The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) framework vs. e.g. Jordan Peterson

[ADigitalArtist]

Can you say more about romance counseling? Because on the surface it would appear to make my argument for me, no?

Look, I'm not saying this is always, 100% true, all of the time. But I think that we often attempt to deny our own biology in an attempt to be PC.

We see examples of this in the animal kingdom all the time. The males duel each other, and the strongest male gets the females.

As for the Andrew Tate argument. Of course there are some men who like Andrew Tate. But for you to bring this up seems like a sort of smoke screen to - once again - deny biology.

Just want to remind that idots like Andrew Tate who think 'you're denying biology to be PC' don't understand biology for ****. Lol

Human's closest non-human relatives are egalitarian leaning towards matriarchal, pro same sex, and shun intergroup violence. Choosing resolution through sex and social appeasement rather than choosing it through force.

This is not to say that humans are 1 to 1 bonobo allegories but that 'alpha male' is not nearly the biologically relevent standard they think it is. It's not even true in wolves where the term was coined for.

 

[icehorse]

The obesity 'debate' comes from such a superficial place. People who are worried about 'normalized obesity' don't actually give a **** about people's health. They're doing it to push a socially enforced beauty standard they believe is being watered down by not being jerks to people who are obese. If there's dogma anywhere it's the idea that someone who is obese shouldn't be considered happy, healthy or attractive to anyone. Shouldn't have clothes marketed towards them. Including, gasp, sexy clothes.

Sure, this is sometimes true.

But some of us DO care about improving the health of our society. Even selfish people can care about this because unhealthy people have a huge negative impact on society.

As for your bolded sentence, you're conflating different claims here. I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that obesity is healthy. But I'm always open to new data. I have made no claims either way about obesity and happiness. As for the attractiveness claim, from a biological perspective, people are attracted to individuals who they think would help them create the healthiest offspring. In this case, I would say the idolization of super slender women goes against biology.

The reality is trying to shame obese people, whether they got there through injury, metabolic disorder, mental health problem, or simply diet and exercise reasons (the rarest of all), doesn't make them get healthy. In fact it usually does the opposite. When obese people feel like they're not allowed to be involved in *normal society* without derision and expectation to become then, they grow more reserved, less active, and more likely to developed further issues with depression if not already present.

I'm not sure about this, but I would have guessed that the largest cause of obesity in the US is because of the "food desert" phenomenon. In other words, we see a LOT of obesity with poor people who either cannot afford or obtain good quality food. It is MUCH harder to avoid obesity if your only "grocery store" is a 7-11.*

And once again I think you're doing some subtle straw-manning here. I'm not talking about shaming anyone. I'm talking about not celebrating this health crisis.

*And of course, food deserts are created / exacerbated because we live in an oligarchy / kleptocracy.

 

[icehorse]

Just want to remind that idots like Andrew Tate who think 'you're denying biology to be PC' don't understand biology for ****. Lol

You seem stuck on the idea that you can use a "guilt by association" argument. While you're at it, why not criticize vegetarians since Hitler was one?

Human's closest non-human relatives are egalitarian leaning towards matriarchal, pro same sex, and shun intergroup violence. Choosing resolution through sex and social appeasement rather than choosing it through force.

This is not to say that humans are 1 to 1 bonobo allegories but that 'alpha male' is not nearly the biologically relevent standard they think it is. It's not even true in wolves where the term was coined for.

For the sake of discussion, let's say I grant you that bonobos and wolfs don't follow the "alpha male" pattern. (And BTW, we know that many non-human primates are far from non-violent towards other tribes.) I'd be shocked if individuals in these species don't discriminate the relative healthiness of the individuals they consider mating with.

Human's closest non-human relatives are egalitarian leaning towards matriarchal, pro same sex, and shun intergroup violence. Choosing resolution through sex and social appeasement rather than choosing it through force.

In many species, it's the females who choose who'll they'll mate with, no force involved.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's always funny when men say this despite the prolific writing as well as both romance entertainment and romance counseling done for women by women see them putting far more stock in men with emotional availability, vulnerability, sensitivity and other things other men decry as weak, gay or feminine.

The joke is 'alpha males' are really just beta males who haven't gone through any social testing and are riddles with bugs and performance issues.

You know who *are* attracted to so called alpha males? Other dudes. Who use people like Andrew Tate to feel better about themselves when they get rejected because Tate offers the 'workaround' or trying to circumnavigate consent. 'Tricking' women into relationships.

This ^^^

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Sure, this is sometimes true.

But some of us DO care about improving the health of our society. Even selfish people can care about this because unhealthy people have a huge negative impact on society.

As for your bolded sentence, you're conflating different claims here. I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that obesity is healthy. But I'm always open to new data. I have made no claims either way about obesity and happiness. As for the attractiveness claim, from a biological perspective, people are attracted to individuals who they think would help them create the healthiest offspring. In this case, I would say the idolization of super slender women goes against biology.

I'm not sure about this, but I would have guessed that the largest cause of obesity in the US is because of the "food desert" phenomenon. In other words, we see a LOT of obesity with poor people who either cannot afford or obtain good quality food. It is MUCH harder to avoid obesity if your only "grocery store" is a 7-11.*

And once again I think you're doing some subtle straw-manning here. I'm not talking about shaming anyone. I'm talking about not celebrating this health crisis.

*And of course, food deserts are created / exacerbated because we live in an oligarchy / kleptocracy.

You know what else is common in poor places? Not receiving treatment for disorders for which obesity is a common associated comorbidity. Such as anxiety and depression or metabolic hormone disorders like PCOS which exists in 1 in 10 women.

But more importantly, just like being skinny doesn't mean being healthy, being obese doesn't mean being unhealthy either. The assumption that an obese person is going to 'tax society's all based on their superficial aesthetic, not on diagnosis.

Further, their idea of stopping 'celebrating obesity' is really just 'halting marketing towards obese people and put down anyone who says you should love and be comfortable with your body as that's a better road to healthy living.' I.e. Shame. Anti body positivity people want to shame fat people. Period.

 

[icehorse]

The assumption that an obese person is going to 'tax society's all based on their superficial aesthetic, not on diagnosis.

Oh my goodness. Let's try to keep fallacies out of this discussion. Of course I would agree that a person's mental health is crucial to their physical health. That said, if you were to sample a large population of people with equally positive mental health, the obese ones would be less healthy.

Further, their idea of stopping 'celebrating obesity' is really just 'halting marketing towards obese people and put down anyone who says you should love and be comfortable with your body as that's a better road to healthy living.'

Another strawman. yikes!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You seem stuck on the idea that you can use a "guilt by association" argument. While you're at it, why not criticize vegetarians since Hitler was one?

For the sake of discussion, let's say I grant you that bonobos and wolfs don't follow the "alpha male" pattern. (And BTW, we know that many non-human primates are far from non-violent towards other tribes.) I'd be shocked if individuals in these species don't discriminate the relative healthiness of the individuals they consider mating with.

In many species, it's the females who choose who'll they'll mate with, no force involved.

Then prepare to be shocked because anyone in a bonobo troop will have sex with anyone else. There is no power/health hierarchy, and show of power is likely to get you removed from the troop.

This naturalist fallacy is wrong for so many reasons. And you would agree if it was one of your pet peeves. (E.g. the naturalist fallacy used by oligarchs that can get resources and take control of more resources, human and otherwise = biological imperative to do do. )

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Oh my goodness. Let's try to keep fallacies out of this discussion. Of course I would agree that a person's mental health is crucial to their physical health. That said, if you were to sample a large population of people with equally positive mental health, the obese ones would be less healthy.

Another strawman. yikes!

God pseudo skeptics are so obnoxious.

"ThAt's a FaLlaCY!" Is not an argument.

Obesity can but doesn't always come with health concerns. I'm obese but in pretty sure I'm healthier than most. I can go out and do a half marathon tomorrow and be fine. My blood panels are normal range (after medication. Because my pcos impacts my water and weight retention more than can simply be exercises and dieted.)

Fitness doesn't have a body size and really people who are just looking to take down fat people from magazines don't actually care about that anyway. Again, it's a superilficial beauty standards they have issues with, not the actual health of a fat person.

 

[icehorse]

Then prepare to be shocked because anyone in a bonobo troop will have sex with anyone else. There is no power/health hierarchy, and show of power is likely to get you removed from the troop.

If so, it's an anomaly in the animal world.

This naturalist fallacy is wrong for so many reasons. And you would agree if it was one of your pet peeves. (E.g. the naturalist fallacy used by oligarchs that can get resources and take control of more resources, human and otherwise = biological imperative to do do. )

I had to go look up the naturalist fallacy, it's good to learn something new everyday

That said, I'll put a stake in the sand and declare that I think the fact that the earth is rich with healthy, evolving plant and animal life is "objectively good". Can you agree to that much?

If so, then an animal's proclivity to seek the healthiest, fittest mate is also "good". That's how species survive and make positive evolutionary improvements.

"ThAt's a FaLlaCY!" Is not an argument.

Agreed, I wish you'd stop derailing the discussion by using them

Obesity can but doesn't always come with health concerns. I'm obese but in pretty sure I'm healthier than most. I can go out and do a half marathon tomorrow and be fine. My blood panels are normal range (after medication. Because my pcos impacts my water and weight retention more than can simply be exercises and dieted.)

I'm sincerely happy for you. But again, you're conflating anecdotal evidence with statistics. You're a statistical anomaly.

Fitness doesn't have a body size and really people who are just looking to take down fat people from magazines don't actually care about that anyway. Again, it's a superilficial beauty standards they have issues with, not the actual health of a fat person.

You've brought the idea of "fitness" into the discussion. I can agree that "fitness doesn't have a body size". But fitness is not the same as health. Being fit is a great aid to good health, but it's not sufficient.

As for beauty standards being superficial, I would agree that sometimes they are. Haven't I already granted you that celebrating the super skinny is a problem? BUT, science has learned some things about "beauty". For example, from culture to culture there are many different beauty standards, but left/right symmetry tends to correlate with what's considered "beautiful" across all cultures. So I would say that there are cultural drivers underlying some beauty standards but there are also biological drivers underlying others.

==

And, what do you mean by "pseudo skeptics" ?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If so, it's an anomaly in the animal world.

I had to go look up the naturalist fallacy, it's good to learn something new everyday

That said, I'll put a stake in the sand and declare that I think the fact that the earth is rich with healthy, evolving plant and animal life is "objectively good". Can you agree to that much?

If so, then an animal's proclivity to seek the healthiest, fittest mate is also "good". That's how species survive and make positive evolutionary improvements.
Agreed, I wish you'd stop derailing the discussion by using them 

I'm sincerely happy for you. But again, you're conflating anecdotal evidence with statistics. You're a statistical anomaly

You've brought the idea of "fitness" into the discussion. I can agree that "fitness doesn't have a body size". But fitness is not the same as health. Being fit is a great aid to good health, but it's not sufficient.


As for beauty standards being superficial, I would agree that sometimes they are. Haven't I already granted you that celebrating the super skinny is a problem? BUT, science has learned some things about "beauty". For example, from culture to culture there are many different beauty standards, but left/right symmetry tends to correlate with what's considered "beautiful" across all cultures. So I would say that there are cultural drivers underlying some beauty standards but there are also biological drivers underlying others.

==

And, what do you mean by "pseudo skeptics" ?

First of all, no I don't believe in 'objective goodness' of any kind. And am especially suspicious of people who claim to be on the side of evolutionary 'objective goodness' because I've never seen anyone lead with that load and not immediately showcase absolutely reductionist arguments afterward. Such as eugenecists who think ablism is 'objectively good' or people think others being gay because it's 'objectively bad' to not procreate. Even though social animals caring for individuals who aren't physically fit still makes for individuals who contribute to society in other ways, and because there's no such thing as a biological imperative for all animals in a social species to breed. And many, many social animals have a relatively few number breeding.

Come to think the rest of the post is woefully reductive too.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You know that's not how the legal system works. It could well take years before a given law is put into use.

And legal experts have clarified that even if Bill C-16 had to be put to use, nobody would go to jail for using the wrong pronoun like Peterson claimed.

I read the law and the related definitions (although it's been a while). My "common sense" reading of the collection of related laws was that an enterprising lawyer could very well win a case using them. Again, that's how the legal system works. Lawyers are constantly chipping away at edges to see what's possible. "Legal experts" can never perfectly predict what courts in the future will decide.

That applies to almost any law I can think of. At some point one has to consider that the salient benefits of a law may well outweigh an extremely unlikely or even nonexistent possibility of a loophole that, after years of the law's passing, only exists in someone's misrepresentation of said law.

If legal experts who accurately present the law can never perfectly predict what courts in the future will decide, then I'm sure that Peterson can't either, both with his lack of legal background and his conspicuously ideologically driven distortion of the bill.

Do you know which bill this is? A lot of crazy bills get passed - as you know.

I'm talking about Bill C-16, the one at which Peterson expressed some of his most vocal outrage. Compared to most of the world, Canada is doing quite well, so as far as I can see, no, not a lot of "crazy bills" get passed there relative to most other countries.

And again, I am by no means apologizing for this guy. As I said at the get go, I'm often strongly opposed to his views.

You're bringing up some of his points here, so I'm addressing those.

And I have seen working like yours used to attempt to discredit critics of BLM and LGBTQ+ movements. OF course I'm not saying these movements don't do good. Of course they do, doh! But they MUST be open to criticism.

All movements should be open to criticism, but not all criticism is valid or based on accurate understanding. Peterson's outrage at Bill C-16 was far from being either—and I classify a lot of his other rhetoric as outrage as well because it does drip with vitriol and emotionally charged language quite often... so much so that one of his angry tirades became a meme.

As I said, my obesity example was just that - an example!

But let me ask you, are you claiming that there isn't a large movement afoot trying to normalize obesity?

I see a large movement afoot to clear up decades-old misconceptions about obesity, being fat, and assumptions associated with each. A minority have tried to use this to dismiss established medical facts about the harms of obesity, but I get the impression that, in addition to being a minority, they're also vastly outnumbered by people who propagate misconceptions and broadly shame fat people instead of adopting a reasonable approach to the subject.

 

[icehorse]

First of all, no I don't believe in 'objective goodness' of any kind.

Does that make you a moral relativist?

Come to think the rest of the post is woefully reductive too.

I would say it's easy for a relativist to claim everyone else is reductive, but it feels like a cop out to me.

 

[icehorse]

And legal experts have clarified that even if Bill C-16 had to be put to use, nobody would go to jail for using the wrong pronoun like Peterson claimed.

As I understand the concern, it will be the combination of C-16 along with other related laws that could end up punishing those who don't use the correct pronouns. Time will tell whether this ever gets pursued. But I think it's wise as a general rule to not trust the government when they say "you have nothing to worry about".

I see a large movement afoot to clear up decades-old misconceptions about obesity, being fat, and assumptions associated with each. A minority have tried to use this to dismiss established medical facts about the harms of obesity, but I get the impression that, in addition to being a minority, they're also vastly outnumbered by people who propagate misconceptions and broadly shame fat people instead of adopting a reasonable approach to the subject.

I'm sorry, I read this paragraph several times, and I'm struggling to piece together the (at least?), three categories of people you're describing. Can you clarify this?

That said, what would you say a reasonable approach to the subject is? To me there is a spectrum of behaviors ranging from shaming (or worse), to celebrating. I believe both ends of that spectrum are unhealthy.

 

[icehorse]

Come to think the rest of the post is woefully reductive too.

I've thought some more about this criticism that I'm being reductive..

Einstein said something like "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler".

Ultimately, I think calling an argument "reductive" is a hard thing for the claimant to prove. At a minimum supporting such a claim requires steel-manning the argument to begin with, and in this discussion, you've repeatedly strawman-ed my argument.

We draw conclusions all the time. Of course sometimes arguments truly are reductive, I get that. But OTOH, we have to draw conclusions in order to solve problems.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Does that make you a moral relativist?

I would say it's easy for a relativist to claim everyone else is reductive, but it feels like a cop out to me.

I've thought some more about this criticism that I'm being reductive..

Einstein said something like "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler".

Ultimately, I think calling an argument "reductive" is a hard thing for the claimant to prove. At a minimum supporting such a claim requires steel-manning the argument to begin with, and in this discussion, you've repeatedly strawman-ed my argument.

We draw conclusions all the time. Of course sometimes arguments truly are reductive, I get that. But OTOH, we have to draw conclusions in order to solve problems.

Everyone is a moral relativist. Everyone makes moral judgments *subject* to their limited experience, limited sensory data, limited historical data, limited analytical capabilities, etc. That's why it's so important for all systems to acknowledge margins of error. And so important to be critical of people who believe they have the unexceptional moral authority.

Simplicity is different than reductionism. Simplicity omits non-essential parts of a system, reductionism omits critical parts to draw unwarranted conclusions.

I.e. it's in humans best interest from an evolutionary perspective to keep genes healthy therefore eugenics is appropriate.

This is a reductionist argument for reasons I've already explained: genetic, physical, psychological or other examples of fitness are not the only benefits brought to society and there are myriads of examples within evolution of the strong protecting the weak, especially within highly social species.

Eugenisists use evolution as flimsy excuse to be cruel and ablist.

Also I have not strawmanned your arguments. You just make really bad reactionary arguments like the worst youtube "skeptics."

 

[icehorse]

Everyone is a moral relativist. Everyone makes moral judgments *subject* to their limited experience, limited sensory data, limited historical data, limited analytical capabilities, etc. That's why it's so important for all systems to acknowledge margins of error. And so important to be critical of people who believe they have the unexceptional moral authority.

Some people (like me), believe that moral expertise is possible. We might still be in the beginning stages of developing a universal moral expertise, but it's possible. Other people do not believe that universal moral expertise is possible. (We could say "moral and ethical" through out this discussion.)

Which camp do you ascribe to?

Simplicity is different than reductionism. Simplicity omits non-essential parts of a system, reductionism omits critical parts to draw unwarranted conclusions.

I.e. it's in humans best interest from an evolutionary perspective to keep genes healthy therefore eugenics is appropriate.

Okay, that seems like a useful way to distinguish the two. Given those definitions, I think my claim is extremely well tested and documented, and your claim is the extraordinary one. To reiterate, my claim is that, from a statistical perspective, being overweight is less healthy than being within a normal weight range. I believe your claim to be that being overweight is NOT statistically less healthy than being in a normal weight range. I believe Carl Sagan would declare your claim to be the extraordinary one, which places the burden on you to provide the evidence.

I.e. it's in humans best interest from an evolutionary perspective to keep genes healthy therefore eugenics is appropriate.

This is a reductionist argument for reasons I've already explained: genetic, physical, psychological or other examples of fitness are not the only benefits brought to society and there are myriads of examples within evolution of the strong protecting the weak, especially within highly social species.

I believe you're strawmanning me here. Of course I agree with what you said above. e.g., Stephen Hawking. But we can celebrate his life and simultaneously strive to find a cure for ALS. We should not be celebrating ALS.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God pseudo skeptics are so obnoxious.

"ThAt's a FaLlaCY!" Is not an argument.

Obesity can but doesn't always come with health concerns. I'm obese but in pretty sure I'm healthier than most. I can go out and do a half marathon tomorrow and be fine. My blood panels are normal range (after medication. Because my pcos impacts my water and weight retention more than can simply be exercises and dieted.)

Fitness doesn't have a body size and really people who are just looking to take down fat people from magazines don't actually care about that anyway. Again, it's a superilficial beauty standards they have issues with, not the actual health of a fat person.

I'm 5'7" and 110 Lbs. and I can pretty much guarantee you'd do far better than I would. I'd pass out in the first 30 seconds.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Some people (like me), believe that moral expertise is possible. We might still be in the beginning stages of developing a universal moral expertise, but it's possible. Other people do not believe that universal moral expertise is possible. (We could say "moral and ethical" through out this discussion.)

Which camp do you ascribe to?

Okay, that seems like a useful way to distinguish the two. Given those definitions, I think my claim is extremely well tested and documented, and your claim is the extraordinary one. To reiterate, my claim is that, from a statistical perspective, being overweight is less healthy than being within a normal weight range. I believe your claim to be that being overweight is NOT statistically less healthy than being in a normal weight range. I believe Carl Sagan would declare your claim to be the extraordinary one, which places the burden on you to provide the evidence.

I believe you're strawmanning me here. Of course I agree with what you said above. e.g., Stephen Hawking. But we can celebrate his life and simultaneously strive to find a cure for ALS. We should not be celebrating ALS.

Obesity is not ALS and these kind of false equivalencies create harmful stereotypes that effect people like me, whose obesity is not the cause of symptomatic health issues and targeting obesity wouldn't impact my health significantly.

In fact I guarantee you don't have the statistics you're trying to claim here, that health problems more often than not are causative by the obesity than correlative, the cause being ither systemic health problems such as hormones, metabolic issues, mental healthcare issues, or other disability. The metabolic hormone disorder I mentioned is but one of many that cause obesity, and it's one that impacts as much as 10% of women. A *significant* number of people.

We could also talk about places where societal expectations of conformity towards people with disabilities causes more distress than the actual disorder in cases where disability as diversity is celebrated (e.g. autism and deaf culture) but honestly I don't think you've got room for that kind of nuance.



We also could and have talked about where celebrating *people with obesity* leads to better health because approaching personal health from security to rather than insecurity is far more likely to be successful and people who want to make obese people feel beautiful have done way more for these people than 'you need to go on a diet' pushers ever have.

But I also think you don't have room for that. Because it never was about health. It's about a value in an aesthetic. And I'm sorry to say but from what I've observed from you on these forums is that you've grown to be so anti-dogma that you miss the beam in your own eye. 'I hate dogma so it couldn't possibly be me laying unreasonable expectations and stereotypes at someone else's feet.'

 

[icehorse]

but honestly I don't think you've got room for that kind of nuance.

I'd like to zoom out at this moment. I have assiduously limited my part of this debate to ideas. You on the other hand have lowered yourself to slipping in direct or indirect personal attacks.

It's not a good look for you, AND it weakens your case.

So please stop with the direct and veiled personal attacks.

But I also think you don't have room for that. Because it never was about health. It's about a value in an aesthetic. And I'm sorry to say but from what I've observed from you on these forums is that you've grown to be so anti-dogma that you miss the beam in your own eye. 'I hate dogma so it couldn't possibly be me laying unreasonable expectations and stereotypes at someone else's feet.'

More of the same. I promise you, you are a very poor mind reader. As a general rule, when a person stoops to this sort of tactic, it means their arguments are weak.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'd like to zoom out at this moment. I have assiduously limited my part of this debate to ideas. You on the other hand have lowered yourself to slipping in direct or indirect personal attacks.



It's not a good look for you, AND it weakens your case.



So please stop with the direct and veiled personal attacks.







More of the same. I promise you, you are a very poor mind reader. As a general rule, when a person stoops to this sort of tactic, it means their arguments are weak.

No it doesn't, in fact stopping a debate because 'ad hominem!' Is literally its own fallacy, because a. talking about the character of the person is not unrelated to the topic being discussed and b. Making a personal observation does not, in fact, detract from the overall relevence of the debate.

Even though it's not allowed in formal debate, I refuse to treat this place like a formal debate venue because it isn't. There's no official debate moderation just general site moderation, there's no timer, there's no rules for rebuttals which are a hell of a lot more strict.

So to me 'u lost cuz ad hom' is just a cop-out.