• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Mister Apoc
Member
(12-02-2017, 05:52 AM)


This guy has been talked about on the web, he seems to be a new "hero" of the right

I know many on the left hate him, but he never really strikes me as being a rightist

I have heard him talk vehemontly against Fascism and White Supremacy as much as he does the far left (although I admit that he tends to use "postmodernism/marxism" in inappropriate times)

but he never strikes me as someone that the left would hate, because his views don't seem extreme. If anything he strikes me more as a libertarian/individualist

am I missing something why he gets brought up alot now a days and why the left dislikes him and the right loves him?
Sinfamy
Member
(12-02-2017, 06:32 AM)
Sinfamy's Avatar
He believes whatever gets him more money on Patreon.
IaN_GAF
Member
(12-02-2017, 11:31 AM)
IaN_GAF's Avatar
I think part of the problem may be the obscene obsession on social media nowadays to immediately clasify anyone as either completely left or completely right, refusing to re-evaluate that judgement afterwards.
Ancient Dragon
Junior Member
(12-02-2017, 11:39 AM)
Ancient Dragon's Avatar
He is a white male who mansplains.

He bashes postmodernism and Marxism appropriately though
Kule
Member
(12-02-2017, 11:43 AM)
Kule's Avatar
He became popular for his on campus debate videos with students. He seems to be pretty knowledgeable but recently he's also kind of fallen into becoming an eceleb so take what he says with a grain of salt.
llien
Member
(12-02-2017, 12:02 PM)
llien's Avatar
I've watch him talk, found it interesting (although, it apparently isn't a debate when one's opponents are missing and he simply states why they are mistaken).

The "anti-transgender" blame on him, for not using made up words that even trans community find controversial, doesn't look justified.

As most scientists with no roots in humanities or gender studies, he is very critical of post-modernism.

(interesting read: Criticism of postmodernism (wiki) and you absolutely should not skip Sokal affair (wiki))

There is nothing "rightist" in his views. Alt-rights might like him for criticizing american left, but just criticizing left doesn't make one alt-right. (alt-left have a different opinion)

Most of the content on his site isn't related to controversies:
www.jordanbpeterson.com
Harlock
Member
(12-02-2017, 12:16 PM)
Harlock's Avatar
Simple answers would be: he is an anti-whining. If you feel oppressed, if you feel online people are mean to you, so go to do something productive with your life.

The h3h3 podcast with him was so good because did not focused so much in politics, but rather in day to day issues.
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-02-2017, 12:24 PM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by llien

I've watch him talk, found it interesting (although, it apparently isn't a debate when one's opponents are missing and he simply states why they are mistaken).

The "anti-transgender" blame on him, for not using made up words that even trans community find controversial, doesn't look justified.

As most scientists with no roots in humanities or gender studies, he is very critical of post-modernism.

(interesting read: Criticism of postmodernism (wiki) and you absolutely should not skip Sokal affair (wiki))

There is nothing "rightist" in his views. Alt-rights might like him for criticizing american left, but just criticizing left doesn't make one alt-right. (alt-left have a different opinion)

Most of the content on his site isn't related to controversies:
www.jordanbpeterson.com

The criticism of postmodernism article is rather poor. A criticism article that serves as an infodump without examination by notable postmodernists. Otherwise the criticisms mean nothing, and the implication created for the reader is that the criticism is considered to be valid, which goes against Wikipedia's policy on neutral points of view being presented. I doubt very much that no such responses from noteworthy figures exist, so why are they not present?
Dude Abides
Member
(12-02-2017, 12:25 PM)
Dude Abides's Avatar

Originally Posted by llien

I've watch him talk, found it interesting (although, it apparently isn't a debate when one's opponents are missing and he simply states why they are mistaken).

The "anti-transgender" blame on him, for not using made up words that even trans community find controversial, doesn't look justified.

As most scientists with no roots in humanities or gender studies, he is very critical of post-modernism.

(interesting read: Criticism of postmodernism (wiki) and you absolutely should not skip Sokal affair (wiki))

There is nothing "rightist" in his views. Alt-rights might like him for criticizing american left, but just criticizing left doesn't make one alt-right. (alt-left have a different opinion)

Most of the content on his site isn't related to controversies:
www.jordanbpeterson.com

He's not a scientist. He's a psychologist. He has no idea what postmodernism or Marxism mean, but since those are trigger words for the people who give him money, he uses them a lot.
deadscreensky
Banned
(12-02-2017, 01:14 PM)

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

The criticism of postmodernism article is rather poor. A criticism article that serves as an infodump without examination by notable postmodernists. Otherwise the criticisms mean nothing, and the implication created for the reader is that the criticism is considered to be valid, which goes against Wikipedia's policy on neutral points of view being presented. I doubt very much that no such responses from noteworthy figures exist, so why are they not present?

I think the element that makes it acceptable is it's extremely upfront over just how meaningless the concept is as an umbrella term (because postmodernism means so many different things, for starters). It's just an extremely general overview of a few arguments against certain, diverse postmodern ideas.

Which also makes it completely useless as a general critique of postmodernism, of course. But as a starting point to very broad questions ("why do religious conservatives dislike postmodernism?") it's not too bad, and I'm not sure if it was ever intended to be actual criticism. It's definitely a weak tool to bring to this 'debate'.

I know very little about Jordan Peterson, but if he actually is a libertarian as the OP states then of course he's unpopular with the left. (I'm not sure if even libertarians like libertarians.)
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-02-2017, 01:18 PM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by deadscreensky

I think the element that makes it acceptable is it's extremely upfront over just how meaningless the concept is as an umbrella term (because postmodernism means so many different things, for starters). It's just an extremely general overview of a few arguments against certain, diverse postmodern ideas.

Which also makes it completely useless as a general critique of postmodernism, of course. But as a starting point to very broad questions ("why do religious conservatives dislike postmodernism?") it's not too bad, and I'm not sure if it was ever intended to be actual criticism. It's definitely a weak tool to bring to this 'debate'.

I know very little about Jordan Peterson, but if he actually is a libertarian as the OP states then of course he's unpopular with the left. (I'm not sure if even libertarians like libertarians.)

To be clear, articles on Wikipedia should not have a point of view, so if it seems like the article is making a statement, then the article has problems. The presentation of criticisms alongside, say, Richard Dawkins' comments allows for them to be properly contextualized.
Lupingosei
Junior Member
(12-02-2017, 01:32 PM)

Originally Posted by Dude Abides

He's not a scientist. He's a psychologist.

Psychology is science for quite long time already.

Originally Posted by Dude Abides

He has no idea what postmodernism or Marxism mean,

He explains it pretty well for that is getting the right theories and the right authors. And his critic on Foucault and Derrida are valid.

Originally Posted by Mister Apoc

am I missing something why he gets brought up alot now a days and why the left dislikes him and the right loves him?

A lot of people on the left like him as well. A lot of his points are valid, but because everything is now black and white it is getting reduced to left vs. right.
Woffls
Member
(12-02-2017, 01:42 PM)
Woffls's Avatar
Maybe start by thinking about his views in terms other than "left" or "right".
DevilFox
Member
(12-02-2017, 01:56 PM)
DevilFox's Avatar
He's a psychologist who got famous (I guess) by analyzing the cultural changes of our times.
You don't have to label him as left or right wing critic. He's only offering a point of view (not necessarily the one he agrees with), based on his klowledge. Of course no human can ever be 100% unbiased, but the idea with these figures is to listen to what they have to say, to fact check when needed and challenge your beliefs. You're free to call him stupid but it's very likely that he has more knowledge than you do, that he spent more time than you thinking about some topics and that he had his beliefs challenged and crushed quite often. That's why it's worth a listen.
Dude Abides
Member
(12-02-2017, 02:11 PM)
Dude Abides's Avatar

Originally Posted by Lupingosei

Psychology is science for quite long time already.

Nope. Itís ts no more a science than sociology or economics.

He explains it pretty well for that is getting the right theories and the right authors. And his critic on Foucault and Derrida are valid.

He's just a garden variety polemicist, not a thinker.
Reverse Giraffe
Banned
(12-02-2017, 02:14 PM)

Originally Posted by Sinfamy

He believes whatever gets him more money on Patreon.

First reply gets it right.
Sapiens
Member
(12-02-2017, 02:33 PM)
Sapiens's Avatar
Heís your typical narcissistic boomer Canadian conservative. Nothing more.

Heís not the boogie man.
entremet
Member
(12-02-2017, 02:50 PM)
entremet's Avatar
I liked his Maps and Meaning Carl Jung stuff, being a Jung nerd myself.

His other stuff, (politics, etc.) just isn't that interesting to me, although it seems that's what gets the views for him. But I just don't care about it.
Mister Apoc
Member
(12-02-2017, 03:29 PM)

Originally Posted by Sapiens

Heís your typical narcissistic boomer Canadian conservative. Nothing more.

Heís not the boogie man.

have you read maps of meaning?
cubicle47b
Member
(12-02-2017, 04:36 PM)
cubicle47b's Avatar
He thinks identity politics are incredibly dangerous and publicly fought against Canadian bill C-16. He associates with other people the left hates and has become an internet celebrity of sorts for (mostly) the center and right. Itís not surprising the left hates him.

I like him a lot. Iím at least center left, but Iím anti-authoritarian and have always been just on the outside of multiple groups. He appeals to me in multiple ways, not the least of which is the self-help side. Iím married, in my late 30ís, and weíre (almost very) successful, but I still needed the kind of relationship and future-authoring insights he offers.
deadscreensky
Banned
(12-02-2017, 11:56 PM)

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

To be clear, articles on Wikipedia should not have a point of view, so if it seems like the article is making a statement, then the article has problems. The presentation of criticisms alongside, say, Richard Dawkins' comments allows for them to be properly contextualized.

That's fair. I felt the article was just (very briefly) summarizing various criticisms of several types of postmodernism, so I personally didn't pick up much of any statement-making. Wikipedia itself notes that article needs a lot of work, so maybe I'm giving it too much slack.

But I don't think its style is that different from what we see in other criticism sections (example).
RastaMentality
Banned
(12-03-2017, 12:00 AM)
Heís not smart. You can tell because the right clings to him.
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 12:09 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by deadscreensky

That's fair. I felt the article was just (very briefly) summarizing various criticisms of several types of postmodernism, so I personally didn't pick up much of any statement-making. Wikipedia itself notes that article needs a lot of work, so maybe I'm giving it too much slack.

But I don't think its style is that different from what we see in other criticism sections (example).

TBH that one is not great either, a lot of unverified content in the section. That said, where the criticism of postmodernism appears to be more a collection of things notable (and sometimes non-notable, as may be the case with Sherry Wolf) people have said on postmodernism that are critical, whereas criticism of modernism examined the nature of the criticism more and the history thereof.
Blood Borne
Member
(12-03-2017, 12:21 AM)
In Geography, when you go so far and you reach the north pole, from that point, any direction you move to is south. This is how far the left has gone.

The left believes that there are only two political stances, left and far right. They don't believe in individualism or being a centrist. You're either left or far right.

You can be for socialised healthcare, higher minimum wage, be a member of lgbt, support antifa, support high taxes, etc. You can support all these things but if you don't support e.g. open borders, the left immediately brands you as racist xenophobe. You must support EVERYTHING they stand for. Strict group think.

Anyone who has a bit of common sense can see that Jordan Peterson is a libertarian. A classic liberal. He believes in individualism. Doesn't believe in force or coercion. But to the left, he's an alt right transphobic fascist.
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 12:25 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by Blood Borne

In Geography, when you go so far and you reach the north pole, from that point, any direction you move to is south. This is how far the left has gone.

The left believes that there are only two political stances, left and far right. They don't believe in individualism or being a centrist. You're either left or far right.

You can be for socialised healthcare, higher minimum wage, be a member of lgbt, support antifa, support high taxes, etc. You can support all these things but if you don't support e.g. open borders, the left immediately brands you as racist xenophobe. You must support EVERYTHING they stand for. Strict group think.

Anyone who has a bit of common sense can see that Jordan Peterson is a libertarian. A classic liberal. He believes in individualism. Doesn't believe in force or coercion. But to the left, he's an alt right transphobic fascist.

He certainly is transphobic, yes.
Harlock
Member
(12-03-2017, 12:34 AM)
Harlock's Avatar
This video about depression can be useful, even when depression is not exactly the case. No jokes about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c9Uu5eILZ8
DevilFox
Member
(12-03-2017, 12:57 AM)
DevilFox's Avatar

Originally Posted by RastaMentality

He’s not smart. You can tell because the right clings to him.

We get it, Rasta, everyone who disagrees with you is not smart. It must be awesome to be you, always so righteous and enlightened. :')
What about his talks outside politics, does he make any sense there at least or what?
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 01:20 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by DevilFox

We get it, Rasta, everyone who disagrees with you is not smart. It must be awesome to be you, always so righteous and enlightened. :')
What about his talks outside politics, does he make any sense there at least or what?

Considering that he doesn't seem to understand Bill C-16, I do not think his fandom is well earned.
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
(12-03-2017, 01:24 AM)
kruis's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

He certainly is transphobic, yes.

Peterson is not transphobic, he's against the mandatory use of made-up gender-neutral personal pronouns like these:



He has actually gotten support from transsexuals on this stance, which isn't really that surprising because M-F and F-M transsexuals aren't inbetweenies, they want to belong to a specific gender.

Here's a Youtube video of a 40 minute discussion between Jordan Peterson and a transwoman who supports Peterson's views.
CannonFodder52
Member
(12-03-2017, 01:29 AM)
CannonFodder52's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

Considering that he doesn't seem to understand Bill C-16, I do not think his fandom is well earned.

.
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 01:34 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by kruis

Peterson is not transphobic, he's against the mandatory use of made-up gender-neutral personal pronouns like these:



He has actually gotten support from transsexuals on this stance, which isn't really that surprising because M-F and F-M transsexuals aren't inbetweenies, they want to belong to a specific gender.

Here's a Youtube video of a 40 minute discussion between Jordan Peterson and a transwoman who supports Peterson's views.

Yes, there are a lot of trans people who hate nonbinary people. This is not a new thing. and that it's trans people who hate them does not lend credence to them supporting Peterson.

Secondly, no such mandate exists. Bill C-16 does not offer any ability for anyone to be charged with a crime or fined simply for using the wrong pronouns.

Originally Posted by JordanN

I believe that game is The Last Night. Yeah, they were (or still are!) up in arms about it.

If not that, I remember A Hat in Time received similar eer because Jontron was in it.

Oh, that. Yeah, I would absolutely agree with the boycott there. The creator not only has some pretty abhorrent views, but has also made clear that these views influenced the product.
finowns
Member
(12-03-2017, 01:35 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

He certainly is transphobic, yes.

Do you have evidence of his transphobia?
Ubername
Member
(12-03-2017, 01:35 AM)
Ubername's Avatar

Originally Posted by finowns

Do you have evidence of his transphobia?

Who gives a fuck?
finowns
Member
(12-03-2017, 01:36 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ubername

Who gives a fuck?

Me?
Darryl
Member
(12-03-2017, 01:55 AM)
Darryl's Avatar
He's well-spoken, he fully articulates his views with references to past experiences and plenty of elaboration. He's got a pretty great library of personal anecdotes from his time working as a clinical psychologist that he uses to help explain his thoughts. It's clear by the way he talks that he has come to grow into his view points, rather than simply having them because they sound appropriate. It gives the way he talks a lot of conviction. I would bet he has shifted where he falls on political issues multiple times as he has gotten older. On top of that, he's fairly religious. He likes religion and religious allegories. He uses a lot of references to ancient biblical stories to help explain his thinking, which is pretty great. I think saying that there is ancient wisdom in religious works is obvious so his desire to explain them secularly is interesting.

He irritates a lot of people on the left because of the gender pronoun issue. He takes a hard stance on it but he does show nuance with the issue ("i would use your pronouns if I thought you were being sincere and not trying to police me"). His problems with gender pronouns are more-so about intentions than anything. He also doesn't have any large skeleton viewpoints in his closet. He has the one issue and that's basically the only thing offensive about him, and his viewpoints around that issue are measured itself.

To chase all of this, he has masterfully channeled his cultural phenom into becoming something resembling a modern, secular Pastor. He preaches responsibility and work ethic. He is rarely having a talk where he doesn't say things meant to inspire. If you actually like the guy, listening to him talk is enjoyable. I usually feel inspired listening to him talk. He has convinced me to take more responsibility for myself and the things that happen in my life.

The gender pronoun crowd intersects nearly 1:1 on it's hatred of religion, religious authority figures, and also he is a white male. At that point, there are an ocean of reasons to hate him on principle.
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 02:07 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by finowns

Do you have evidence of his transphobia?

Content such as this:

Peterson said that if a student asked him to be referred to by a non-binary pronoun, he would not recognize their request: ďI donít recognize another personís right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I wonít do it.Ē

It is argued on the free speech angle, but so is it argued as free speech when people refuse to use she/her pronouns to refer to trans women. Also, Jordan Peterson has used rather ridiculous rhetoric as criticism of the current nb movement:

"I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century."

Whether a comparison can be drawn between postmodern "radical leftist" ideology and Marxist societies which perpetuated horrible atrocities is neither here nor there, but bringing it up in this context is disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Darryl

He irritates a lot of people on the left because of the gender pronoun issue. He takes a hard stance on it but he does show nuance with the issue ("i would use your pronouns if I thought you were being sincere and not trying to police me"). His problems with gender pronouns are more-so about intentions than anything. He also doesn't have any large skeleton viewpoints in his closet. He has the one issue and that's basically the only thing offensive about him, and his viewpoints around that issue are measured itself.

Inherently, his misunderstanding of Bill C-16 makes his nuance rather weak. That said, in response to the notion that Peterson is merely criticized for his opinion on Bill C-16 and gender neutral pronouns:

"He emphasized the state should halt funding neo-Marxist faculties and courses, while students should avoid neo-Marxist disciplines like women's studies, ethnic studies and racial studies, as well other courses "corrupted" by the ideology such as sociology, anthropology and English literature."

Peterson's a weird guy.
finowns
Member
(12-03-2017, 02:15 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

Content such as this:

Peterson said that if a student asked him to be referred to by a non-binary pronoun, he would not recognize their request: “I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.”

It is argued on the free speech angle, but so is it argued as free speech when people refuse to use she/her pronouns to refer to trans women. Also, Jordan Peterson has used rather ridiculous rhetoric as criticism of the current nb movement:

"I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century."

Whether a comparison can be drawn between postmodern "radical leftist" ideology and Marxist societies which perpetuated horrible atrocities is neither here nor there, but bringing it up in this context is disingenuous.

If this is the best evidence of his intense dislike of trans people I would be very wary of labeling him transphobic.
Beerman462
Banned
(12-03-2017, 02:17 AM)
He's a human being just like everyone else with varying opinions on a wide range of topics.

Hard liners that don't like having a real discussions will find ways to stick him in a box, so they can disregard anything he says on any topic.

Originally Posted by RastaMentality

Heís not smart. You can tell because the right clings to him.

Case in point.
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 02:34 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by finowns

If this is the best evidence of his intense dislike of trans people I would be very wary of labeling him transphobic.

Transphobia doesn't require an "intense dislike."
finowns
Member
(12-03-2017, 02:38 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

Transphobia doesn't require an "intense dislike."

What does it require?
cubicle47b
Member
(12-03-2017, 02:41 AM)
cubicle47b's Avatar

Originally Posted by Beerman462

Case in point.

Yeah, that's the saddest statement in this thread.

Someone posted a video about depression and I think that's a better use of this thread. Post videos of Peterson you find positive and interesting. Here he is answering the question what should you aim for in life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI_tyAduoJo or this one on relationships https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VM1UA0pCMQ
deadscreensky
Banned
(12-03-2017, 02:41 AM)

Originally Posted by finowns

If this is the best evidence of his intense dislike of trans people I would be very wary of labeling him transphobic.

Actually, connecting trans people wanting different pronouns with political movements that killed 100+ million people makes it kind of hard to argue otherwise. That's probably comparatively worse than the homophobic arguments saying gay marriage would lead to legal bestiality.
ThreePiMatt
Member
(12-03-2017, 02:43 AM)
There's definitely a segment on the left, particularly those who have dedicated much of their life to academia, that don't blindly follow the more emotionally-driven liberal ideologies. Like Sam Harris with religion, or Alice Dreger with gender issues.
RastaMentality
Banned
(12-03-2017, 02:44 AM)

Originally Posted by finowns

What does it require?

Attitudes that undermine the humanity of transgender individuals, however severe, regardless of intent.

This concept applies to racism, misogyny, and homophobia too by the way
cubicle47b
Member
(12-03-2017, 02:46 AM)
cubicle47b's Avatar

Originally Posted by Darryl

To chase all of this, he has masterfully channeled his cultural phenom into becoming something resembling a modern, secular Pastor.

I think you articulated this perfectly.
finowns
Member
(12-03-2017, 02:48 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by deadscreensky

Actually, connecting trans people wanting different pronouns with political movements that killed 100+ million people makes it kind of hard to argue otherwise. That's probably comparatively worse than the homophobic arguments saying gay marriage would lead to legal bestiality.

Thatís a stretch he was being more specific in that quote, assuming the quote in this thread is the one youíre talking about.
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 02:53 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by finowns

Thatís a stretch he was being more specific in that quote, assuming the quote in this thread is the one youíre talking about.

It is not a direct comparison, but the fact that he brought it up in the context of that does make it a comparison, as behavior of a group he compares to deaths under Marxist regimes.
finowns
Member
(12-03-2017, 02:55 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by RastaMentality

Attitudes that undermine the humanity of transgender individuals, however severe, regardless of intent.

This concept applies to racism, misogyny, and homophobia too by the way

That is a very broad and vague definition for a word. Where are you getting it?
finowns
Member
(12-03-2017, 02:59 AM)
finowns's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Link to the Past

It is not a direct comparison, but the fact that he brought it up in the context of that does make it a comparison, as behavior of a group he compares to deaths under Marxist regimes.

I disagree, unless there is a larger context to the quote.

Double post on my phone
A Link to the Past
Snitch
(12-03-2017, 03:04 AM)
A Link to the Past's Avatar

Originally Posted by finowns

That is a very broad and vague definition for a word. Where are you getting it?

It's not really vague at all. Some definitions identify prejudice as opposed to dislike, which adequately identifies Peterson's views. He holds a prejudice against nb people, and this prejudice can be seen in:

1. Despite being a smart enough person, Peterson has done inadequate research into Bill C-16 and its applicability in the way he claims, as the courts ruled that such a scenario would require active hatred in order to be relevant.

2. Creating an association between deaths of hundreds of millions of people and people working to instill things like Bill C-16 and gender-neutral pronouns.

3. Refusing to honor people's personal pronouns and in doing so denying the validity of their gender (an act which is demonstrated in psychology to have a potential harmful effect).

4. As someone pointed out earlier, Peterson claimed that he would use such pronouns if the person's gender seemed authentic - essentially holding the proper gendering of someone for ransom, rather than just using the proper pronouns.

We can also look into some further examples, such as characterizing the issues that trans people experience with misgendering as being hurt feelings, which is very reductive of the actual impact.

Originally Posted by finowns

I disagree, unless there is a larger context to the quote.

Double post on my phone

The comment mentioned gender neutral pronouns as a sole example of comparison between violent Marxist nations and modern "radical" leftists.

Thread Tools