Just Merveilleux?

Life at № 42

Daniel Douglas: Jordan Peterson is The Professor Who Teaches You How to Save Your Father from the Belly of the Beast

Hello, Everyone

Here’s a very interesting blog, and an even more interesting (and thoughtful) discussion. Some of you are interested in gender issues, others in classical liberalism, others in civil rights, some of you are even Canadian so this is specifically about you – so why not join us there to see if we can make some sense of it all. Meet Daniel Douglas: 

“Sometimes you get to the end of watching a Canadian Senate hearing about a gender identity bill and you sit there, finish your box of Wheat Thins, and wonder how you got where you are.

This is what happened to everyone who for the last year had been following the internet maelstrom surrounding Prof. Jordan Peterson.

Haven’t heard of Jordan Peterson?

Take one part Carl Jung, one part Solzhenitsyn, one part Kermit the Frog, and one part St. Augustine. Put all this in a conceptual blender.”

Source: Jordan Peterson is The Professor Who Teaches You How to Save Your Father from the Belly of the Beast

Advertisements

32 comments on “Daniel Douglas: Jordan Peterson is The Professor Who Teaches You How to Save Your Father from the Belly of the Beast

  1. Diana MacPherson
    July 18, 2017

    He came to my campus and the students went crazy with blow horns and he had to leave to conduct the lecture outside. There is still graffiti all over the place defacing the inside of buildings calling him names.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Pink Agendist
      July 18, 2017

      That doesn’t sound productive. Was he able to speak in the end?

      Like

      • Diana MacPherson
        July 18, 2017

        He tried to. I saw video afterwards online and it was awful how people were behaving. There were students that were there to hear him and the protestors were yelling (not just speaking) through a bull horn. It would be really awful to be there in person. I wanted to grab the bullhorn from the girl using it and throw it on the floor.

        Like

    • agrudzinsky
      July 18, 2017

      I’ve noticed the liberal extremists can sometimes be more obnoxious than the WBC members. Extremes on both sides are equally repugnant.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The Pink Agendist
        July 18, 2017

        I know you don’t mean White Blood Cells, so WBC is…

        Like

      • agrudzinsky
        July 18, 2017

        Westboro Baptist Church. I’m surprised you are unfamiliar with this abbreviation.

        Like

      • The Pink Agendist
        July 18, 2017

        Ooooh yes! They’ve been off my radar for quite a while now.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. john zande
    July 18, 2017

    Sounds tasty

    Liked by 1 person

  3. agrudzinsky
    July 18, 2017

    Funny. If you are a comedian, you can say the most outrageous things. The people would laugh and you would be popular. But if you are a professor and say the same stuff, they will blow bull horns at you.

    I actually agree with many things that he says. About gender identity in particular. A man can feel like being a woman. There is nothing wrong with that. I don’t think he should be discriminated or harassed because of that. But feeling like being a woman does not make him a woman. We would need a vagina to be a woman. The example of a tall blonde man in his thirties was perfect to illustrate the point. Naming things in a different way does not change the things.

    Besides, if you oppose the discrimination against the men who feel like being women, it’s more productive to convince people to stop discriminating against men who feel like being women than to make them believe that these men are, in fact, women.

    Liked by 2 people

    • The Pink Agendist
      July 18, 2017

      But who gets to decide what an individual is called? Ever since we moved to France we’ve had that argument here because the first thing Mike does is tell people to call him Mike instead of Monsieur Gwilym (which is the standard form socially.) He insists he’s entitled to that. I personally feel we should just go along with the custom. Who’s right?

      Like

      • agrudzinsky
        July 18, 2017

        Names and titles are different than words that have scientific, legal, or linguistic definitions. Let’s Google “male”:

        male
        māl/Submit
        adjective
        1. of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

        Until you produce those gametes, you remain a male, no matter what you may call yourself.

        I suppose, if we erase the notion of biological sex from the language, it would be impossible to walk into a wrong bathroom or discriminate against the opposite sex. But then we will live in the 1984 dystopia:

        “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • The Pink Agendist
        July 18, 2017

        But wasn’t the professor’s main objection the pronouns used to refer to transgender people?

        Like

      • agrudzinsky
        July 18, 2017

        I like simplicity. I like definitions. They help to navigate the world and stay safe. Basically, “define” means to set a boundary between what a thing is and what it is not. These boundaries serve many purposes. E.g. lines marking the lanes on a road are useful and important for safety. Take them away or make them fuzzy or confusing, and you will have people driving in wrong lanes or off the road. Same with language. You need clear definitions to know what things are. Confusion in definitions can be deadly – one can eat a poisonous mushroom confusing it for an edible one due to the lack of clarity. That’s the philosophical foundation for the rest.

        Now, there is a definition of “male” and “female” based on physiology. Given a physical human body alone, in most cases, it would be easy to say if it’s a male or a female. And it is a linguistic convention that pronoun “he” is used for males and pronoun “she” is used for females. Again, how people “feel” does not change reality. You are a male if your body produces those “gametes with which a female may be fertilized”. And, again, if we start changing the language for political reasons, we will risk eating poisonous mushrooms and will end up in a 1984 dystopia.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The Pink Agendist
        July 18, 2017

        I think that’s an unnecessarily unkind position. If someone doesn’t like the name they were given at birth, or prefers not to be referred to in a certain way, I think it’s not unreasonable to make room for that.

        Liked by 3 people

      • agrudzinsky
        July 18, 2017

        I am not opposed to calling a person who looks like a woman “she”. That’s fine. But I would definitely oppose a law making it a crime to call someone with balls “he” if he wants to be called “she”. That’s nonsense. That’s an introduction to “mind crimes”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • agrudzinsky
        July 18, 2017

        Sometimes, though, language needs to be changed to reflect political realities. E.g., there is a notorious argument between Russians and Ukrainians what preposition to use with the word “Ukraine” in Russian: “на Украине” (on Ukraine) or “в Украине” (in Ukraine). Historically, Russians have always used “на Украине”. This is how they refer to localities or provinces in Russian. Russians insist that they are not going to change their language. Ukrainians insist that since Ukraine is a separate country now, it is proper to say “в Украине” similar to how they would refer to being “in Germany” or “in France” or “in Russia”. I support the Ukrainian point of view, but it is consistent with my requirement that the language should reflect the reality correctly.

        There is a similar argument Ukrainians have with English-speakers. Often people say “the Ukraine” referring to the country because it used to be “The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic” as a part of the U.S.S.R. Now it’s a separate country, and Ukrainians insist that “Ukraine” must be used without “the”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Diana MacPherson
        July 19, 2017

        Oh I’d be just like Mike because I hate authoritarianism and see that formality as anti egalitarian. I’m weird that way though. When I’m at concerts and the musicians tell is alll to sing or clap I refuse to do it because “no one’s going to tell me what to do and make me conform”. I’m a real fun one.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. persedeplume
    July 19, 2017

    It’s taken me a long time to process how I feel about identity politics esp in regards to gender identification. For me, the jello is close to getting set. Based on the eyerolls, I’m now old enough where the world is leaving me behind in my views of popular culture. Hopefully I can unpack this in a way that makes sense. I still feel id politics are essential to the breakthroughs the gay community and supporters made on gay rights. But much like the unions were essential to the workers struggles then fell from public grace from a combination of cultural shifts in the societal gestalt and lost their way, the gender identification crowd must acknowledge responsibility for some of their own miscalculations. At some point, their demands for social justice became de rigueur in the context of “out of strictness” or “according to strict etiquette”; one definition of our word rigor, to which rigueur is related, is “the quality of being strict, unyielding, or inflexible.” Instead of building empathy and support based on a common humanity, suddenly it’s “this is how it is, and instead of conversation if you don’t do it our way we’ll label you and act out in anti-social ways.” It didn’t take long for blowback to develop even among LGTB supporters. And it’s hardly surprising that social conservatives who think being gay is an abomination hardened their opposition in predictable ways.
    I think people should present themselves in whatever manner they identify with, use whatever pronouns they’re comfortable using, just give others an opportunity to accommodate them if they’re amenable. I’m not a mindreader. I don’t know what you want until you tell me. The rub is that they’re not just asking for social acceptance, but incorporation legally; where like abortion, the solutions in the law are complex both ethically and by statute and affect all of society. Herding cats is easier by comparison.
    If I had to offer some advice for the genderfluid, it would be well to remember that one gets more flies with honey than vinegar. Beyond that, patience, perseverance, and personal grace. It will get better.

    Liked by 3 people

    • The Pink Agendist
      July 19, 2017

      That’s entirely reasonable. But… building empathy can be hard. I do remember how angry it used to make me when it was gay men who were accused of being a danger in bathrooms. Or near children. Sometimes I have the impression the pronoun issue isn’t really about pronouns, rather it’s about power.

      Liked by 2 people

      • persedeplume
        July 19, 2017

        I agree. It’s never as simple as just the one thing. If I give the impression I’m not completely on board with transgender/genderfluid rights that would be wrong. I think they should consider modifying some of their approach especially with folk who are their allies to begin with.
        I remember being a closeted gay man in the 50’s who was frightened of being discovered. Those were the days of being jailed, not being able to get a job, possibly being involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for ECT or aversion therapy or in some cases castrated. The work is far from over. The right is still smearing gays about being around children, try adopting a child in Texas, for instance. I get it. Power never just rolls over and gives up with someone having to resort to unpleasantness.

        Liked by 1 person

      • persedeplume
        July 19, 2017

        Ugh. “without” someone having…
        What I get for not wearing my spectacles.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Clare Flourish
    July 19, 2017

    Mmm. That blog, and that comment thread.

    I am afraid however big the Hugh Mungus incident was in Seattle, it had not reached my consciousness before now. I don’t like the videos about it Daniel Douglas shares. I watched part of the second first, and found it a bit creepy how the woman was silent except for admiringly echoing the commenter’s words occasionally.

    Who is being harassed?

    Here is the original video, without the irritating man’s verbose and unenlightening commentary:

    Here is what happened before:

    Both the woman who took the original video, and the man who said he was Hugh Mungus, spoke on some initiative about drugs, on different sides. He gave his name in the original hearing.

    Who is being harrassed?

    She objects to the news interviewing him, because all the objectors were not interviewed.

    After his interview which she is filming on her phone, he approaches her.

    -Do you want my name?
    -Yeah, sure.
    -It’s Hugh Mungus.
    -OK. Humungous what?

    And then it kicks off.

    I don’t know. I don’t know the political issue before the city council, but they were on opposite sides, she was angry in the hearing, and he might be disturbed that someone is filming him on her phone. Then he makes a sex joke.

    Who is harassing who? No idea. Arguably, from a SJW perspective, a man should not make a sex joke to a woman he does not know. She was videoing him. He insulted her.

    Liked by 2 people

    • The Pink Agendist
      July 19, 2017

      I found the whole thing bizarre. In any case, the anger of one activist can’t be used as a basis to extrapolate and then dismiss feminism, or civil rights, or male dominance.

      Liked by 1 person

    • agrudzinsky
      July 23, 2017

      Harassment is in the eye of the harassed.

      Like

    • agrudzinsky
      July 23, 2017

      HAHA! Yes, it does help to watch the original videos without someone’s blibber-blubber. Here is a more recent commentary by the same guy putting the whole story in context. I think it’s better than the one posted in October. The lady does seem out of whack. Of course, it does not invalidate the “black lives matter” or any other movement. But it does make the point that the way arguments are presented does matter. A great illustration of “harassment” issues and blowing horns at lectures.

      Liked by 1 person

    • agrudzinsky
      July 23, 2017

      I’ve seen the same kind of folks on a train in Ukraine. A couple of them stood on both sides of an aisle and one of them shouted from the top of their lungs: “Repent! The Kindom of God is coming!” One of them would shout this for 5 or 10 minutes then the other one would take on. I had a pleasant conversation with a girl next to me, but this shouting made it uncomfortable. I stood up, walked to the glass-eyed person shouting his mantras. I waved my hand in front of his face. He did not react. His companion spoke to me. He said:
      – Why are you trying to prevent him from speaking?
      – Because his shouting makes my head ache.
      – Your sins make your head ache, – was the reply.

      Liked by 1 person

    • agrudzinsky
      July 23, 2017

      Sorry, this is too funny 🙂

      Like

  6. Such a treat! I will be learning more about this man’s philosophy – thanks for the find

    Liked by 2 people

    • agrudzinsky
      July 19, 2017

      Yes, his reasoning sounds very solid. I’ve listened through about 90 minutes of his lecture, and he, pretty much, echoes my own understanding of these issues. As an electrical engineer, I know Pareto principle and how systems with positive feedback work to understand that extreme inequality is a fundamental and natural outcome of such systems. He has very interesting thoughts on how culture keeps society stable and functional by setting social roles and expectations, how religion plays the key role in preserving the culture and how the disruption of cultural stereotypes destabilize the society. This is exactly why the ideas that a man may marry a man or that a man can walk into a women’s bathroom sound disturbing for a lot of people. This breaks their expectations of how people should behave and make them feel unsafe. I think, understanding the reasons for these fears is important if we want to overcome them and adapt to reality.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: Is a trans woman really a woman? | Clare Flourish

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on July 18, 2017 by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , .
%d bloggers like this: