P
PipeDream
Guest
So do you acknowledge that c16 doesn't actually attempt to legislate human interactions that are not inherently damaging? Do you agree that Peterson misinterpreted and misrepresented the bill from the beginning? Do you acknowledge that the far left is not homogeneous and that his complete misuse of 'postmodern neo-marxists' as a catch all term for a diverse group (with diverse opinions, beliefs, and methods of expressing and debating them) is also an unfair misrepresentation? Do you agree that his lobster analogy is a straw man non-sequitur and a misrepresentation of those who wish to abolish unjust hierarchies? You stated earlier in the thread that you felt the left weren't actually criticising his ideas, but when presented with even just a few of those criticisms you haven't really acknowledged them in any way.
This incident with the university is an interesting one, as it's difficult to understand the true motivations of the administration. For example, my interpretation is that they were acting under the assumption that Peterson would have actually been in breach of the law by refusing to use the correct pronouns, in which case I would argue that from their perspective these letters are justified. Urging a professor to avoid breaking a law they explicitly stated they would break seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, since this is a misinterpretation of the law on their behalf too, their requests are indeed unjustified and we (and most other people, including most of the far left) are in agreement that refusing to use certain pronouns does not constitute hate speech and is not something that the government should be enforcing. Which, by the way, they are not doing nor were they ever planning to do since that entire aspect of the conversation is a manufactured controversy resulting from misinterpretations of the law. Students can protest that idea all they want, as is their right, but I'm not really seeing any actual material changes occurring as a result of that here.
Interestingly, the article you linked states that the provisions c16 was introducing on a federal level had already been in place in Peterson's province since 2012. From reading elsewhere, in other provinces it had already been in place for many years before that. Does this not indicate how much of a complete non-issue c16 should have been? The fact that in all those years, and in the time since, nobody has once brought a case forward relating to pronouns as hate speech certainly indicates to me that his fear mongering had (and continues to have) no basis in reality.
The fact that he still maintained a position at the university is worth noting too. Were the letters retracted after it was further emphasised that refusing to use certain pronouns wasn't actually in breach of the law? It's evident from the way the letters are phrased that this was their interpretation at the time of sending them. However, Peterson didn't seem to back down on his position of refusing to use certain pronouns and yet still maintained his position as a professor. What happened?
This incident with the university is an interesting one, as it's difficult to understand the true motivations of the administration. For example, my interpretation is that they were acting under the assumption that Peterson would have actually been in breach of the law by refusing to use the correct pronouns, in which case I would argue that from their perspective these letters are justified. Urging a professor to avoid breaking a law they explicitly stated they would break seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, since this is a misinterpretation of the law on their behalf too, their requests are indeed unjustified and we (and most other people, including most of the far left) are in agreement that refusing to use certain pronouns does not constitute hate speech and is not something that the government should be enforcing. Which, by the way, they are not doing nor were they ever planning to do since that entire aspect of the conversation is a manufactured controversy resulting from misinterpretations of the law. Students can protest that idea all they want, as is their right, but I'm not really seeing any actual material changes occurring as a result of that here.
Interestingly, the article you linked states that the provisions c16 was introducing on a federal level had already been in place in Peterson's province since 2012. From reading elsewhere, in other provinces it had already been in place for many years before that. Does this not indicate how much of a complete non-issue c16 should have been? The fact that in all those years, and in the time since, nobody has once brought a case forward relating to pronouns as hate speech certainly indicates to me that his fear mongering had (and continues to have) no basis in reality.
The fact that he still maintained a position at the university is worth noting too. Were the letters retracted after it was further emphasised that refusing to use certain pronouns wasn't actually in breach of the law? It's evident from the way the letters are phrased that this was their interpretation at the time of sending them. However, Peterson didn't seem to back down on his position of refusing to use certain pronouns and yet still maintained his position as a professor. What happened?
