commented on their ideas proposed in the interview.

Anyway, as usual when someone derails these discussions and bogs them down in tangential misrepresentations of others' points, I'm not seeing the use of pursuing this exchange, as I said. Feel free to have the last word if you want.

 

[icehorse]

Because a lot of the ideas I've seen in these threads strike me as resentful, unevidenced, and overly fixated on a specific group, so I'm not interested in debate "advice" following from the same reasoning that produces and sustains such beliefs. That includes the attempt to say that I shouldn't have expressed my criticism of Peterson's and Maher's overarching ideologies and track records even though 1) the criticism is primarily about their views, and 2) I've already commented on their ideas proposed in the interview.

Anyway, as usual when someone derails these discussions and bogs them down in tangential misrepresentations of others' points, I'm not seeing the use of pursuing this exchange, as I said. Feel free to have the last word if you want.

For the sake of discussion, let's agree that sometimes posters are resentful.

So what??????

Ideas stand or fall on their own merit.

So when YOU use your guess as to other posters' resentfulness, it's YOU who are derailing the conversations. And I've come to see you as a chronic derailer.

 

[anna.]

For the sake of discussion, let's agree that sometimes posters are resentful.

So what??????

Ideas stand or fall on their own merit.

So when YOU use your guess as to other posters' resentfulness, it's YOU who are derailing the conversations. And I've come to see you as a chronic derailer.

@Debater Slayer isn’t derailing the conversation here - rather you might check yourself.