Opinion of Jordan Peterson?

[John Dule]

His shtick is boilerplate self-help advice which any semi-competent psychologist could give you, peppered in with bizarre Jungian symbology and barely-plausibly-deniable reactionary dogwhistles. If what you're saying is that the self-help stuff shouldn't be dismissed, okay, sure, I agree keeping your room in order is good, but I don't think I needed him telling me that.

I have not engaged much with his self-help material. However, I have enjoyed watching some of his online lectures about fascism and collective movements, as well as his unapologetic opposition to coerced speech. The latter is indeed something many people today still need to hear, and until certain left-wing movements demonstrate an understanding of the arguments that people like Peterson make, they (rather than he) will remain the bigger problem.

Oh yeah, I really needed Jordan Peterson to realize compelled speech was bad.

Except by "compelled speech" he means some milquetoast anti-discrimination law passed by Canada that hasn't actually compelled anyone to say anything but that reactionaries decided to whip up a panic around. Yup, invaluable contribution to public discourse.

The law in question could be used to imprison people who consistently refuse to use someone's chosen pronouns-- so yes, apparently we do need Peterson around to tell people like you that such things are bad, as you've just demonstrated.

This law has been in effect for what, over half a decade now? If it "could be used" for something as far-fetched, that would have happened at least once. The fact that it hasn't suggests to me that JP and yourself are just seeing ghosts.

This is like saying the Patriot Act would be ok so long as it was only used against terrorists. The law is on the books and is waiting to be abused. Not to sound too much like my current namesake, but it's the thin end of the wedge.

[DaleCooper]

He strikes me as a really quavery, emotional person, which isn't something I like.

[If my soul was made of stone]

His shtick is boilerplate self-help advice which any semi-competent psychologist could give you, peppered in with bizarre Jungian symbology and barely-plausibly-deniable reactionary dogwhistles. If what you're saying is that the self-help stuff shouldn't be dismissed, okay, sure, I agree keeping your room in order is good, but I don't think I needed him telling me that.

I have not engaged much with his self-help material. However, I have enjoyed watching some of his online lectures about fascism and collective movements, as well as his unapologetic opposition to coerced speech. The latter is indeed something many people today still need to hear, and until certain left-wing movements demonstrate an understanding of the arguments that people like Peterson make, they (rather than he) will remain the bigger problem.

Oh yeah, I really needed Jordan Peterson to realize compelled speech was bad.

Except by "compelled speech" he means some milquetoast anti-discrimination law passed by Canada that hasn't actually compelled anyone to say anything but that reactionaries decided to whip up a panic around. Yup, invaluable contribution to public discourse.

The law in question could be used to imprison people who consistently refuse to use someone's chosen pronouns-- so yes, apparently we do need Peterson around to tell people like you that such things are bad, as you've just demonstrated.

This law has been in effect for what, over half a decade now? If it "could be used" for something as far-fetched, that would have happened at least once. The fact that it hasn't suggests to me that JP and yourself are just seeing ghosts.

This is like saying the Patriot Act would be ok so long as it was only used against terrorists. The law is on the books and is waiting to be abused. Not to sound too much like my current namesake, but it's the thin end of the wedge.

Comparing that bill to the f-cking PATRIOT Act is exactly the sort of dumb right-wing hysteria that Peterson is so infamous for stoking. Before asking yourself why people care so much about being misgendered, you should ask yourself why you think it's so important that you should be able to do it with impunity. It's not a heroic statement for free speech (which for right-wingers never includes people they disagree with); it's just being an asshole.

[John Dule]

Comparing that bill to the f-cking PATRIOT Act is exactly the sort of dumb right-wing hysteria that Peterson is so infamous for stoking. Before asking yourself why people care so much about being misgendered, you should ask yourself why you think it's so important that you should be able to do it with impunity. It's not a heroic statement for free speech (which for right-wingers never includes people they disagree with); it's just being an asshole.

When did being an asshole become illegal?

[Antonio the Sixth]

His shtick is boilerplate self-help advice which any semi-competent psychologist could give you, peppered in with bizarre Jungian symbology and barely-plausibly-deniable reactionary dogwhistles. If what you're saying is that the self-help stuff shouldn't be dismissed, okay, sure, I agree keeping your room in order is good, but I don't think I needed him telling me that.

I have not engaged much with his self-help material. However, I have enjoyed watching some of his online lectures about fascism and collective movements, as well as his unapologetic opposition to coerced speech. The latter is indeed something many people today still need to hear, and until certain left-wing movements demonstrate an understanding of the arguments that people like Peterson make, they (rather than he) will remain the bigger problem.

Oh yeah, I really needed Jordan Peterson to realize compelled speech was bad.

Except by "compelled speech" he means some milquetoast anti-discrimination law passed by Canada that hasn't actually compelled anyone to say anything but that reactionaries decided to whip up a panic around. Yup, invaluable contribution to public discourse.

The law in question could be used to imprison people who consistently refuse to use someone's chosen pronouns-- so yes, apparently we do need Peterson around to tell people like you that such things are bad, as you've just demonstrated.

This law has been in effect for what, over half a decade now? If it "could be used" for something as far-fetched, that would have happened at least once. The fact that it hasn't suggests to me that JP and yourself are just seeing ghosts.

This is like saying the Patriot Act would be ok so long as it was only used against terrorists. The law is on the books and is waiting to be abused. Not to sound too much like my current namesake, but it's the thin end of the wedge.

No, I'm saying that the way a law is used is a pretty good indication of what it actually says. The fact that the Patriot Act was used in f***ked up ways is pretty good evidence that it was f**ked up from the start. Sure, it's theoretically possible for the Patriot Act to have been passed exactly as it is and never enforced, but I hope we'll agree that that's highly unlikely. Generally speaking, when a law expands government power, that power is going to be made manifest soon enough. The cases of laws that are on the books but are never enforced tend to be laws that used to be enforced but no longer are, which is a pretty different situation.

Clearly, we agree that no person in Canada has been jailed for misgendering someone. Given that the law that you claim would lead to people being jailed for misgendering someone was passed 5 years ago, a time during which there would have been plenty of instances of provable misgendering, that only leaves two possibilities: 1. the law does what you say it does, and despite having been passed recently and with the full backing of the Canadian government, they then decided not to enforce it, or 2. you and JP are just wrong in your interpretations of what the bill does (maliciously wrong in his case, hopefully just ignorantly wrong in yours). I'll let you decide which option is more plausible.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Comparing that bill to the f-cking PATRIOT Act is exactly the sort of dumb right-wing hysteria that Peterson is so infamous for stoking. Before asking yourself why people care so much about being misgendered, you should ask yourself why you think it's so important that you should be able to do it with impunity. It's not a heroic statement for free speech (which for right-wingers never includes people they disagree with); it's just being an asshole.

When did being an asshole become illegal?

Why is your entire worldview centered on wanting to be a gratuitous dickweed with zero repercussions, to the extent that you see this nothing as Thee Civil Rights Issue Of Our Time™?

[John Dule]

No, I'm saying that the way a law is used is a pretty good indication of what it actually says. The fact that the Patriot Act was used in f***ked up ways is pretty good evidence that it was f**ked up from the start. Sure, it's theoretically possible for the Patriot Act to have been passed exactly as it is and never enforced, but I hope we'll agree that that's highly unlikely. Generally speaking, when a law expands government power, that power is going to be made manifest soon enough. The cases of laws that are on the books but are never enforced tend to be laws that used to be enforced but no longer are, which is a pretty different situation.

Clearly, we agree that no person in Canada has been jailed for misgendering someone. Given that the law that you claim would lead to people being jailed for misgendering someone was passed 5 years ago, a time during which there would have been plenty of instances of provable misgendering, that only leaves two possibilities: 1. the law does what you say it does, and despite having been passed recently and with the full backing of the Canadian government, they then decided not to enforce it, or 2. you and JP are just wrong in your interpretations of what the bill does (maliciously wrong in his case, hopefully just ignorantly wrong in yours). I'll let you decide which option is more plausible.

I'm not sure what to add to this, aside from the fact that some of the law's proponents themselves admit that jail time for misgendering is "possible but unlikely" under the law.

Why is your entire worldview centered on wanting to be a gratuitous dickweed with zero repercussions, to the extent that you see this nothing as Thee Civil Rights Issue Of Our Time™?

What "repercussions" do you think there should be for "being a dickweed," and who decides what a "dickweed" is?

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, I'm saying that the way a law is used is a pretty good indication of what it actually says. The fact that the Patriot Act was used in f***ked up ways is pretty good evidence that it was f**ked up from the start. Sure, it's theoretically possible for the Patriot Act to have been passed exactly as it is and never enforced, but I hope we'll agree that that's highly unlikely. Generally speaking, when a law expands government power, that power is going to be made manifest soon enough. The cases of laws that are on the books but are never enforced tend to be laws that used to be enforced but no longer are, which is a pretty different situation.

Clearly, we agree that no person in Canada has been jailed for misgendering someone. Given that the law that you claim would lead to people being jailed for misgendering someone was passed 5 years ago, a time during which there would have been plenty of instances of provable misgendering, that only leaves two possibilities: 1. the law does what you say it does, and despite having been passed recently and with the full backing of the Canadian government, they then decided not to enforce it, or 2. you and JP are just wrong in your interpretations of what the bill does (maliciously wrong in his case, hopefully just ignorantly wrong in yours). I'll let you decide which option is more plausible.

I'm not sure what to add to this, aside from the fact that some of the law's proponents themselves admit that jail time for misgendering is "possible but unlikely" under the law.

This clearly states that misgendering alone can't constitute discrimination. At the bare minimum, the text of the legislation and the experts quoted seem to agree that it has to be 1. intentional, 2. repeated and 3. motivated by bigotry (the latter of which especially would imply a high burden of proof). We're already several degrees removed from "going to jail for misgendering".

And either way that's not even compelled speech! Nowhere in the article does it even hint that you can be sued for not using someone's preferred pronouns - just that you might if you go out of your way to use pronouns they explicitly ask you not to. Since pronouns are a linguistic shortcut, you don't actually have to use them if you really don't want to. So, at most, you can call it prohibiting a type of speech. But then, that's no different from plenty of other statutes regarding hate crimes and harassment. Like, if you keep calling a waitress "sugartits" or something, you could probably be sued for sexual harassment. If you think this is a terrible authoritarian infringement on your free speech, cry me a river I guess.

[John Dule]

This clearly states that misgendering alone can't constitute discrimination. At the bare minimum, the text of the legislation and the experts quoted seem to agree that it has to be 1. intentional, 2. repeated and 3. motivated by bigotry (the latter of which especially would imply a high burden of proof). We're already several degrees removed from "going to jail for misgendering".

This is identical to what I said at the outset of this conversation. I think you just assumed I meant something different and did not read what I wrote closely.

The law in question could be used to imprison people who consistently refuse to use someone's chosen pronouns

It seems like we're on the same page when it comes to what the law prohibits. It's just that I take the liberal stance that such a prohibition is wrong, whereas you appear to embrace it.

And either way that's not even compelled speech! Nowhere in the article does it even hint that you can be sued for not using someone's preferred pronouns - just that you might if you go out of your way to use pronouns they explicitly ask you not to. Since pronouns are a linguistic shortcut, you don't actually have to use them if you really don't want to. So, at most, you can call it prohibiting a type of speech. But then, that's no different from plenty of other statutes regarding hate crimes and harassment. Like, if you keep calling a waitress "sugartits" or something, you could probably be sued for sexual harassment. If you think this is a terrible authoritarian infringement on your free speech, cry me a river I guess.

There are two elements to this: The prohibited speech regarding the "incorrect" pronouns, and the coerced speech regarding the "correct" pronouns. The first is clear from the basic text of the law; the second is implied through legal pressure but is not explicit. I think these facts are perfectly apparent.

The question then must become whether a person's free speech interests trump the rights of others to be referred to as they see fit. There are already limitations on both of these rights. As you pointed out, you are not free to go to someone's workplace and refer to them using sexually demeaning terms. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to expect people to integrate neopronouns into their daily speech, or to penalize them for referring to people using terms that are literally true from a scientific perspective. While it genuinely gives me no pleasure to know that transgenders feel invalidated and experience mental anguish as a result of the free speech of others, this is true for literally millions of people, all of whom are expected to deal with this emotional pain themselves. The law is not a guarantor of an emotionally peaceful life. For that reason, I err on the side of free speech on this issue-- as should any honest liberal.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is identical to what I said at the outset of this conversation. I think you just assumed I meant something different and did not read what I wrote closely.

The law in question could be used to imprison people who consistently refuse to use someone's chosen pronouns

It seems like we're on the same page when it comes to what the law prohibits. It's just that I take the liberal stance that such a prohibition is wrong, whereas you appear to embrace it.

I mean, this is conceding that this one expert you found is an authoritative source in the interpretation of the bill's text. Maybe they are, I don't know, but I maintain that the fact the conjectured scenario never happened in 5 years seems to militate against such an interpretation.

There are two elements to this: The prohibited speech regarding the "incorrect" pronouns, and the coerced speech regarding the "correct" pronouns. The first is clear from the basic text of the law; the second is implied through legal pressure but is not explicit. I think these facts are perfectly apparent.

Nah, this is reaching. The case for the prohibition on misgendering is already on tenuous grounds empirically, but the case for a compelled "proper-gendering" (or whatever you want to call it) is just nonexistent. I get that this issue fills you with dread for some reason, but it's time to stop conjuring nightmare scenarios.

The question then must become whether a person's free speech interests trump the rights of others to be referred to as they see fit. There are already limitations on both of these rights. As you pointed out, you are not free to go to someone's workplace and refer to them using sexually demeaning terms. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to expect people to integrate neopronouns into their daily speech

All good so far...

or to penalize them for referring to people using terms that are literally true from a scientific perspective.

...oh boy. Okay. You clearly don't understand how language works if you think there's such a thing as "scientific pronouns", lmao. I thought I'd been able to explain a couple things to you last time we discussed this? You stopped posting, so I assumed you'd gotten my point.

While it genuinely gives me no pleasure to know that transgenders feel invalidated and experience mental anguish as a result of the free speech of others, this is true for literally millions of people, all of whom are expected to deal with this emotional pain themselves. The law is not a guarantor of an emotionally peaceful life. For that reason, I err on the side of free speech on this issue-- as should any honest liberal.

There are degrees to this, as there are degrees to everything. Of course, I also err on the side of free speech, and so does the Canadian law - which is why it's narrowly tailored to situations when someone is deliberately and repeatedly using speech as a way as to enact discrimination on someone based on their trans identity. This strikes me as an excellent way to balance free speech rights with the need to protect disadvantaged categories.

[John Dule]

This is identical to what I said at the outset of this conversation. I think you just assumed I meant something different and did not read what I wrote closely.

The law in question could be used to imprison people who consistently refuse to use someone's chosen pronouns

It seems like we're on the same page when it comes to what the law prohibits. It's just that I take the liberal stance that such a prohibition is wrong, whereas you appear to embrace it.

I mean, this is conceding that this one expert you found is an authoritative source in the interpretation of the bill's text. Maybe they are, I don't know, but I maintain that the fact the conjectured scenario never happened in 5 years seems to militate against such an interpretation.

This is such a dishonest argument. Name me an amendment in the Constitution that has been interpreted the same way ever since it was enacted (maybe the 3rd?). Progressives and left-wingers argue for judicial activism and endorse an ever-changing version of the law, using shifting cultural norms to redefine words and statutes as they see fit. Simply put, you cannot endorse a "living constitution" while also confidently asserting that the laws you enact today will always be interpreted the way you want them to be. It was nearly 100 years between the enactment of the 14th Amendment and the sudden decision that it granted a right to abortion. Five years, compared to that, is peanuts.

...oh boy. Okay. You clearly don't understand how language works if you think there's such a thing as "scientific pronouns", lmao. I thought I'd been able to explain a couple things to you last time we discussed this? You stopped posting, so I assumed you'd gotten my point.

I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to. In any case, English pronouns have historically been assigned to children at birth, and they are assigned based on the newborn's sexual dimorphism, which is rooted in their chromosomes. Thus, gender was accurately determined through observation before genetic theory was even discovered-- and certainly before gender theory existed.

In any case, this is not the subject I came here to discuss. All that should matter is that language is built on broad consensus and understanding of meaning, and there is apparently no current consensus on what these terms mean, so artificially imposing definitions via legal penalties is silly.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

He possesses the uniquely insufferable infusion of incredible smugness and laughably awful takes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is such a dishonest argument. Name me an amendment in the Constitution that has been interpreted the same way ever since it was enacted (maybe the 3rd?). Progressives and left-wingers argue for judicial activism and endorse an ever-changing version of the law, using shifting cultural norms to redefine words and statutes as they see fit. Simply put, you cannot endorse a "living constitution" while also confidently asserting that the laws you enact today will always be interpreted the way you want them to be. It was nearly 100 years between the enactment of the 14th Amendment and the sudden decision that it granted a right to abortion. Five years, compared to that, is peanuts.

...what the hell am I reading

1. It would be cool if you knew anything about my own position on constitutional interpretation before you just made broad assumptions about it. I've made plenty of posts on the subject. I get that you desperately want to argue with an abstracted amalgam of everything wrong with "the left", but I'm sorry, you're stuck with me.

2. What the hell does any of this have to do with Canada anyway? They have a very different constitution with different interpretive traditions that neither of us are familiar with. This is such a bizarre nonsequitur.

I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to.

Really? You've already forgotten? Okay I'm genuinely offended. I don't expect us to agree on much, but if you don't even process any of the points I make, I don't see the point of continuing to have them. If you're actually curious, here's the last post I made on the subject.

In any case, English pronouns have historically been assigned to children at birth, and they are assigned based on the newborn's sexual dimorphism, which is rooted in their chromosomes. Thus, gender was accurately determined through observation before genetic theory was even discovered-- and certainly before gender theory existed.

Gender has been historically linked to sex obviously, but that's the point right there: it's a historical and sociological connection, not a biological one. You said yourself that it predates any understanding of genes or chromosomes. In fact, many intersex people were probably NOT gendered based on their genetic makeup, because for one reason or another their genitalia developed differently from it. So the whole idea of "scientifically accurate" pronouns falls apart pretty quickly.

In any case, this is not the subject I came here to discuss. All that should matter is that language is built on broad consensus and understanding of meaning, and there is apparently no current consensus on what these terms mean, so artificially imposing definitions via legal penalties is silly.

Funny, in the last conversation we had on the subject (the one you apparently forgot about) you argued that there is a broad consensus on the side of understanding gender as being the same as sex. Obviously this is belied, at least in Canada, by the fact that a parliamentary majority would be able to enact a law that clearly takes the opposite stance. I guess you could argue it's different in the US, but even then only to some degree.

Anyway, your point would be valid if the law was a blanket ban on misgendering or something, but this is so far removed from one in all the ways I've explained that it becomes irrelevant.

[John Dule]

This is such a dishonest argument. Name me an amendment in the Constitution that has been interpreted the same way ever since it was enacted (maybe the 3rd?). Progressives and left-wingers argue for judicial activism and endorse an ever-changing version of the law, using shifting cultural norms to redefine words and statutes as they see fit. Simply put, you cannot endorse a "living constitution" while also confidently asserting that the laws you enact today will always be interpreted the way you want them to be. It was nearly 100 years between the enactment of the 14th Amendment and the sudden decision that it granted a right to abortion. Five years, compared to that, is peanuts.

...what the hell am I reading

1. It would be cool if you knew anything about my own position on constitutional interpretation before you just made broad assumptions about it. I've made plenty of posts on the subject. I get that you desperately want to argue with an abstracted amalgam of everything wrong with "the left", but I'm sorry, you're stuck with me.

2. What the hell does any of this have to do with Canada anyway? They have a very different constitution with different interpretive traditions that neither of us are familiar with. This is such a bizarre nonsequitur.

Whether this is Canada or the US we're talking about, and regardless of your own feelings on the subject, you can't possibly deny that laws are often interpreted in ways that justify practices and policies that were far outside the imagination of their original authors. Given how small the leap I'm talking about would be in comparison to the other leaps made by "living constitutionalists," denying the future potential for abuse of this law would border on being deliberately obtuse.

Really? You've already forgotten? Okay I'm genuinely offended. I don't expect us to agree on much, but if you don't even process any of the points I make, I don't see the point of continuing to have them. If you're actually curious, here's the last post I made on the subject.

I'll have to read that later. I often lose track of which threads I've been looking at, confuse users with each other, and forget about conversations I was having on this site. It makes it pretty easy for me to forgive grudges, but it can also lead to situations like this.

Gender has been historically linked to sex obviously, but that's the point right there: it's a historical and sociological connection, not a biological one. You said yourself that it predates any understanding of genes or chromosomes. In fact, many intersex people were probably NOT gendered based on their genetic makeup, because for one reason or another their genitalia developed differently from it. So the whole idea of "scientifically accurate" pronouns falls apart pretty quickly.

This is like when people say "There's no genetic basis for race." On a very shallow level, you can say this is true because we do not always classify people racially by looking at their genes. But it does not take much thought to realize that man-made racial classifications are based on phenotypes, which are themselves determined by genetics. The idea that biological traits like gender or race couldn't possibly manifest themselves in human society prior to the development of genetic research is absurd.

[Ferguson97]

This is exactly what is wrong with our modern politics. It shouldn't matter how "polite" you are if what you're saying is nonsense at best and immoral at worst.

Completely disagree.

How is this 'polite politics' outside of a debate club? 

Morality is more important than politeness.

[John Dule]

This is exactly what is wrong with our modern politics. It shouldn't matter how "polite" you are if what you're saying is nonsense at best and immoral at worst.

Completely disagree.

How is this 'polite politics' outside of a debate club? 

Morality is more important than politeness.

Politeness is an element of morality.

[Ferguson97]

This is exactly what is wrong with our modern politics. It shouldn't matter how "polite" you are if what you're saying is nonsense at best and immoral at worst.

Completely disagree.

How is this 'polite politics' outside of a debate club? 

Morality is more important than politeness.

Politeness is an element of morality.

Do you believe that all ideologies and beliefs should be awarded politeness? I think that runs the risk of legitimizing groups like the KKK or neo-Nazis.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Whether this is Canada or the US we're talking about, and regardless of your own feelings on the subject, you can't possibly deny that laws are often interpreted in ways that justify practices and policies that were far outside the imagination of their original authors. Given how small the leap I'm talking about would be in comparison to the other leaps made by "living constitutionalists," denying the future potential for abuse of this law would border on being deliberately obtuse.

I'm not "denying the future potential for abuse". Nearly every law on the book could create the future potential for abuse if people chose to interpret it in a specific way. If this was the standard we used to assess the validity of laws, we wouldn't be left with a state at all (I was going to joke that maybe you'd like that, but I know you're actually a cut above most other libertarians in recognizing that we're always going to need a state with a monopoly on legitimate violence, which is by necessity gonna entail the potential for abuse). So we should focus on ways in which a legislation is plausibly likely to be interpreted in the near future (we basically can't know anything about politics in the distant future, so speculating on those is a waste of time). And all the evidence we have with regard to the near future is that it's not going to be used to suppress speech.

I'll have to read that later. I often lose track of which threads I've been looking at, confuse users with each other, and forget about conversations I was having on this site. It makes it pretty easy for me to forgive grudges, but it can also lead to situations like this.

Okay, fair enough. I admit it's a bit frustrating sometimes, but I can't fault you for finding better things to do with your time than posting here.

This is like when people say "There's no genetic basis for race." On a very shallow level, you can say this is true because we do not always classify people racially by looking at their genes. But it does not take much thought to realize that man-made racial classifications are based on phenotypes, which are themselves determined by genetics. The idea that biological traits like gender or race couldn't possibly manifest themselves in human society prior to the development of genetic research is absurd.

I genuinely have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean. It sounds like you're saying I believe that gender didn't exist before genetic research, which is like, the exact opposite of my point?

This is a discussion that can get very complex and nuanced (and semantic) very fast, and I'm not sure what's gained by having it again in full, but I'll note that your approach here seems to lean hard on the oversimplification (from "gender historically developed as a byproduct of one's reproductive roles, which in turn were mostly caused by one's genetics" to "gender has a genetic basis") whereas I'm trying to point out that this oversimplification leads to serious problems both conceptual and normative.

[John Dule]

This is exactly what is wrong with our modern politics. It shouldn't matter how "polite" you are if what you're saying is nonsense at best and immoral at worst.

Completely disagree.

How is this 'polite politics' outside of a debate club? 

Morality is more important than politeness.

Politeness is an element of morality.

Do you believe that all ideologies and beliefs should be awarded politeness? I think that runs the risk of legitimizing groups like the KKK or neo-Nazis.

Politeness does not legitimize the person towards whom it is directed. Impoliteness, on the other hand, delegitimizes the person from whom it comes.

[Ferguson97]

This is exactly what is wrong with our modern politics. It shouldn't matter how "polite" you are if what you're saying is nonsense at best and immoral at worst.

Completely disagree.

How is this 'polite politics' outside of a debate club? 

Morality is more important than politeness.

Politeness is an element of morality.

Do you believe that all ideologies and beliefs should be awarded politeness? I think that runs the risk of legitimizing groups like the KKK or neo-Nazis.

Politeness does not legitimize the person towards whom it is directed. Impoliteness, on the other hand, delegitimizes the person from whom it comes.

I completely disagree.

[John Dule]

This is exactly what is wrong with our modern politics. It shouldn't matter how "polite" you are if what you're saying is nonsense at best and immoral at worst.

Completely disagree.

How is this 'polite politics' outside of a debate club? 

Morality is more important than politeness.

Politeness is an element of morality.

Do you believe that all ideologies and beliefs should be awarded politeness? I think that runs the risk of legitimizing groups like the KKK or neo-Nazis.

Politeness does not legitimize the person towards whom it is directed. Impoliteness, on the other hand, delegitimizes the person from whom it comes.

I completely disagree.

ok weiner boy

[John Dule]

Whether this is Canada or the US we're talking about, and regardless of your own feelings on the subject, you can't possibly deny that laws are often interpreted in ways that justify practices and policies that were far outside the imagination of their original authors. Given how small the leap I'm talking about would be in comparison to the other leaps made by "living constitutionalists," denying the future potential for abuse of this law would border on being deliberately obtuse.

I'm not "denying the future potential for abuse". Nearly every law on the book could create the future potential for abuse if people chose to interpret it in a specific way. If this was the standard we used to assess the validity of laws, we wouldn't be left with a state at all (I was going to joke that maybe you'd like that, but I know you're actually a cut above most other libertarians in recognizing that we're always going to need a state with a monopoly on legitimate violence, which is by necessity gonna entail the potential for abuse). So we should focus on ways in which a legislation is plausibly likely to be interpreted in the near future (we basically can't know anything about politics in the distant future, so speculating on those is a waste of time). And all the evidence we have with regard to the near future is that it's not going to be used to suppress speech.

Well, given that (again) actual proponents of the bill have endorsed my interpretation of it, and given that social norms on this subject are rapidly shifting in favor of people like discovolante who apparently welcome fining and jailing people for "being dickweeds," I really don't think it's that far-fetched to conclude that there is significant potential for abuse of this law in the not-so-distant future. If you disagree, fine-- but people like Peterson can hardly be called crackpots for warning about these dangers when the aforementioned facts bolster his claim.

This is a discussion that can get very complex and nuanced (and semantic) very fast, and I'm not sure what's gained by having it again in full, but I'll note that your approach here seems to lean hard on the oversimplification (from "gender historically developed as a byproduct of one's reproductive roles, which in turn were mostly caused by one's genetics" to "gender has a genetic basis") whereas I'm trying to point out that this oversimplification leads to serious problems both conceptual and normative.

I am not aware of any problems created by simplifying that statement down to that level.

[THG]

A decently intelligent and misunderstood man whose psychological advice proved helpful to me when I was just out of high school. FF.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

Rather tedious.

[Benjamin Frank]

An obvious grifter.