Real cute. Anyway, you're wrong about a lot of things in that little paragraph, but probably the biggest one is your exculpation of Peterson, the claim that he'll call people whatever they want but he simply objects to the enforced language. That's uhhhhh bullshit.



He's literally saying he that he will not use any pronouns other than he or she. Which means that he is refusing to do something as simple as use the singular they, which many trans and genderqueer people feel most comfortable with.

So, yes, unless he's explicit walked back this claim, my man Shuja is right. You might want to read his entire article before you pop off on RM, my dude.

[Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... a-37875695]

The rest of your points:

1) The intro apes the language from the Communist Manifesto--alliance here doesn't mean official allies but that they are fighting the same forces (there, Communism, here, progressivism, or a strain of it anyway). This parses pretty easily and doesn't require you to think that he's signed a deal to play for Richard Spencer's softball team.

2) First of all, bullshit--every public figure has control over who follows them, because the language they use is targeted to appeal to certain audiences. But more importantly, he doesn't say Peterson appeals, he says Peterson's appeal, removing the active verb--in other words, he's referring to the reach of Peterson's message outside of where it might be intended. It's pretty inarguable that Peterson's message has appealed to reactionary campus groups (I defined reactionary for you last week)

3) See above.

4) He doesn't actually say that there's anything wrong with being on Youtube.

So...you might want to keep reading his article. His central point is that Peterson fundamentally misunderstands what postmodernism is and what Marxism is, and umm, he's right.

Maybe the most important point here, though, is that if those are the grounds on which you think someone isn't worth your time (all of them being either deliberate or incidental misreadings), then you've already decided what's right--you've internalized Peterson's ideas and made defending them part and parcel of your subject-position. You're not really going to be swayed because you're not really looking to learn, you're looking to be reassured that what you feel about the world is correct.

I'm obviously in way over my head here. I actually stated I want to learn and am ignorant. I have a lot of reading to do before I can make a thoughtful retort. Until then, ... Burt?

Why is this worth anyone's time?

Discounting someone's life experience to preserve your place in society is not a noble cause. Why would you laud this person?

Well okay and so it's rad that you want to learn, but if that's actually true then you should probably not quit on an article recommended to you after one paragraph. I didn't recommend it for its brilliant opening. I do think the critiques it makes of Peterson's understanding of postmodernism--on which he predicates his entire argument against the postmodern worldview--are particularly salient.

come on, man. This is just ridiculous.

Huh?

Many people are governed by fear, burt.

"Why do you like this guy when he clearly such an evil stupid monster?" he asked innocently.

I disagree that he is discounting anyone's life experience to preserve his place in society. I laud him to the extent I do because he does not.

I just don't fucking get it, man.

He seems to support the intolerance of tolerance. And discount our inherent need to support people who are marginalized.

Have you met someone who is transgender?

Identity and a sense of belonging is important to them.

What the fuck does it matter to you or anyone else if I want to be called "she?"

No matter how many times I explain why this isn't the case, it doesn't seem to make a difference, but you are completely wrong here. Sorry, I know some people can't accept that Peterson (and I) view this as a free speech issue. Context matters, and the dangers inherent in compelled speech and censorship should be self evident, but apparently they aren't. Censorship is more likely introduced in the name of altruism and empathy and safety and all that bullshit. This is not a slippery slope, but a fucking cliff.

I can't convince you otherwise if you are so willing to make the leap that he is a secret transphobe without a shred of evidence for it. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he's a vicious transphobe who thinks all trans people should be exterminated, but you don't have an ounce to prove it. Your only argument is that you know what he REALLY means *wink*wink* *Dogwhistle*. That's bullshit.

And, no, before the great "white fragility" parrots come out of the woodwork here: No, I'm not suggesting that the severity of problems faced by trans and people accused of transphobia are equal, only that they are both bad, and the people pushing either are making things worse for everyone, ESPECIALLY the marginalized. Different severity, both bad, both more negatively affect the marginalized. Got it?

Yes I've met someone who is transgender.

"Identity and a sense of belonging is important to them."

Ok. And? A sense of belonging is important. Is it effective in achieving that? Doesn't seem that way. The assumption that you are gonna fix this problem by mandating pronouns is delusional, and will cause more problems than it prevents, especially for the marginalized. It is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

"What the fuck does it matter to you or anyone else if I want to be called "she?""
It doesn't matter to me. Just don't force me to use it, and especially don't force me to use the dozens of made up ones, and then declare me a transphobe if I don't. Also, don't use pronouns as a blunt instrument to attack people who, in your opinion, misuse them (this, by the way, is done more often by people who aren't trans than are, and, no, I'm not suggesting that people accused of being transphobic face the same danger that and trans person does. They are both bad though. This is the SJW bullshit I hate).

I don't accept anyone's authority over what speech is to be considered "free". I don't recognize any authority that thinks it can decide for me what I'm allowed to hear. I don't think this will help the marginalized in the slightest, and will (and already has) made it worse for them. Free speech is how you make positive change on society and its the greatest tool to protect the marginalized. Censorship is the tool to attack them.

Yeah, I'm the one making gigantic leaps.

Dawg the quote from Peterson at the literal top of this page makes him out to be trans- and genderqueer-phobic

nope.

Sorry, I meant, "nope, you inbred fuckstick."

One thing I don't understand about all this: Who is "forcing" people to use certain pronouns? Who is actually censoring anything in these scenarios?

I think burt is talking about a Canadian law (Bill C-16), that somehow REALLY affects and offends him.