These are the terms and concepts used by the World Health Organization, the Governments of Canada and its provinces, the Canadian, American and worldwide Psychatric Associations, just as a few examples.
So it isn't about me. You just made a post elsewhere about Canadian law. Sex and gender as distinct concepts is also part of that law.
6079_Smith_W wrote:
You just made a post elsewhere about Canadian law. Sex and gender as distinct concepts is also part of that law.
And that's fair enough. However, it is still common practice to use sex and gender interchangeably in discussing the gender of animals. And that goes back a long ways. From the Online Etymology dictionary:
gender (n.): The "male-or-female sex" sense is attested in English from early 15c. As 'sex' (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., 'gender' came to be the usual word for 'sex of a human being', in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested in 1963.
So it has been used as a reference to sex for several hundred years. The latecomers can't just steal a word. They can use it as they wish, but that doesn't change it's original meaning.
Well that's nice.
Pronunciation: 
n
s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English nice "foolish, stupid," from early French nice (same meaning), from Latin nescius "ignorant," from nescire "not to know," from ne- "not" and scire "to know" --related to SCIENCE
1 : finicky in tastes or habits
2 a : not obvious : SUBTLE <a nice distinction> b : having the ability to notice small differences <a nice ear for music>
3 : PLEASING, AGREEABLE <a nice time> <a nice person>
4 : well behaved : RESPECTABLE <wasn't a nice thing to do>
- nice·ly adverb
- nice·ness noun
Word History Five hundred years ago, when nice was first used in English, it meant "foolish or stupid." This is not as surprising as it may seem, since it came through early French from the Latin nescius, meaning "ignorant." By the 16th century, the sense of being "very particular" or "finicky" had developed. In the 19th century, nice came to mean "pleasant or agreeable" and then "respectable," a sense quite unlike its original meaning.
And on another Jordan Peterson front:
Lindsay Shepherd suing Wilfrid Laurier University
Wilfrid Laurier graduate student Lindsay Shepherd is suing the university, two professors and an employee of its diversity and equity office.
...The lawsuit, which seeks $3.6 million in damages, claims Shepherd was “subjected to continuing abuse and a toxic climate from the university and its representatives” and has “suffered nervous shock as a result of the conduct of the defendants.”
...In November, Shepherd made headlines after releasing a recording of her being reprimanded by Rambukkana, Pimlott and Joel, for showing her first-year communication students part of a televised debate about the use of gender-neutral pronouns. She was told she created a toxic environment, even though she argued she showed the debate neutrally.
The televised debate included Jordan Peterson, which was enough to set off the university's alarms. That little attempt to stifle debate will probably cost them.
Speaking of 'nice', an old meaning still lives on in 'nicety'. Just because a word gets a new meaning it doesn't mean it loses it's old meaning, especially when that word describes a specific phenomenon.
I find it a bit ironic that someone with the username 6079_Smith_W would so easily go along with newspeak. On the other hand, perhaps not. After all, Winston did eventually come to love Big Brother.
Language evolves.
Rev, if you read the next sentence in the article, the university apologized. And in fact, real alarms were pulled at another event Shepherd sponsored in March of this year:
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/03/21/faith-goldys-...
As for the initial event, here's another perspective on it:
A large group of self-described free speech advocates are zeroing in on Laurier now that the university has shown they are prepared to bend over backwards. The university has announced it will be setting up a task force to bring forward a set of principles, presumably designed to avoid future conflicts.
Marginalized students, meanwhile, have been left with the perception that Laurier will not support them – or their professors and staff – in their struggles against oppression. Laurier needs to fight that perception.
https://nowtoronto.com/news/alt-right-new-hero-on-campus-lindsay-shepherd/
What a joke. The minimum requirement for employment in academia is a PhD. Does Lindsay Shepherd have a PhD? If not, I'm not sure how she would be employable.
Life is a procession of Room 101 moments, Rev.
6079_Smith_W
The two expressions my Pop said he hated the most were "nice", and "at this time." This has surely scarred me psychologically for decades. Evidently I can only say "nice" in a mocking accent. Why can't you say "good" and "now"?
I think Nixon coined "at this point in time".
(Just checked; actually it was John Dean)
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-10-03/features/9710030026_1_el-n...
wage zombie wrote:
What a joke. The minimum requirement for employment in academia is a PhD. Does Lindsay Shepherd have a PhD? If not, I'm not sure how she would be employable.
Which is kind of strange because Lindsay Shepherd was in fact employed by the University. She was teaching first year communications students.
Timebandit wrote:
Language evolves.
Yes it does. In fact, think of the word 'sick'. Yesterday it meant ill, or unwell, but now we can't use it that way because some people have changed it to now mean 'cool' or 'neat'.
Sorry folks, no more sick days because we can't call it that now. Phrases like 'sick and tired' are going to have to be changed to 'ill and tired'. Oh no, this just in, 'ill' has now been changed to mean 'cool', so what do we have left? Unwell? Diseased? Somehow 'diseased and tired' doesn't have the same ring as 'sick and tired'.
Or to put it another way, language does change over time. Anyone reading the original 'Canterbury Tales' could tell you that.
But just because an existing word is given another meaning doesn't mean the word no longer functions as it did before. This is especially true for words that describe a specific phenomenon.
As posted by 6079_Smith_W:
A large group of self-described free speech advocates are zeroing in on Laurier now that the university has shown they are prepared to bend over backwards.
Is the author of the article suggesting that Lindsay Shepherd is somenow to blame for this. Isn't it the university, and the three higher-ups who summoned Shepherd to explain herself, and then subsequently apologized, who are to blame?
I know one thing. If Shepherd hadn't been summoned to a 45 minute interrogation to answer anonymous complaints, no one would have heard of this.The real question is, what did the university think they were doing in the first place?
Well, to circle back 20 posts to #93, just because some people use terms interchangably doesn't mean they aren't two separate concepts.
I'm really not sure what your point is. If you think I am demanding you not use the word gender to mean sex, frankly I don't care; do whatever you want. I'm just telling you how the two terms are used in scientific and legal and medical language, and increasingly in common usage.
(edit)
You read the article. Evidently the writer thought that apology was unnecessary, and a bad idea. As I said, it is another perspective. Given that it is now a legal matter, I guess we'll see whether it was a good idea or not.
As posted by 6079_Smith_W:
A large group of self-described free speech advocates are zeroing in on Laurier now that the university has shown they are prepared to bend over backwards.
Is the author of the article suggesting that Lindsay Shepherd is somenow to blame for this. Isn't it the university, and the three higher-ups who summoned Shepherd to explain herself, and then subsequently apologized, who are to blame?
I know one thing. If Shepherd hadn't been summoned to a 45 minute interrogation to answer anonymous complaints, no one would have heard of this.The real question is, what did the university think they were doing in the first place?
Um, people get called to mtgs with people they work for all the time. Sometimes they get reamed out. Sometimes, even, unfairly.
And most of the time, no one knows about it.
The only reason people know about this is that Shepherd secretly recorded the exchange and then gave it to a reporter and allowed it to be posted on various media sites. And she is now trying to seek damages for any blowback from that choice? Are you kidding me??
I was also amused that Lindsay was using as an example of harrassment the fact that a prof asked her to close her computer because she was concerned that Shepherd might be recording her.
Gee. Ya think???!!!
If I had Shepherd in my class, I would be constantly worried about her recording me. She's, like, one of the most famous recorders in the world!
Shepherd's "unemployability", to the extent it even exists, would be impossible to trace to "the incident" versus her subsequent conduct, including being happily wined and dined by alt right elites, and making pretty intemperate comments on twitter.
I wouldn't hire such a person to be part of my faculty. That would be an entirely reasonable decision. And it would have little to do with an absurd Hitler comparison.
And most of the time, no one knows about it.
And before recording technologies were invented, that would have been ALL of the time. But now we can see or hear things we never could have before. Were it not for a secret recording, Harvey Weinstein's "business meeting" with Ambra Gutierrez would have been just another meeting, and Gutierrez just another hysterical woman.
Shepherd managed to capture three senior faculty/staff at Laurier lying to her face in response to "a complaint". That alone would have been worth pressing the "record" button. But the fact that there was, in fact, no such complaint at all leads me to think that Shepherd did the right thing. It's very difficult to believe, given that, that she was in any way dealt with in good faith. Had there actually been a complaint, it might have been easy enough and comforting enough to say "well, maybe there were some misunderstandings, but the advisors and staff were only trying to do the right thing". But what's the right thing about blatantly LYING about a complaint??
I don't imagine Shepherd will be awarded all she asks, but it would be fascinating if, in the dissection of this all, it was at least revealed WHY three senior faculty/staff would fabricate a complaint in order to take time out of their busy day to investigate it. Something in the milk ain't clean.
Also, FWIW, if her recording had caught one of her advisors offering to make all of this go away "in exchange for certain favours" then I don't think we'd consider her a troublemaker, we'd consider her a hero. And I think we'd consider her unemployability an unacceptable penalty for that. It's not super clear to me what she did wrong here.
Browbeat?
Evidently there is a difference of opinion about that. From that Now article:
I have reviewed the full recording of this meeting five times. To suggest Shepherd was being attacked, as some have, is an astounding leap. At no point do the three individuals who have a conversation with Shepherd admonish or berate her. If this is what passes for an unacceptable response to a student complaint, then it is clear institutions can do very little for the marginalized among them.
If this is what passes for an unacceptable response to a student complaint, then it is clear institutions can do very little for the marginalized among them.
Was NOW Magazine still erring in the belief that there was, actually, a complaint?
Because without a complaint, the entire meeting was browbeating. Literally, three senior faculty/staff convened a meeting in order to pretend that they were investigating a complaint and to criticize a grad student over a video. Or else why do YOU think that meeting happened?
No, actually. Browbeating is browbeating.
Have you listened to the conversation?
wage zombie wrote:
What a joke. The minimum requirement for employment in academia is a PhD. Does Lindsay Shepherd have a PhD? If not, I'm not sure how she would be employable.
Which is kind of strange because Lindsay Shepherd was in fact employed by the University. She was teaching first year communications students.
I guess if by academia, you mean "full professorship", and you think that anyone else working for a university isn't really an employee and has no right to make any legal claims against the univeristy, then Zombie's point makes sense.
I'm kind of guessing that that's not the usual stance taken by progressives in regards to university employment, however.
And most of the time, no one knows about it.And before recording technologies were invented, that would have been ALL of the time. But now we can see or hear things we never could have before. Were it not for a secret recording, Harvey Weinstein's "business meeting" with Ambra Gutierrez would have been just another meeting, and Gutierrez just another hysterical woman.
Shepherd managed to capture three senior faculty/staff at Laurier browbeating her in response to a complaint. That alone would have been worth pressing the "record" button. But the fact that there was, in fact, no such complaint at all leads me to think that Shepherd did the right thing. It's very difficult to believe, given that, that she was in any way dealt with in good faith. Had there actually been a complaint, it might have been easy enough and comforting enough to say "well, maybe there were some misunderstandings, but the advisors and staff were only trying to do the right thing". But what's the right thing about blatantly LYING about a complaint??
I don't imagine Shepherd will be awarded all she asks, but it would be fascinating if, in the dissection of this all, it was at least revealed WHY three senior faculty/staff would fabricate a complaint in order to take time out of their busy day to investigate it. Something in the milk ain't clean.
Also, FWIW, if her recording had caught one of her advisors offering to make all of this go away "in exchange for certain favours" then I don't think we'd consider her a troublemaker, we'd consider her a hero. And I think we'd consider her unemployability an unacceptable penalty for that. It's not super clear to me what she did wrong here.
But she's asking for damages that basically lie in defamation, in the damage to her character in the public view as a whole. None of whom would have known about the incident but for her.
She's trying to have it both ways so hard it's almost comical.
wage zombie wrote:
What a joke. The minimum requirement for employment in academia is a PhD. Does Lindsay Shepherd have a PhD? If not, I'm not sure how she would be employable.
Which is kind of strange because Lindsay Shepherd was in fact employed by the University. She was teaching first year communications students.
I guess if by academia, you mean "full professorship", and you think that anyone else working for a university isn't really an employee and has no right to make any legal claims against the univeristy, then Zombie's point makes sense.
I'm kind of guessing that that's not the usual stance taken by progressives in regards to university employment, however.
Shepherd's claim is clearly in relation to a permanent position. I agree with Zombie - at present it's an entirely speculative claim because she's barely a Masters' student.
If it's in relation to paid work as a graduate student, she's going to have to establish that she's basically inadmissible to reputable grad programs. That would require, at least, an application or two.
Many of these claims seem to lie more in the employment context, but she's framing the award as a whole as a publicity-related tort. I don't think she's going to get away with conflating them.
Unless this settles, she's unlikely to get anything. There are no juries in civil trials. Doubt a judge will buy this. Especially the stuff for which there is already a grievance process in a unionized workplace.
Laurier TAs aren't unionized.
Laurier TAs aren't unionized.
Noted. There may still be polices and procedures in place. She'd need to argue constructive dismissal.
She is also arguing mental stress, though can they even award for that alone?
If they play that recording, which I am sure they will, I doubt that will hold up. I found it very enlightening. Based on her version (and that in the press) I was willing to allow that she might have a point. But her supervisors make a very strong (and reasonable) case for how inappropriate it was for a first year class.
And her reaction throughout helped change my mind as much as anything else.
No, actually. Browbeating is browbeating.
Have you listened to the conversation?
No, I read the transcript.
Anyway, I edited my post to change "browbeating" to "lying to her face" -- I trust we can agree on that? The pretend "complaints" are far more interesting to me than whether or not "browbeating" was too much word.
Lying about the responsibility universities have to be careful what they present to first year students?
Specifically charlatans peddling discriminatory opinions which do not meet academic standards?
Theres' no lie in that at all.
And really, you might want to listen to the tape before making assumptions like that. The respective tones of voice are as telling as the words. As well, this whole matter is put into better perspective when you look at what Shepherd went on to do earlier this year - inviting racist speaker Faith Goldy to the campus on the pretext that we should be exposed to those ideas. I don't buy it for a second.
Lying about the responsibility universities have to be careful what they present to first year students?
No.
Lying that the meeting was to discuss concerns relating to a student's (or students') complaints. The University eventually acknowledged that there were no such complaints. But the three faculty/staff who met with Shepherd clearly claimed there were.
If the night-shift custodian at Laurier were hauled into a de facto disciplinary meeting, and basically told that his/her job could be in jeopardy because of "complaints" there were later shown to be entirely fabricated, I wonder if babble might regard that as a labour issue?
Or can employers just make up complaints when needed?
Theres' no lie in that at all.
Huh. Then why did they make up complaints that never happened? I assume that you, and Laurier, had concerns about a grad student airing a Steve Paikin video, what with everything Paikin must have done, but couldn't they have just been honest about that, if it's so truthy? Where did the fabricated complainants, and their fears and their denied rights come in to it?
And really, you might want to listen to the tape before making assumptions like that. The respective tones of voice are as telling as the words. As well, this whole matter is put into better perspective when you look at what Shepherd went on to do earlier this year - inviting racist speaker Faith Goldy to the campus on the pretext that we should be exposed to those ideas. I don't buy it for a second.
Bingo.
As someone who tends to come down on the extreme pro-free speech / anti-hate-speech-laws (but not mandatory-platform) end of the spectrum, I pay attention to stories like these. I'm probably predisposed to be sympathetic to the idea that a few of my fellow overly sensitive lefties are persecuting someone for innocent speech. So when the stories pop into the media, I investigate the details. And I'm pleased to say that in virtually every case, the "martyr" in question is, in fact, not an innocent victim of PC culture, but an alt-right free speech grifter out to "just ask questions" about white supremacy. Here's Shepherd saying we're unfair to white nationalists.
pookie wrote:
The only reason people know about this is that Shepherd secretly recorded the exchange and then gave it to a reporter and allowed it to be posted on various media sites.
Well, I agree with you, the meeting shouldn't have been secretly recorded. It would be interesting to know whether the three Laurier questioners asked that the meeting remain secret, but that may come out later. If they didn't request secrecy, then I don't see anything wrong with recording and publishing the meeting.
At the same time, I would have handled it differently. I would have gone into the meeting, put my recorder on the table, and said 'I am recording this meeting so I can refer to it later'. That would have brought the proceedings to an abrupt halt.
It's amazing how a simple thing like a recording device can stop a liar in mid-sentence.
According to this article at least one complaint was made through the Rainbow Centre, and another student found the class problematic:
“The video was showed and she asked the class for some of their thoughts. Some of the comments made for an interesting discussion, but mostly students used it as an excuse to make fun of trans identities.”
https://www.macleans.ca/lindsay-shepherd-wilfrid-laurier/
So it does raise the same question in that NOW Toronto editorial - why did the university apologize at all, especially given the backlash, and how it emboldened this faux-free speech movement. Do they mean there was no formal complaint (something that was talked about at the end of the meeting)? Because given that there was a complaint, and a voicing of concern, this is not something that was just cooked up by Shepherd's supervisors.
(edit)
And here's their technicality:
"There were numerous errors in judgement made in the handling of the meeting with Ms. Lindsay Shepherd, the TA of the tutorial in question," MacLatchy said in the statement. "In fact, the meeting never should have happened at all. No formal complaint, nor informal concern relative to a Laurier policy, was registered about the screening of the video."
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/8003990-meeting-with-lindsay-shepherd...
Doesn't mean nothing happened, or no one felt concerned about it. It meant no one filed the proper paperwork, so they get thrown under the bus.
cco wrote:
She did not at all say anyone was unfair to white nationalists. She said there is a difference between white supremacists and white nationalists. She may be right or she may be wrong, but that in no way equates to saying people are 'unfair to white nationalists'.
Remember "the removing of the nuance in order to control the narrative" then listen to everything else she says.
Now Magazine lives off of the avails of prostitution, and you dare to quote it here?
Doesn't mean nothing happened, or no one felt concerned about it. It meant no one filed the proper paperwork, so they get thrown under the bus.
Is it Laurier's policy that a complainant must "file the proper paperwork"?
I would have assumed that at the very least, even if they redacted the name, and even if such paperwork were improperly filed, they would have recorded the fact that someone, somehow complained to them.
Failing that, what's your theory on why three senior faculty/staff were mobilized into action? Someone complained, and Laurier got on it right away, but failed to make even an anonymous note of the complaint that led to that?
I guess my question is whether it was three employees of Laurier who decided that students shouldn't see a snippet of a Steve Paikin interview, or whether someone else at Laurier had a problem with it. At any rate, Laurier does seem to have acknowledged that their faculty/staff weren't acting because of anything they received. And then, as the record notes, the faculty/staff pretended that they were.
From that Maclean's article posted by 6079_Smith_W:
Update: On December 18 Wilfrid Laurier President Deborah MacLatchy released a statement admitting no complaint—formal or informal—was ever received and that the meeting with Shepherd should never have taken place.
That would appear to close it up.
No it doesn't "close it up", though I am sure that was the university's intent. They might be questioning that tactic now that the whole thing has blown wide open.
As the student who was in the class said, what ended up happening was students making fun of trans identities. And there was a complaint made through the Rainbow Centre.
Sorry if some don't think that is a problem, or that it didn't happen. But it is, and it did.
On December 18 Wilfrid Laurier President Deborah MacLatchy released a statement admitting no complaint—formal or informal—was ever received and that the meeting with Shepherd should never have taken place.
... and then she proceeded to terminate the employment of the three individuals who pretended to to be investigate a complaint that never happened.
Just kidding. Of course she didn't. Sometimes even grown-up adults like to play pretend!
pookie wrote:
The only reason people know about this is that Shepherd secretly recorded the exchange and then gave it to a reporter and allowed it to be posted on various media sites.
Well, I agree with you, the meeting shouldn't have been secretly recorded. It would be interesting to know whether the three Laurier questioners asked that the meeting remain secret, but that may come out later. If they didn't request secrecy, then I don't see anything wrong with recording and publishing the meeting.
At the same time, I would have handled it differently. I would have gone into the meeting, put my recorder on the table, and said 'I am recording this meeting so I can refer to it later'. That would have brought the proceedings to an abrupt halt.
It's amazing how a simple thing like a recording device can stop a liar in mid-sentence.
Do you agree that it is the person who disseminates that recording to the national media who should be held responsible for any resulting negative publicity? Or is that negative repercussion on the persons who say stuff in the meeting expecting it to remain reasonably within the bounds of a workplace?
Did I miss something or is this thread about Jordan Peterson? I do not seem to detect any posts with his name mentioned in them...
6079_Smith_W wrote:
And there was a complaint made through the Rainbow Centre.
Not according to MacLatchy. According to her, no complaint, either formal or informal, was received.
pookie wrote:
Do you agree that it is the person who disseminates that recording to the national media who should be held responsible for any resulting negative publicity? Or is that negative repercussion on the persons who say stuff in the meeting expecting it to remain reasonably within the bounds of a workplace?
Do you accept the meeting was called under false pretences, that a TA was interrogated for 45 minutes based on a complaint that never happened?
As far as 'the persons who say stuff in the meeting', if they're lying they have to accept the consequences of their mendacity. As I said, I would have been up front about recording the meeting, but you can't blame Shepherd for the consequences to the liars that called her to the meeting.
By the way, according to the Maclean's article posted by 6079_Smith_W, Shepherd phoned her mother before the meeting, and it was her mother who suggested she record the meeting. Apparently intelligence runs in the family.
progresssive17 wrote:
Did I miss something or is this thread about Jordan Peterson?
In fact you did miss a bit. What we're discussing is Lindsay Shepherd who was castigated by Laurier University representatives for playing a couple of minutes of Jordan Peterson in her class. Apparently some Laurier staff felt that was over the top, so they manufactured a spurious complaint, then tasked Shepherd with that phony complaint. Fortunately for her, she recorded the meeting, and therein hangs the tale.
The Laurier University people must have felt that Jordan Peterson was a grave threat to their very existence, if they reacted so badly to two minutes of him speaking on video. What can we do to help them feel that their existence is not so gravely endangered?
Jordan Peterson is predictable and boring once you watch him talk a few times. He's just overly-intellectual (although really not that intelligent at the end of the day). His claim to fame is that he's good at turning the tables and using debate skill, not his intellectual arguments. His intellectual arguments are rather boring. Noun, verb, post-modernism/neo-marxism/etc. then he's done. What he's really good at is persistence, calmness in the face of debate, and he's usually good at positioning himself with debate opponents he largely knows will go on attack first so he can frame the debate around him being the more meek and mild one. Has anyone noticed Peterson LOVES to cry about victimization, but in virtually every debate he plays the victim card? The way he does it is constantly reminding people how 'unpleasant' its been to have people go after him or other coded language. He's a hypocrite. LOL It is a debate skill that has gotten him where he is, not his intellectual (or lack thereof) argument.
Really, the left needs to realize that focusing on issues of lesser importance can sometimes be a trap. Do the majority of voters really care about gender pronouns? No. Does that make them anti-trans? No. Sometimes the war raging to try and redefine the language does go a bit far, it isn't left or right. But what's a leftist to do when they want equality for all and care about inclusion? Well, we tend to defend things that aren't in most people's radar. Usually to our detriment.
People aren't so concerned with what pronouns to use with regard to gender. They are more concerned that hydro systems are being privatized and other more tangible issues.
It would be smart to remember that and focus energies where its most effective. Fighting over pronouns is purely an emotional stunt, and its a trap most leftists fall into when the traditionalists set the trap open for you. Be wary. This is why Peterson 'wins' a lot of arguments despite having a worse intellectual argument. At the end of the day, his speeches are filled with fluff about issues that aren't important.
Post-modernists? Outside university campuses there really aren't any. Neo-marxists? What does marxism actually have to do with gender pronouns (which is his real claim to fame)? Nothing at all. Marxism has nothing at all to do with gender pronouns. Peterson, being the buffoon he is, has mixed two topics that have nothing to do with one another and has convinced some of a political meme to advance his interests are career.
Actual Marxists care more about inclusion and equality than someone like Peterson, so they will defend certain things more, but this does not mean what Peterson says or the frames he creates and wants everyone to think inside of. Peterson wants you to think inside his box, and we shouldn't allow him to set the frame of the debate to begin with.
MapleInTheEye wrote:
Fighting over pronouns is purely an emotional stunt, and its a trap most leftists fall into when the traditionalists set the trap open for you.
It wasn't Peterson who set the trap.
However, it is interesting in that if you told someone ten years ago that English grammar would become a controversial topic of the day, they would have laughed in your face.
One of the little items included in the article on Lindsay Shepherd was that her boyfriend spoke Farsi, and there are no gender specific pronouns in Farsi, so presumably it's an issue that wouldn't arise.
Jordan Peterson is predictable and boring once you watch him talk a few times. He's just overly-intellectual (although really not that intelligent at the end of the day). His claim to fame is that he's good at turning the tables and using debate skill, not his intellectual arguments. His intellectual arguments are rather boring. Noun, verb, post-modernism/neo-marxism/etc. then he's done. What he's really good at is persistence, calmness in the face of debate, and he's usually good at positioning himself with debate opponents he largely knows will go on attack first so he can frame the debate around him being the more meek and mild one. Has anyone noticed Peterson LOVES to cry about victimization, but in virtually every debate he plays the victim card? The way he does it is constantly reminding people how 'unpleasant' its been to have people go after him or other coded language. He's a hypocrite. LOL It is a debate skill that has gotten him where he is, not his intellectual (or lack thereof) argument.
Really, the left needs to realize that focusing on issues of lesser importance can sometimes be a trap. Do the majority of voters really care about gender pronouns? No. Does that make them anti-trans? No. Sometimes the war raging to try and redefine the language does go a bit far, it isn't left or right. But what's a leftist to do when they want equality for all and care about inclusion? Well, we tend to defend things that aren't in most people's radar. Usually to our detriment.
People aren't so concerned with what pronouns to use with regard to gender. They are more concerned that hydro systems are being privatized and other more tangible issues.
It would be smart to remember that and focus energies where its most effective. Fighting over pronouns is purely an emotional stunt, and its a trap most leftists fall into when the traditionalists set the trap open for you. Be wary. This is why Peterson 'wins' a lot of arguments despite having a worse intellectual argument. At the end of the day, his speeches are filled with fluff about issues that aren't important.
Post-modernists? Outside university campuses there really aren't any. Neo-marxists? What does marxism actually have to do with gender pronouns (which is his real claim to fame)? Nothing at all. Marxism has nothing at all to do with gender pronouns. Peterson, being the buffoon he is, has mixed two topics that have nothing to do with one another and has convinced some of a political meme to advance his interests are career.
Actual Marxists care more about inclusion and equality than someone like Peterson, so they will defend certain things more, but this does not mean what Peterson says or the frames he creates and wants everyone to think inside of. Peterson wants you to think inside his box, and we shouldn't allow him to set the frame of the debate to begin with.
And few if any actual Marxists are defenders of Stalinism or Maoism, so Dr. P's "postmodernists are 'neo-Marxists', therefore anybody who asks you to respect their pronouns wants to bring back the Gulag" canard is neo-bullshittist.
And few if any actual Marxists are defenders of Stalinism or Maoism, so Dr. P's "postmodernists are 'neo-Marxists', therefore anybody who asks you to respect their pronouns wants to bring back the Gulag" canard is neo-bullshittist.
Peterson babbles a lot of intellectual sounding noise, but he's essentially a hypocrite that relies on playing the good cop, bad cop routine to make him the victim on stage. That's how I see his act. He's a masterful actor in the part he plays.
pookie wrote:
Do you agree that it is the person who disseminates that recording to the national media who should be held responsible for any resulting negative publicity? Or is that negative repercussion on the persons who say stuff in the meeting expecting it to remain reasonably within the bounds of a workplace?
Do you accept the meeting was called under false pretences, that a TA was interrogated for 45 minutes based on a complaint that never happened?
As far as 'the persons who say stuff in the meeting', if they're lying they have to accept the consequences of their mendacity. As I said, I would have been up front about recording the meeting, but you can't blame Shepherd for the consequences to the liars that called her to the meeting.
None of that is relevant to the subsequent publicity, which is the only thing that could render Shepherd, in her words, unemployable.
Again, you are conflating alleged misconduct in an employment context with reputational injury. They are separate issues.
You can critique Laurier all you want. None of that substantiates Shepherd's claims for 3 million dollars because she has decided not to pursue further graduate work.
