< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

How does Social Justice get to "equality"? (e.g. sins of the father?)

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6531
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
14 September 2018 08:56
 
icehorse - 14 September 2018 08:47 AM
Brick Bungalow - 14 September 2018 08:38 AM
icehorse - 26 July 2018 09:51 AM

This question is part political and perhaps part philosophical.

Let’s take women in the workplace as an example. We want to achieve goals like equal pay, equal opportunity for advancement, and harassment-free work environments. All fine goals.

Jordan Peterson - who IMO sometimes has good perspectives - asks an interesting question: If we want harassment-free work places, should we disallow the wearing of alluring clothing and makeup? This is NOT to suggest that men cannot contain themselves. It’s more to acknowledge that women have certain advantages that men don’t. For the most part women can use “being alluring” more than men can. That’s just biology. To take the example further, can a man ask a woman coworker out on a date? If initially rejected, can he ask multiple times? At what point does it become harassment? Do the same rules apply for a woman? Can a woman flirt endlessly (of course everyone can flirt)? Do men have a group debt to pay to women?

I’m still wondering about the case of Al Franken. I might not have all the data, but from what I know, his punishment seems to have far outweighed his “crimes”. And I would contend that even though he screwed up, his punishment hurt the entire country. Was this justice?

I know this post has rambled around a bit, I apologize, I’m tying to figure out how to organize thinking about these topics.

Thoughts?

What I observe is that there are at least two different sorts of people who ask this question. It’s grammatically identical but the propositions are opposed. The distinction has to do with character and intention and, for me, these questions make little sense without establishing the motives.

‘Should it be ok to…...................?’ in reference to some intersection between social and professional activities.

The first person is asking in good faith in order to serve the total interest of the group. The question reflects compassion for the subject. It’s about upholding justice and preventing harm.

The second person is asking because they have little to no intrinsic emotional intelligence or ethos. They express their sexuality primarily in terms of power. They want a full understanding of formal boundaries so that they can pursue selfish goals and be insulated from consequence. They want to follow the letter of the law but not the spirit. The second person will frequently pose as the first. I can’t help but reference the Jordan Petersen fan base here. Not fair to everyone but inescapable in the context of what’s already been posted.

So, I do think its important to create lists of rules but I’m more interested in how we might instill the durable principle behind the rules. How do we motivate people to follow the rules for the right reason?

Lest I be categorized as a fanboy, I will say again that I don’t always agree with Peterson. That said, I’ve heard him tell his college students over and over again: “You don’t know anything. Spend some time learning some basic competencies.”

Now if we apply Bloom’s taxonomy to this advice, step one is to learn the friggin’ rules. Once you’ve learned them, you can progress to making judgments and adjustments, but ya gotta be well grounded first. So I agree that some people will learn the rules with nefarious intentions. As you said, to see how much advantage they can take of the situation. But I would be more charitable with many people and say that they’re just learning, and with everyone, you start by learning the rules.

It seems, to me, that J.P. often disregards or overlooks his own advice.
Like when he talks about the benefits of social hierarchies to certain demographics of his fan base - as though those demographics haven’t already been ranked by the existing social hierarchy.

Those same demographics being the ones most predicted to learn the rules with nefarious (or very self-serving) intent.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2614
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
14 September 2018 09:08
 
Brick Bungalow - 14 September 2018 08:38 AM

What I observe is that there are at least two different sorts of people who ask this question. It’s grammatically identical but the propositions are opposed. The distinction has to do with character and intention and, for me, these questions make little sense without establishing the motives.

‘Should it be ok to…...................?’ in reference to some intersection between social and professional activities.

The first person is asking in good faith in order to serve the total interest of the group. The question reflects compassion for the subject. It’s about upholding justice and preventing harm.

The second person is asking because they have little to no intrinsic emotional intelligence or ethos. They express their sexuality primarily in terms of power. They want a full understanding of formal boundaries so that they can pursue selfish goals and be insulated from consequence. They want to follow the letter of the law but not the spirit. The second person will frequently pose as the first. I can’t help but reference the Jordan Petersen fan base here. Not fair to everyone but inescapable in the context of what’s already been posted.

So, I do think its important to create lists of rules but I’m more interested in how we might instill the durable principle behind the rules. How do we motivate people to follow the rules for the right reason?

I agree; I think you’ve described well what seems to be going on often with these types of discussions.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6880
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
14 September 2018 10:17
 

Jefe:

It seems, to me, that J.P. often disregards or overlooks his own advice.
Like when he talks about the benefits of social hierarchies to certain demographics of his fan base - as though those demographics haven’t already been ranked by the existing social hierarchy.

Those same demographics being the ones most predicted to learn the rules with nefarious (or very self-serving) intent.

It seems to me you’re saying something like: “Don’t teach college students about powerful tools because some of them will use the tools for bad purposes.”

That doesn’t seem like a good approach to me, am I interpreting you correctly?

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  4897
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
14 September 2018 10:33
 
icehorse - 14 September 2018 08:47 AM
Brick Bungalow - 14 September 2018 08:38 AM
icehorse - 26 July 2018 09:51 AM

This question is part political and perhaps part philosophical.

Let’s take women in the workplace as an example. We want to achieve goals like equal pay, equal opportunity for advancement, and harassment-free work environments. All fine goals.

Jordan Peterson - who IMO sometimes has good perspectives - asks an interesting question: If we want harassment-free work places, should we disallow the wearing of alluring clothing and makeup? This is NOT to suggest that men cannot contain themselves. It’s more to acknowledge that women have certain advantages that men don’t. For the most part women can use “being alluring” more than men can. That’s just biology. To take the example further, can a man ask a woman coworker out on a date? If initially rejected, can he ask multiple times? At what point does it become harassment? Do the same rules apply for a woman? Can a woman flirt endlessly (of course everyone can flirt)? Do men have a group debt to pay to women?

I’m still wondering about the case of Al Franken. I might not have all the data, but from what I know, his punishment seems to have far outweighed his “crimes”. And I would contend that even though he screwed up, his punishment hurt the entire country. Was this justice?

I know this post has rambled around a bit, I apologize, I’m tying to figure out how to organize thinking about these topics.

Thoughts?

What I observe is that there are at least two different sorts of people who ask this question. It’s grammatically identical but the propositions are opposed. The distinction has to do with character and intention and, for me, these questions make little sense without establishing the motives.

‘Should it be ok to…...................?’ in reference to some intersection between social and professional activities.

The first person is asking in good faith in order to serve the total interest of the group. The question reflects compassion for the subject. It’s about upholding justice and preventing harm.

The second person is asking because they have little to no intrinsic emotional intelligence or ethos. They express their sexuality primarily in terms of power. They want a full understanding of formal boundaries so that they can pursue selfish goals and be insulated from consequence. They want to follow the letter of the law but not the spirit. The second person will frequently pose as the first. I can’t help but reference the Jordan Petersen fan base here. Not fair to everyone but inescapable in the context of what’s already been posted.

So, I do think its important to create lists of rules but I’m more interested in how we might instill the durable principle behind the rules. How do we motivate people to follow the rules for the right reason?

Lest I be categorized as a fanboy, I will say again that I don’t always agree with Peterson. That said, I’ve heard him tell his college students over and over again: “You don’t know anything. Spend some time learning some basic competencies.”

Now if we apply Bloom’s taxonomy to this advice, step one is to learn the friggin’ rules. Once you’ve learned them, you can progress to making judgments and adjustments, but ya gotta be well grounded first. So I agree that some people will learn the rules with nefarious intentions. As you said, to see how much advantage they can take of the situation. But I would be more charitable with many people and say that they’re just learning, and with everyone, you start by learning the rules.

Nothing directed at anyone present. Apologies if I’ve inferred otherwise. I bring up this distinction (hopefully) for the practical benefit of those who pursue the question in good faith. I’ve sat on enough grievance committees to know that the question is frequently posed in the latter way. Tactically.

I don’t think Petersen is a predator either but I think a pretty big segment of his dedicated following follows him because he does a lend a certain license to misogynistic and homophobic attitudes. His quotes are frequently taken out of their original context and used as rejoinders to feminist concerns… too often to be mere coincidence. I only blame him for this very slightly because I think he’s had the opportunity to disclaim and disavow this segment of his audience and has declined to do so.

Again, this discussion really boils down to intention for me.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6531
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
14 September 2018 10:39
 
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:17 AM

Jefe:

It seems, to me, that J.P. often disregards or overlooks his own advice.
Like when he talks about the benefits of social hierarchies to certain demographics of his fan base - as though those demographics haven’t already been ranked by the existing social hierarchy.

Those same demographics being the ones most predicted to learn the rules with nefarious (or very self-serving) intent.

It seems to me you’re saying something like: “Don’t teach college students about powerful tools because some of them will use the tools for bad purposes.”

That doesn’t seem like a good approach to me, am I interpreting you correctly?

Nope.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6880
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
14 September 2018 10:41
 
Jefe - 14 September 2018 10:39 AM
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:17 AM

Jefe:

It seems, to me, that J.P. often disregards or overlooks his own advice.
Like when he talks about the benefits of social hierarchies to certain demographics of his fan base - as though those demographics haven’t already been ranked by the existing social hierarchy.

Those same demographics being the ones most predicted to learn the rules with nefarious (or very self-serving) intent.

It seems to me you’re saying something like: “Don’t teach college students about powerful tools because some of them will use the tools for bad purposes.”

That doesn’t seem like a good approach to me, am I interpreting you correctly?

Nope.

Care to clarify your previous post?

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6531
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
14 September 2018 10:47
 
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:41 AM
Jefe - 14 September 2018 10:39 AM
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:17 AM

Jefe:

It seems, to me, that J.P. often disregards or overlooks his own advice.
Like when he talks about the benefits of social hierarchies to certain demographics of his fan base - as though those demographics haven’t already been ranked by the existing social hierarchy.

Those same demographics being the ones most predicted to learn the rules with nefarious (or very self-serving) intent.

It seems to me you’re saying something like: “Don’t teach college students about powerful tools because some of them will use the tools for bad purposes.”

That doesn’t seem like a good approach to me, am I interpreting you correctly?

Nope.

Care to clarify your previous post?

While gish-galloping the benefits of hierarchies of competence, it might behoove J.P. to outline to those disaffected fans of this theme (those dissatisfied with their current hierarchical position) that they may need to engage in serious self-reflection and self-change to affect real change in their current hierarchical positions, rather than attempting to impose arbitrary ideological changes onto others. 

Certainly teach them about social mores and hierarchical fitting, but also teach them that true change comes from within.

I.E.  Instead of proposing imposing restrictions onto others, try imposing restrictions onto one’s self.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  524
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
14 September 2018 11:14
 
Jefe - 14 September 2018 10:47 AM
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:41 AM
Jefe - 14 September 2018 10:39 AM
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:17 AM

Jefe:

It seems, to me, that J.P. often disregards or overlooks his own advice.
Like when he talks about the benefits of social hierarchies to certain demographics of his fan base - as though those demographics haven’t already been ranked by the existing social hierarchy.

Those same demographics being the ones most predicted to learn the rules with nefarious (or very self-serving) intent.

It seems to me you’re saying something like: “Don’t teach college students about powerful tools because some of them will use the tools for bad purposes.”

That doesn’t seem like a good approach to me, am I interpreting you correctly?

Nope.

Care to clarify your previous post?

While gish-galloping the benefits of hierarchies of competence, it might behoove J.P. to outline to those disaffected fans of this theme (those dissatisfied with their current hierarchical position) that they may need to engage in serious self-reflection and self-change to affect real change in their current hierarchical positions, rather than attempting to impose arbitrary ideological changes onto others. 

Certainly teach them about social mores and hierarchical fitting, but also teach them that true change comes from within.

I.E.  Instead of proposing imposing restrictions onto others, try imposing restrictions onto one’s self.

I’m a bit perplexed here. 

Are you saying JP teaches his readers and listeners to impose restrictions on others, as opposed to applying rules to their own lives?  I ask because I’ve read his book, and it’s pretty clearly written to persuade readers to adopt rules for their own conduct, and this as a prelude to either criticizing or moving within the inevitable (as he see them) “dominance hierarchies of society,” if you wish, but really it’s about being happy and living a satisfying life.  As far as I can tell every rule is phrased as a maxim for self-care.  It seems to me—if I am understanding your “I.E” correctly—that you pretty much ask Peterson to do precisely what he already does—teach that change comes first from within.

 

[ Edited: 14 September 2018 11:20 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6531
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
14 September 2018 12:35
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 September 2018 11:14 AM
Jefe - 14 September 2018 10:47 AM
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:41 AM
Jefe - 14 September 2018 10:39 AM
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:17 AM

Jefe:

It seems, to me, that J.P. often disregards or overlooks his own advice.
Like when he talks about the benefits of social hierarchies to certain demographics of his fan base - as though those demographics haven’t already been ranked by the existing social hierarchy.

Those same demographics being the ones most predicted to learn the rules with nefarious (or very self-serving) intent.

It seems to me you’re saying something like: “Don’t teach college students about powerful tools because some of them will use the tools for bad purposes.”

That doesn’t seem like a good approach to me, am I interpreting you correctly?

Nope.

Care to clarify your previous post?

While gish-galloping the benefits of hierarchies of competence, it might behoove J.P. to outline to those disaffected fans of this theme (those dissatisfied with their current hierarchical position) that they may need to engage in serious self-reflection and self-change to affect real change in their current hierarchical positions, rather than attempting to impose arbitrary ideological changes onto others. 

Certainly teach them about social mores and hierarchical fitting, but also teach them that true change comes from within.

I.E.  Instead of proposing imposing restrictions onto others, try imposing restrictions onto one’s self.

I’m a bit perplexed here. 

Are you saying JP teaches his readers and listeners to impose restrictions on others, as opposed to applying rules to their own lives?  I ask because I’ve read his book, and it’s pretty clearly written to persuade readers to adopt rules for their own conduct, and this as a prelude to either criticizing or moving within the inevitable (as he see them) “dominance hierarchies of society,” if you wish, but really it’s about being happy and living a satisfying life.  As far as I can tell every rule is phrased as a maxim for self-care.  It seems to me—if I am understanding your “I.E” correctly—that you pretty much ask Peterson to do precisely what he already does—teach that change comes first from within.


See the original post where J.P. ‘suggests’ restricting others instead of self-change.

icehorse - 26 July 2018 09:51 AM

Jordan Peterson - who IMO sometimes has good perspectives - asks an interesting question: If we want harassment-free work places, should we disallow the wearing of alluring clothing and makeup?

I ask again, why should a change in harassment statistics warrant the imposition of limitation on others, instead of expecting potential harassers to behave themselves.

 

[ Edited: 14 September 2018 12:37 by Jefe]
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  524
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
14 September 2018 12:44
 
Jefe - 14 September 2018 12:35 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 September 2018 11:14 AM
Jefe - 14 September 2018 10:47 AM
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:41 AM
Jefe - 14 September 2018 10:39 AM
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:17 AM

Jefe:

It seems, to me, that J.P. often disregards or overlooks his own advice.
Like when he talks about the benefits of social hierarchies to certain demographics of his fan base - as though those demographics haven’t already been ranked by the existing social hierarchy.

Those same demographics being the ones most predicted to learn the rules with nefarious (or very self-serving) intent.

It seems to me you’re saying something like: “Don’t teach college students about powerful tools because some of them will use the tools for bad purposes.”

That doesn’t seem like a good approach to me, am I interpreting you correctly?

Nope.

Care to clarify your previous post?

While gish-galloping the benefits of hierarchies of competence, it might behoove J.P. to outline to those disaffected fans of this theme (those dissatisfied with their current hierarchical position) that they may need to engage in serious self-reflection and self-change to affect real change in their current hierarchical positions, rather than attempting to impose arbitrary ideological changes onto others. 

Certainly teach them about social mores and hierarchical fitting, but also teach them that true change comes from within.

I.E.  Instead of proposing imposing restrictions onto others, try imposing restrictions onto one’s self.

I’m a bit perplexed here. 

Are you saying JP teaches his readers and listeners to impose restrictions on others, as opposed to applying rules to their own lives?  I ask because I’ve read his book, and it’s pretty clearly written to persuade readers to adopt rules for their own conduct, and this as a prelude to either criticizing or moving within the inevitable (as he see them) “dominance hierarchies of society,” if you wish, but really it’s about being happy and living a satisfying life.  As far as I can tell every rule is phrased as a maxim for self-care.  It seems to me—if I am understanding your “I.E” correctly—that you pretty much ask Peterson to do precisely what he already does—teach that change comes first from within.


See the original post where J.P. ‘suggests’ restricting others instead of self-change.

icehorse - 26 July 2018 09:51 AM

Jordan Peterson - who IMO sometimes has good perspectives - asks an interesting question: If we want harassment-free work places, should we disallow the wearing of alluring clothing and makeup?

I ask again, why should a change in harassment statistics warrant the imposition of limitation on others, instead of expecting potential harassers to behave themselves.

 

Ok, but I see icehorse saying what he thinks JP says.  I’m addressing what JP actually says, and what he says suggests he believes that change comes from within, not in imposing rules on others.  Perhaps the underlying question here is for icehorse to point out where JP says changing harassment problems means imposing external rules on others instead of bringing about internal change to prevent harassers from wanting to harass.  JP may hold such view on the harassment problem specifically, but that would go against his general maxim that change comes first from within.  That’s all I’m saying.

 

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6531
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
14 September 2018 12:59
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 September 2018 12:44 PM
Jefe - 14 September 2018 12:35 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 September 2018 11:14 AM
Jefe - 14 September 2018 10:47 AM
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:41 AM
Jefe - 14 September 2018 10:39 AM
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:17 AM

Jefe:

It seems, to me, that J.P. often disregards or overlooks his own advice.
Like when he talks about the benefits of social hierarchies to certain demographics of his fan base - as though those demographics haven’t already been ranked by the existing social hierarchy.

Those same demographics being the ones most predicted to learn the rules with nefarious (or very self-serving) intent.

It seems to me you’re saying something like: “Don’t teach college students about powerful tools because some of them will use the tools for bad purposes.”

That doesn’t seem like a good approach to me, am I interpreting you correctly?

Nope.

Care to clarify your previous post?

While gish-galloping the benefits of hierarchies of competence, it might behoove J.P. to outline to those disaffected fans of this theme (those dissatisfied with their current hierarchical position) that they may need to engage in serious self-reflection and self-change to affect real change in their current hierarchical positions, rather than attempting to impose arbitrary ideological changes onto others. 

Certainly teach them about social mores and hierarchical fitting, but also teach them that true change comes from within.

I.E.  Instead of proposing imposing restrictions onto others, try imposing restrictions onto one’s self.

I’m a bit perplexed here. 

Are you saying JP teaches his readers and listeners to impose restrictions on others, as opposed to applying rules to their own lives?  I ask because I’ve read his book, and it’s pretty clearly written to persuade readers to adopt rules for their own conduct, and this as a prelude to either criticizing or moving within the inevitable (as he see them) “dominance hierarchies of society,” if you wish, but really it’s about being happy and living a satisfying life.  As far as I can tell every rule is phrased as a maxim for self-care.  It seems to me—if I am understanding your “I.E” correctly—that you pretty much ask Peterson to do precisely what he already does—teach that change comes first from within.


See the original post where J.P. ‘suggests’ restricting others instead of self-change.

icehorse - 26 July 2018 09:51 AM

Jordan Peterson - who IMO sometimes has good perspectives - asks an interesting question: If we want harassment-free work places, should we disallow the wearing of alluring clothing and makeup?

I ask again, why should a change in harassment statistics warrant the imposition of limitation on others, instead of expecting potential harassers to behave themselves.

 

Ok, but I see icehorse saying what he thinks JP says.  I’m addressing what JP actually says, and what he says suggests he believes that change comes from within, not in imposing rules on others.  Perhaps the underlying question here is for icehorse to point out where JP says changing harassment problems means imposing external rules on others instead of bringing about internal change to prevent harassers from wanting to harass.  JP may hold such view on the harassment problem specifically, but that would go against his general maxim that change comes first from within.  That’s all I’m saying.

I have no control over how J.P.‘s audience interprets his statements.
I have no control over whether the audience recognizes where J.P.‘s position is incorrect, or exceeds his sphere of expertise, either.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  524
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
14 September 2018 14:08
 
Jefe - 14 September 2018 12:59 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 September 2018 12:44 PM
Jefe - 14 September 2018 12:35 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 September 2018 11:14 AM
Jefe - 14 September 2018 10:47 AM
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:41 AM
Jefe - 14 September 2018 10:39 AM
icehorse - 14 September 2018 10:17 AM

Jefe:

It seems, to me, that J.P. often disregards or overlooks his own advice.
Like when he talks about the benefits of social hierarchies to certain demographics of his fan base - as though those demographics haven’t already been ranked by the existing social hierarchy.

Those same demographics being the ones most predicted to learn the rules with nefarious (or very self-serving) intent.

It seems to me you’re saying something like: “Don’t teach college students about powerful tools because some of them will use the tools for bad purposes.”

That doesn’t seem like a good approach to me, am I interpreting you correctly?

Nope.

Care to clarify your previous post?

While gish-galloping the benefits of hierarchies of competence, it might behoove J.P. to outline to those disaffected fans of this theme (those dissatisfied with their current hierarchical position) that they may need to engage in serious self-reflection and self-change to affect real change in their current hierarchical positions, rather than attempting to impose arbitrary ideological changes onto others. 

Certainly teach them about social mores and hierarchical fitting, but also teach them that true change comes from within.

I.E.  Instead of proposing imposing restrictions onto others, try imposing restrictions onto one’s self.

I’m a bit perplexed here. 

Are you saying JP teaches his readers and listeners to impose restrictions on others, as opposed to applying rules to their own lives?  I ask because I’ve read his book, and it’s pretty clearly written to persuade readers to adopt rules for their own conduct, and this as a prelude to either criticizing or moving within the inevitable (as he see them) “dominance hierarchies of society,” if you wish, but really it’s about being happy and living a satisfying life.  As far as I can tell every rule is phrased as a maxim for self-care.  It seems to me—if I am understanding your “I.E” correctly—that you pretty much ask Peterson to do precisely what he already does—teach that change comes first from within.


See the original post where J.P. ‘suggests’ restricting others instead of self-change.

icehorse - 26 July 2018 09:51 AM

Jordan Peterson - who IMO sometimes has good perspectives - asks an interesting question: If we want harassment-free work places, should we disallow the wearing of alluring clothing and makeup?

I ask again, why should a change in harassment statistics warrant the imposition of limitation on others, instead of expecting potential harassers to behave themselves.

 

Ok, but I see icehorse saying what he thinks JP says.  I’m addressing what JP actually says, and what he says suggests he believes that change comes from within, not in imposing rules on others.  Perhaps the underlying question here is for icehorse to point out where JP says changing harassment problems means imposing external rules on others instead of bringing about internal change to prevent harassers from wanting to harass.  JP may hold such view on the harassment problem specifically, but that would go against his general maxim that change comes first from within.  That’s all I’m saying.

I have no control over how J.P.‘s audience interprets his statements.
I have no control over whether the audience recognizes where J.P.‘s position is incorrect, or exceeds his sphere of expertise, either.

I completely agree.  None of their misinterpretations—if they are misinterpretations—are on you. But I would suggest that when criticizing Peterson stress what Peterson actually says, not how his audience interprets his statements..  And just so I come clean in this, Peterson may in fact hold the views on sexual harassment icehorse says he does.  I’m just saying in fairness to Peterson, he should be criticized for his views, not others’ representation of them.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  524
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
14 September 2018 14:28
 

This, I think, goes to the crux of the matter:

So, I do think it’s important to create lists of rules but I’m more interested in how we might instill the durable principle behind the rules. How do we motivate people to follow the rules for the right reason?

Even economists are even coming to recognize that rules and incentives are not enough to produce optimal—or at least sufficiently good—outcomes in an economy, if Bowles’ The Moral Economy is any indication.  We need good people as well.  In this quest I don’t see why Jordan Peterson wouldn’t be an ally, not an adversary, as seems to be coming into play by default in this thread.  For his 12 Rules For Life is all about fostering the kind of internal virtues that make for good people, not just rule followers going through the motions.  This read is admittedly abstract, but it’s defensible with virtually everything he says in that book.  The trick would be in applying the general principle to norms governing ‘workplace sexual behavior’—or the lack of it, as the case may be—not general rules for a self-fulfilling, internally guided life.  A different application—a microcosm, if you will.  But the principle is the same.

 

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2614
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
14 September 2018 15:07
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 September 2018 02:08 PM

... But I would suggest that when criticizing Peterson stress what Peterson actually says, not how his audience interprets his statements..  And just so I come clean in this, Peterson may in fact hold the views on sexual harassment icehorse says he does.  I’m just saying in fairness to Peterson, he should be criticized for his views, not others’ representation of them.

I agree that people should not criticize others based on what others alone say (although how their message is received may have some relevance), but on what they actually say.  I also think that people should not defend others without being clear on what they represent (I’m not implying you are doing so).  I would suggest a google search of Peterson’s interviews regarding women in the workplace and control of women.  Listen carefully to what he says, and also to the tone and defensiveness.

I have come to the conclusion that Peterson is a man that does not respect or even truly like women.  Also, that he does not deserve the attention that he’s been receiving.  Of course, this is just one opinion.

[ Edited: 14 September 2018 15:43 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  4897
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
14 September 2018 16:09
 
Jan_CAN - 14 September 2018 03:07 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 September 2018 02:08 PM

... But I would suggest that when criticizing Peterson stress what Peterson actually says, not how his audience interprets his statements..  And just so I come clean in this, Peterson may in fact hold the views on sexual harassment icehorse says he does.  I’m just saying in fairness to Peterson, he should be criticized for his views, not others’ representation of them.

I agree that people should not criticize others based on what others alone say (although how their message is received may have some relevance), but on what they actually say.  I also think that people should not defend others without being clear on what they represent (I’m not implying you are doing so).  I would suggest a google search of Peterson’s interviews regarding women in the workplace and control of women.  Listen carefully to what he says, and also to the tone and defensiveness.

I have come to the conclusion that Peterson is a man that does not respect or even truly like women.  Also, that he does not deserve the attention that he’s been receiving.  Of course, this is just one opinion.

I think it’s necessary to critique both. Especially figures who ride a populist wave. If Petersen had less of a footprint in pop culture I would give him more of a pass on the common manipulations of his premises. As it stands he’s a sort of guru for certain factions of the alt right. They reblog him, book his appearances, buy his books, sign up for his classes and otherwise propel him into his position of prominence. Listen carefully to the hoots, cheers and laughs he elicits in his public addresses. He presumes to speak with authority on certain issues and for certain groups. There a responsibility to be borne here. He actually acknowledges this in a general sense when he talks about knowledge and authority.

 

 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›