IP suggestion: Jordan Peterson

More
21 Aug 2019 01:27 #341524 by Carlos.Martinez3
Krisshnamurti touches on that but that dude ... we used to call it the krishnamurti mountain at times... tough stuff to explain. U think JP has a clear sounding platform and a good lesson or two to share with us? He’s the “contemporary “ guy right .. like the most recent philosopher type alive ? Are there other recents with the same pitch ? Info? Any one know ?

Contact The Clergy
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Brick

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Aug 2019 03:15 #341525 by Kobos
I will look into some other sources but there are some books from the mid 2000's that touch on the idea I was highlighting. I don't believe that arguement has much to do with politics when it's taken for what it is.

Simply put, I could see it being useful for one to get to know the disadvantages they believed and real they have going in to any form of self improvement and realization.

Not Race based or political at all take this personal experience for example. I humbly believe it is a great folly to consider this concept as only a political or identity based concept.

After I stopped drinking due to my issues with liquor, I was talked to quite a bit about the genetics behind probable links to it, also there was then some issues of underlying mental health issues(depression). Now it is not scientifically wrong to point these as possible causes of my addiction. However, I see that though they increased the chance they did not make the choice of action that led to it. To deny that choice by saying, "well, the science said I was probably going to be an addict" is dishonest at best. I have plenty of friends who have similar genetic make ups with similar mental health that did not walk the path I did.

Another example. I have taught 2 classes now where I have presented the same information in many forms and included an open door policy about asking anything you do not understand ect. Now there are exceptions, but however, the majority of the time the students who don't do well tend to do so due to their choices. I give the same resources and extra when asked, so there is choices the student has to make if they want to improve. I have had students who normally don't do well in other classes ask for help take the time to look at the extra resources I give everyone as optional and their grades vastly improve. So, each student has the equal opportunity to learn the same things in many different ways. However that does not ensure the grade with out a choice to use that. Some will walk that path some will not.

Now scaling the idea up for sure inevitably makes it become political, racial and socially much more blurry, that's when we need to look at the solutions to certain issues. However, it is an idea that when considered in personal terms can be very useful. I again don't know if JP is the right guy to present that message but I will look into other sources for it, but it seems that this is the most accessible (on a wide scale) and well known/or at least most notable due to the political nature and outrage that surround it, of it at the moment.

I hope that made sense, just my 2 cents, maybe it's a whole different idea I have drawn through the way that this of the concept as explained by JP.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Fighting what you cannot see, will only lead you to lash out with violence towards everyone. Know your enemy, and you may find yourself a friend.

You can act real rude and totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile- Men without hats

Training Masters: Carlos.Martinez3 and JLSpinner
TB:Nakis
The following user(s) said Thank You: Brick

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Aug 2019 11:05 - 21 Aug 2019 11:07 #341528 by steamboat28

ZealotX wrote: But you could say the same thing about Jesus, right? Jesus is used by both right and left.

Bro, Jesus was left af. Read his teachings again. They're as left as they get.

ZealotX wrote: Now if transgender people are not okay with that maybe they might spin what he's saying to be anti-trans but its not anti-trans. It's simply a disagreement with individuals wanting individual special treatment based on their own psychology and chosen identity. And that's where I'll push back on them because there are a lot of things we don't get to choose. That's life. No one's oppressing you by not agreeing with what you want to call yourself.

You are so close to the actual point here when you say "there are a lot of things we don't get to choose." Being trans isn't a choice, and as such, neither is their identity. Because of this, when you refuse to use the name/pronouns a person gives you, you're actively erasing their identity. And I don't see what the big deal is anyhow--you call me Steamboat, and you know very well that's not my birthname. Why is it so difficult to accommodate trans people when we are willing to accommodate screen names?

ZealotX wrote: So does that mean women should also have sex with women and be strong and dominant? Who then becomes submissive?

This is the most "who's the man?!" misunderstanding of the situation I've seen in at least a year.

ZealotX wrote: men can't breast feed so it makes more sense that if the baby needs one of them at home that it should be the one who's lactating.

As a man who's about to be a father, I can tell you, unequivocally, that BABY FORMULA IS A THING THAT EXISTS. Because of technological advances in drying powder that contains nutrients, men have been able to feed babies since 1867 . Furthermore, since the invention of literally any way to store milk in cold conditions and a container to put said milk in, lactation has not been the dominating factor in who (according to "common sense") needs to stay home with the kid. That kind of thinking is definitely sexist and ignores basic advancements in human technology that were pretty essential to continue surviving on the planet.

ZealotX wrote: but I think Jordan's whole "thing" is challenging the zeitgeist with common sense.

Common sense doesn't contribute to the inequality of certain demographics of people. It doesn't actively harm people by lying to them about themselves. It doesn't cause suicide rates to go up, it doesn't cause dysphoria to worsen, and it doesn't make people feel sub-human. What JP preaches isn't common sense. It's harm.


I was going to add more, but literally everything you said after that last quote is either economically false or sexist.

I appreciate that you respect me. If that's true, however, I would also ask that you take my criticisms of this argument into consideration when you further discuss the topic.
Last edit: 21 Aug 2019 11:07 by steamboat28.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Brick

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Aug 2019 12:33 #341529 by rugadd
At its very base, people will act on what they believe regardless of its veracity. Any social issue has the ability to harm, hinder, or advance our relationships with each other and our lives together as a whole. For me, there is no reason NOT to respect how people wish to identify themselves. It is a waste of my time to pick apart someone else like that, grind down on their beliefs, or otherwise reject something that means very little to me. On top of that, to do so puts me at odds with someone that otherwise could have been a friend and ally. Even from a completely selfish stand point I would be shooting myself in the foot by rejecting a resource unnecessarily and creating an enemy where I had none for no reason.

rugadd
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Brick

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Aug 2019 12:53 #341530 by Brick

steamboat28 wrote: You are so close to the actual point here when you say "there are a lot of things we don't get to choose." Being trans isn't a choice, and as such, neither is their identity. Because of this, when you refuse to use the name/pronouns a person gives you, you're actively erasing their identity. And I don't see what the big deal is anyhow--you call me Steamboat, and you know very well that's not my birthname. Why is it so difficult to accommodate trans people when we are willing to accommodate screen names?


I may be getting a touch off topic here, but I think its

1. A conversation worth having, and
2. Provides an insight as to the cause of a lot of the JP controversy.

Firstly, I'd like to say that I agree with the majority of what you say in your last comment Steam, but I wanted to draw particular attention to the bit I have quoted above for a number of reasons.

I agree that being trans isn't a choice, and I also agree that its no big deal to call someone by their preferred pronoun (as you say, we call you Steamboat when that's not actually your name). Where the JP argument comes into it is whether this should be a legal requirement.

So, to use your example, I call you Steamboat because that's how you introduce yourself/present yourself. I call you Steamboat because that's clearly what you want to be called here. And I call you Steamboat, because frankly it may be considered rude of me to call you anything else and doing so wouldn't really achieve anything. However, I don't for one single moment believe that you are in fact named 'Steamboat'.

Now, whatever I may or may not believe your actual name to be is mostly irrelevant to both of us, so long as I continue to address you as Steamboat and leave it at that. However, should I be legally to required to call you Steamboat? Or should I be able to say 'hang on a minute, I don't think you're actually called Steamboat'? Again, I'm purely talking about what I should be ABLE to do under law, not necessarily what I should ACTUALLY do under basic human decency (as I've said, I don't believe calling you out on 'not being Steamboat' actually helps anything).

JP has been labelled a transphobe because of this. He has stated a number of times that he is more than happy to refer to people by their preferred pronoun (much like I am happy to refer to you as Steamboat). What he objected to was a legal requirement to refer to people by their preferred pronoun. And he didn't even object to it based on the argument that 'You're not 'X-pronoun', you're 'Y-pronoun'' but rather that the introduction of this legal requirement infringed people's right to free-speech. He didn't even technically object to this particular infringement, but more the fact that once you start censoring certain parts of speech its a slippery slope to censoring a whole host of speech. And for that, he was labelled 'transphobic', which I personally think is unfair (regardless of what I actually think of his argument).

As Manu has mentioned previously, I think much of the JP controversy stems from third-party interpretations of what he's said, and not the actual words that have come from his own mouth.

Welcome Team, IP Team, and Apprentice to Maitre Chevalier Jedi Alexandre Orion

IP Journal | IP Journal 2 | AP Journal | Open Journal

'The only contest any of us should be engaged in is with ourselves, to be better than yesterday'

- Knight Senan
The following user(s) said Thank You: Adder, Kobos, VixensVengeance aka Kyrin Wyldstar

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Aug 2019 23:27 #341649 by steamboat28

Brick wrote: Now, whatever I may or may not believe your actual name to be is mostly irrelevant to both of us, so long as I continue to address you as Steamboat and leave it at that. However, should I be legally to required to call you Steamboat? Or should I be able to say 'hang on a minute, I don't think you're actually called Steamboat'? Again, I'm purely talking about what I should be ABLE to do under law, not necessarily what I should ACTUALLY do under basic human decency (as I've said, I don't believe calling you out on 'not being Steamboat' actually helps anything)


As a person who recently had to undergo a court hearing to change his legal name, I'm gonna say this is already a thing.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Brick

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Aug 2019 23:34 #341650 by Proteus

steamboat28 wrote:

Brick wrote: Now, whatever I may or may not believe your actual name to be is mostly irrelevant to both of us, so long as I continue to address you as Steamboat and leave it at that. However, should I be legally to required to call you Steamboat? Or should I be able to say 'hang on a minute, I don't think you're actually called Steamboat'? Again, I'm purely talking about what I should be ABLE to do under law, not necessarily what I should ACTUALLY do under basic human decency (as I've said, I don't believe calling you out on 'not being Steamboat' actually helps anything)


As a person who recently had to undergo a court hearing to change his legal name, I'm gonna say this is already a thing.


I'm not sure that is the same thing thing as what Brick is talking about. You got a legal name change. That doesn't make it a legal requirement for us to refer to to you by that name. It's simply an equivalent to someone who getting a birth certificate updated on gender origin something.

It seems that I know that I know.
What I would like to see is the 'I' that knows me when I know that I know that I know.
- Alan Watts
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Brick

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Aug 2019 00:21 #341653 by steamboat28
I mean, except that it actually means I'm legally referred to by that name. So. In essence, you could argue it's the same thing instead of trying to split hairs to sound like you're smarter than everyone else in the room for once. :D
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Brick

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Aug 2019 05:48 #341686 by Brick

steamboat28 wrote: I mean, except that it actually means I'm legally referred to by that name. So. In essence, you could argue it's the same thing instead of trying to split hairs to sound like you're smarter than everyone else in the room for once. :D


I think you're both right here.

My understanding of what you've described Steam, is that you've changed the name the Government officially recognises you as having. So, if I'm referring to you in an official capacity (such as suing you, or presenting you with an academic qualification etc), then I do have to use your legal name.

But, as far as I'm aware, that has nothing to do with what I legally have to call you when I talk with you? That's the law JP was objecting to, where (effectively under any context, and even in the privacy of one's own home) if you verbally used the wrong pronoun to talk with or about someone, you would actually be breaking the law.

Welcome Team, IP Team, and Apprentice to Maitre Chevalier Jedi Alexandre Orion

IP Journal | IP Journal 2 | AP Journal | Open Journal

'The only contest any of us should be engaged in is with ourselves, to be better than yesterday'

- Knight Senan
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Aug 2019 11:24 #341710 by steamboat28

Brick wrote: But, as far as I'm aware, that has nothing to do with what I legally have to call you when I talk with you? That's the law JP was objecting to, where (effectively under any context, and even in the privacy of one's own home) if you verbally used the wrong pronoun to talk with or about someone, you would actually be breaking the law.


That's fair. See y'all? Brick understands that there's nothing wrong with intentionally ignoring the identity someone has given you to use for them, and that you shouldn't be able to rely on legal structures to protect your identity. She gets that misgendering is problematic, but doesn't think it matters if it's done in an unofficial capacity.

As there is no sarcasm font or punctuation mark available on an English QWERTY keyboard, please imagine this being said in a terribly condescending voice.


In all seriousness, how is intentionally misgendering someone not transphobic? How does it not erase their identity? And who are we to decide who people are?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Brick

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.