Hi Gregg,

Any mention I would make of Jordan Peterson concerning this would be that he instigates and escalates the culture war. For instance, his push back on pronouns is problematic. I do see his point that laws governing specific words in speech are invasive and unwelcome, but he muddies reasons for his stand on this.

In a broad sense, what we are allowed to say in a public discourse is a part of the situation, or environment, in which we behave. Restricting that behavior is an uncomfortable reach by a government that, I agree, can be frightening. I would say that forced busing of kids to integrate schools is also a very disturbing reach by government. But both of these laws are meant to change people by changing the environment, an effective behavioral tool, and a tool using means that can be seen as reverse discrimination. By and large, though, forced busing has been effective in reducing systemic racism within a generation. Can the intrusive bill C16 do the same for gender identity? 

Peterson has said that “…the gender spectrum is also one thing that I do not understand.” This is the red light for me. He does not agree that the underlying concept of why people desire certain pronouns is valid. Might that be the real issue he has with C16? That needs to be discussed. He also uses many name-calling adjectives in his presentations, which I do not find compelling no matter what side of what is being argued. …”radical, collectivist, leftwing, game...” is fun stuff, but not a reasoned argument. Plus, he’s concerned about whether one’s pronoun of choice is "a narcissistic power play.” I am personally not concerned and I see it as none of my business why anyone might want to be referred to as whatever. 

I don’t find any of this to be worthy of the rage and hard stand Jordan expresses. It is the pendulum swinging. A bit of reverse discrimination or forced care in speech, for moral reasons, is to me an insignificant price to pay. Yes it is problematic, yes it is heavy handed, yes it is intrusive. But in the balance of all things considered it has meaningful justifications that do not cause hardship or suffering for those learning new concepts in a culturally evolving world. 

Also, generally speaking about the culture war, the Equal Rights Amendment, which had to do with sexual discrimination, failed to be ratified in 1982. This was during Reagan’s terms in office, so by that date it was still much more than just a two-sided political debate. It is now being pushed for again by women who see the new power of their voice today. The same fight, new media, more crowded, a more connected global village; we are living in a bigger village on a smaller globe.

Thank you again for your patience and thoughtful replies. I am likely a “too liberal” type of person. I dropped out of high school. I was an art major. I ride a motorcycle. 

Peter

Peter Lloyd Jones
[log in to unmask]
562-209-4080

Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. 

On Feb 20, 2020, at 12:22 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks, Peter.

 

This actually does help clarify some of the salient points you were making that perhaps I overlooked. It reminded me of a point made by Jordan Peterson in one of his interviews (I think this one), where he talked about how the new social media and digital/YouTube world amplifiesthe things that are already there.

 

Best,

Gregg

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Peter Lloyd Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 11:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Culture War 2.0/Grey Pill

 

Hi Gregg,

Thank you for your always well-reasoned thoughtful response.

 

I’ve got to run so I will say more later, but didn’t want to ghost this discussion. 

 

My point is not to call out any person, except maybe myself, but to call out disagreement with a concept. I likely failed in that distinction. I am not one who accepts “lanes” and want to hear all sides. My hope is to hear a side on this from someone not like you or me. I do not trust myself.

 

I do not see a new disintegration of civility. Historically much blood has been shed by those asking for inclusion. The new intensification of the global village has brought the fight too our desks, but it has always been going on. The pendulum swings, too liberal, too conservative, too liberal… History tells us that’s how change happens. 

 

I may seem terse in my presentation but I am not one to hedge on an opinion. If I believe it I desire to communicate it without apology. Likewise, I am unfazed by averred disagreement. 

 

Again, I greatly appreciate your patience and thoughts. 

Peter

 

 

Peter Lloyd Jones
[log in to unmask]
562-209-4080

Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. 

 

 

 

############################ 

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1