Debate on policitcal correctness at U. of Toronto today

[Michael]

Well, if he's speaking as a clinical psychologist, then he could argue that the patients he's studied have become more racist after the training than they were before. It sounds like something I might read in a journal article. But, it would be hard to say that was a universal result. And, if he considers anti-racial training unproductive because of the way it's done, then does he feel that there's an alternative. If he's saying that such training is useless, that's a different issue.

I don't have a single quote to reference, but I very much doubt he's talking about his patients here. I believe he's speaking about his interactions with "left-wing ideologues" who create "so-called 'anti-racist' training", and that he's found through research that its result is the opposite of its advertised purpose, but the implication from his statements is that the result is according with the true purpose of the radical left-wing political movement he is against.

It seems that his argument is connected to his personal issues with the uni administration. That's an issue of academic freedom. It's not an argument against "political correctness" per se. His uni could be treating him unfairly. That's another argument.

I had to give this OP a title and as you've said, political correctness has a lot of connotations. I'll take some notes from the vids so I can write here precisely how Peterson labels it, which is much more specific than just a broad political correctness, which has become something of a catch phrase that elicits automatic responses, usually ones that center on personal complaints and gripes, or personal/personnel issues at work. I don't think that's what's going on with Peterson, but I'll get some more info. from the vids.

the proponents of the legislation accused Peterson of (1) abusing his students by refusing to use their demanded, novel pronouns, which the proponent said was hate speech and tantamount to violence and other crimes by Peterson, and (2) during the U of T forum debate, he was accused of issuing hate propaganda by another panelist.

I would like to hear which "novel" pronouns the students demanded to be used. The students complained, it seems.

No one has mentioned that any particular student has made a specific complaint about Peterson or about his refusal to use a requested pronoun. A week or two ago he was on campus for an open discussion that got shouted down by student proponents of C-16 and it culminated in a group confronting Peterson where one student asked if he would use that student's requested pronoun and Peterson said it would depend upon the motivation behind the request.

Peterson took about 3 minutes in yesterday's debate to answer the question about if pronoun usage is a "mark of respect" as the proponents of C-16 say it is. Peterson says, "It's a mark of basic categorization for 4 billion people."

Next thing, "If someone wants you to use a particular pronoun, then you're disrespecting them if you don't." Peterson says that means use of pronouns in normal parlance indicates respect, and that's not true either. "If I don't know you, I classify you generically based upon how you present yourself publicly and nail you with whatever pronoun seems to fit. It has nothing to do with respect."

Third thing, "You bloody well don't get to demand my respect. Why should you? You know, I mean, it's not like I respect everyone. That's a foolish thing to do. You respect people who are respectable. You know, you make value distinctions between people and that doesn't mean you illegally discriminate against them. Those aren't the same thing. And I'm all for value judgments. If you don't buy value judgments, then why bother learning anything? Why bother doing anything? Why go from one point in your life to another if the next point isn't better in some manner? So don't tell me I'm not respecting people when I don't use their gender pronouns."

Fourth thing, "And the other thing is: I don't buy this whole idea that the people who are putting this legislation forward are valid representatives of the trans community. That's what they say they are. We have mechanisms for deciding whether someone is a valid representative of a community and that generally involves democratic voting. I've received at least 20 letter from transexual people who are one my side, and by the way, zero from others, believe it or not, who are perfectly happy with the idea of gender pronouns, it's just they want to be the other one. Now you can have a discussion about that and there's lots of things to be said about it, but the idea that this community that's coming out and demanding these rights is somehow representative of this homogeneous, oppressed minority, I think is rubbish."

[Steve James]

No one has mentioned that any particular student has made a specific complaint about Peterson or about his refusal to use a requested pronoun.

I read that it was students who complained in the quote you provided. Afa "left wing ideologues," that was my point about it not being an objective apolitical complaint about political correctness. If I described him as a "right-wing ideologue," that would be a political description. Again, I start from the perspective that the law is aimed at a specific type of verbal act. The presumption is that all laws restrict and/or punish particular acts.

People have always been punished for saying certain things. The questions are which words and what punishment. You give me a specific word, and I can give you a specific opinion. For ex., do I think a prof should be fired for calling a student a "gook" or a "wetback"? Otoh, do I think that those words (and others) should be forbidden from the classroom? I understand the problems with "political correctness" in that context. But, as I said, "anti-political correctness" is often just a demand for "political correctness" from the opposite perspective.

"If someone wants you to use a particular pronoun, then you're disrespecting them if you don't.".... "If I don't know you, I classify you generically based upon how you present yourself publicly and nail you with whatever pronoun seems to fit. It has nothing to do with respect."

Aw, it's true; people fake respect when it comes to people they don't know. Shucks, respect is just a pretense. But, respecting people has nothing to do with what you call them. Personally, human beings have to lose my respect for them, one at a time. I don't know anyone in China, almost. That doesn't mean I would call them things they wouldn't want me to.

the idea that this community that's coming out and demanding these rights is somehow representative of this homogeneous, oppressed minority, I think is rubbish."

I wouldn't doubt that the majority of the spokespeople, in his case, are not part of a homogeneous, oppressed minority. It reminds me of Greenpeace. How many whales belong But, I don't think his argument that members of the actually affected groups agree with him or disagree with the legislation. If he's not a member of those groups, then he can't speak for them. And, I'm not denying that there are those who agree with him. I'm just referring back to my earlier point that students decide which pronouns are used. Then I could give an opinion.

[Michael]

Again, I start from the perspective that the law is aimed at a specific type of verbal act. The presumption is that all laws restrict and/or punish particular acts.

This is central to Peterson's position. He says that restricting some words (or acts as you mentioned) is different than compelling particular speech for a particular situation that is otherwise so simple and general.

For example, a person may be compelled to use an honorific in a courtroom, but when we're talking about every day he/she/it/they, it is an extremely common situation so the compulsion is quite far-reaching.

[Michael]

I read that it was students who complained in the quote you provided.

I did not say that students complained about him. You just quoted me saying the opposite, so I'm a little confused.

Afa "left wing ideologues," that was my point about it not being an objective apolitical complaint about political correctness. If I described him as a "right-wing ideologue," that would be a political description.

The surface issue focuses on the "compelled speech", for example the pronouns, which is in itself controversial because all of the proponents of C-16 that I've seen in vids with Peterson say that there is no such compulsion. However, their analysis seems to be simplistic, either only about C-16 or only about the Ontario Human Rights Code, whereas Peterson claims that these two sets of laws are inter-dependent, that federal level C-16 that does not specify pronouns references Ontario provincial code that does. So far there were two lawyers in the debates who did not include anything about how these statutes may or may not cross-reference, which meant to Peterson, as it does to me, that they are totally failing to understand how to read the law because this is a very basic legal concept: statutes create inter-dependencies. it's the basis of legal research, WTF, and these two lawyers do not either dispute it or acknowledge it. Two lawyer fails sounds like ideology or evasiveness, unwillingness to concede the obvious.

Back to the surface issue of pronouns. Peterson has his opinion about the motivations of the proponents and apparently he thinks it necessary to bring that into the discussion. Considering the evasiveness of the proponents and their refusal to even address or failure to recognize the pronouns, what else can Peterson do but agitate and speculate/research/theorize as to the reasons why? In a debate about compelled pronouns, Peterson is the only one willing to discuss that part of it.

[Steve James]

I was referring to this from the previous page;

In the TVO debate and yesterday's forum at U of T, the proponents of the legislation accused Peterson of (1) abusing his students by refusing to use their demanded, novel pronouns, which the proponent said was hate speech and tantamount to violence and other crimes by Peterson,

If I misunderstood, it's because the pronoun "their" refers to the students, not to the proponents of the legislation --if that's what you meant. However, the question is whether the students demanded anything, or are the left wing ideologues students.

Anyway, granted that the ideologues may be exaggerating the issue. I'm not arguing their position. I don't really care about the argument that biological sex does not exist. I don't think it matters if I decide that it's true or not. I I think of Bruce Jenner, though. I would argue that if one can't control what happens with one's own body, one isn't "free." So, while I think that it's weird for a male to want to dress up like a female, I don't have any right to stop him. Now, what do I do if "he" wants to be called a "she"? Um, ok, suppose the person doesn't think that either he or she fits? If the person has the right to change, why not the right to be seen and addressed differently?

I think the prof's argument is that he should not be required to change his form of address. Forcing him to do so impinges, in his view, on his freedom of speech. But, the accusations of "hate speech" suggest that it's not merely about pronouns. Though, it's true that there are those who call anything they consider a micro-aggression a form of hate-speech. That's what I mean by trivial. I could argue, however, that "not" saying something is not hate-speech or hateful.

Again, I don't know if the students are complaining about this or some deeper issue with the professor. Given that the law is not in effect, yet he is still apparently being threatened with punitive action, I'd like to know exactly what the pronoun issue is. One can buy his argument, especially if he claims that he's demonstrated the negative effect clinically. However, I see an implicit bias in his argument based on his antipathy to "left-wing ideologues." He's essentially arguing that they disagree with him and he feels limited because the law, apparently, would support them. He also has an obvious stake in the outcome; so, I wouldn't simply believe the evidence he claims. He wants those results.

Btw, I can't comment at all on the Canadian justice system or the claims and counter-claims of what the law might make happen.

[Michael]

If I misunderstood, it's because the pronoun "their" refers to the students, not to the proponents of the legislation --if that's what you meant. However, the question is whether the students demanded anything, or are the left wing ideologues students.

The confusion is because in the TVO debate the accusation from the proponent was hypothetical based on Peterson's avowed intent not to be compelled to use novel pronouns, which he published in youtube vids after the U of Toronto HR dept. announced the mandatory anti-racist training. This same accuser, who claims to represent the rights of the trans community, refused to discuss pronouns themselves, refused to mention any of the actual pronouns in question by name, while at the same time issuing his accusation as I described. It's quite surreal trying to understand him when he also mixes this in with statements about there not being biological sex and condescendingly asking Peterson if he is willing to learn.

Again, I don't know if the students are complaining about this or some deeper issue with the professor.

None of his students have complained.

Btw, I can't comment at all on the Canadian justice system or the claims and counter-claims of what the law might make happen.

Specifically, I can't either and I have not read C-16 or any of the Ontario Human Rights Code. So far I haven't found a reason to do so as no one but Peterson shows any comprehension of the law and he has easily demonstrated by the objective evidence of the two warning letters and the denouncements/accusations during the debates by the other panelists that his interpretation is accurate, whereas the two lawyers' interpretations completely fail to address the specifics of the topic of the debate, as well as leave one wondering if they have the first clue about how laws work.

[Steve James]

the accusation from the proponent was hypothetical based on Peterson's avowed intent not to be compelled to use novel pronouns

the accuser refused to discuss pronouns themselves, refused to mention any of the actual pronouns in question by name, while at the same time issuing his accusation as I described.

None of his students have complained.

If no student has complained, the accuser has not presented the "novel" pronouns, and the professor has not used them, then it's clear that the entire argument is hypothetical.

The professor's right to free speech (in Canada?) is not being limited. He has not broken a law that doesn't even exist yet. He's making an ideological point about a "what if" situation. Clearly, he's researched the issue with that ideological point in mind.

Anyway, I note that he's arguing from several other perspectives. He expects that the law will affect him personally, yet he has had not direct complaints. --He argues that the university is treating him unfairly. --He argues that the argument against him is coming from left-wingers. --But, he also supports his view with his professional opinion of the socially negative results of sensitivity training programs. These are really good points to make in a debate. None of which would convince me of his argument against the law. Otoh, I don't know enough about the law to favor it. If there are problems with it, they are specific to it.

[Michael]

Except that Peterson has received two warning letters from the U of T. That's not hypothetical, and as strange as it may sound to be described in print, the "hate propaganda" and "abuse of students tantamount to physical violence" accusations were not hypothetical from the point of view from the accusers and are in synch with the Univ. warning letters.

If none of Peterson's students have complained, then why did the Uni send two warning letters? Peterson says it's because he did break the law, but yes, that's not proven.

Without a court determination of some kind, I think from Peterson's point of view this is a witch hunt. I believe his reaction to it is based on his claimed study of authoritarian structures, especially 20th century and Naziism, and he sees himself already careening down a slippery slope.

[Steve James]

Except that Peterson has received two warning letters from the U of T.

For doing what? If there's no law yet --the subject of the debate-- then what policy was he threatened for breaking? If it was for "hate propaganda," which may be against uni policy --I could get fired for it-- then what was it that he said?

Peterson says it's because he did break the law, but yes, that's not proven.

If he broke a law, then he should have been charged not threatened. But, there's no law.

[Michael]

Yeah, good questions. Looks like I'll need to transcribe Peterson's opening 10 minutes from the debate. Stand fast

[Steve James]

Naw, don't trouble. The univ might have a thing against him. I just can't/wouldn't generalize about a class of speech or a law concerning "hate speech" based on his personal experience.

[Michael]

Okay, but I'm kinda into it a little at the moment

Here's an article in Scientific American blog about the research he's done on PC.

[Steve James]

The article is much more interesting. For example, the distinction between PC-egalitarians and PC-authoritarians.

The Personality of Political Correctness

What about the personality of political correctness? Regardless of the dimension, those who endorsed items such as "It is important for me to be 'politically correct'" tended to be female, non-White, and report higher levels of compassion. It is likely that it's the high levels of compassion that produces the offense sensitivity seen in high PC individuals. But what personality traits distinguished the two PC dimensions?

PC-Egalitarians tended to have greater exposure to a seminar or experience that altered their sensitivity to individual differences and inequality, had a greater vocabulary, were more open to new experiences, and had greater identification with historically disadvantaged groups. In contrast, PC-Authoritarians tended to be more religious, have higher sensitivity to disgust and contamination, score higher in the need for order, have lower vocabulary, and have the presence of an anxiety or a mood disorder in the individual or immediate family.

While this study wasn't specifically examining general political beliefs, they shed some light on overlapping policy issues. For one, the findings on PC-Authoritarianism highlight some similarities with right-wing authoritarianism. A common finding in the psychological literature is a positive association between conservative belief and sensitivity to disgust. In the current study, contamination disgust and the order and traditionalism dimension were all related, suggesting a greater similarity between PC-Authoritarians and Right-Wing authoritarians than either side would probably like to admit!

[Michael]

Yes, good article. In a video I posted earlier from an interview in the past few weeks, he said the project was nearly done, so I think he and PhD student Brophy may be ready to publish something this semester.

While looking into this PC free speech debate, I also found that Peterson has his book and uni lectures online for free, so I'm checking those as well. He calls them Maps of Meaning.