Satire is no longer possible against the humourless and the stupid. When all is said and done, you are no longer entitled to your own opinion.
“Why were you thinking this might be sufficiently dangerous that you would need taped evidence?”
At the end, my impression is that Lindsay Shepherd fundamentally disagrees with Peterson. She is learning but is more millennial than not. But she is getting there and can only hope she brings many others along.
Here’s what’s not in the news: Islamist suicide plot to assassinate Prime Minister Theresa May foiled. This is hardly any longer worth even discussing:
“It is in essence an extreme Islamist suicide plot against Downing Street. Essentially police believe that the plan was to launch some sort of improvised explosive device at Downing Street and in the ensuing chaos attack and kill Theresa May.
Here’s more not worth your time thinking about:
On Tuesday, MI5 revealed that it had prevented nine terror attacks in the UK in the past year, but several attackers have still got through.
In March, Khalid Masood drove a car at pedestrians on Westminster Bridge and stabbed a policeman guarding Parliament. Five people died in the attack.
In May, 22 people died when suicide bomber Salman Ramadan Abed targeted concert-goers at Manchester Arena. An official report into the attack released on Tuesday found opportunities to thwart it had been missed.
Eleven people died when terrorists used vehicles and knives to attack people at London Bridge in June.
A man died in a terrorist incident at Finsbury Park mosque in north London in the same month – and, in September, an attempt to bomb a Tube train at Parsons Green station failed.
Meanwhile in North Korea, also no longer in the news: US perceives Kim Jong-un as dangerous but rational.
Well that is certainly comforting. To say he’s rational means you must know what he is trying to achieve. But if you don’t, then you cannot infer anything at all from what he does since you don’t know what he wants. Rational refers to means, not ends. If Kim is really a suicide bomber at heart, you cannot know when he will do what he is aiming to do, but at some stage he will and to bad for those who are at the other end of the ICBM he sends.
And why you should NEVER divorce. And then how to make your relationship work. Hard to do, he says, but can be done.
And then there is this on the indispensability of becoming anchored in a family of one’s own. Forget the heading, that is what this video is about.
Message: if you are not yet 40 or even near 40 then if you live long enough, you will eventually be 40, or 60 and even 80+. This is what you won’t know until then but the pathway has been set either biologically or by some higher power, but one way or another it has been set. You are not the exception and you would be mad to think you are.
And now one more.
The handcuff theory of marriage.
From Canada. Discussion of discipline handed down to Wilfrid Laurier University graduate student and Teaching Assistant Lindsay Shepherd for playing a 3 minute clip of University of Toronto Professor, Jordan Peterson, debating Canada’s bill C-16 which has criminalised the use of certain gendered pronouns. The problem was that because it is against Canadian Human Rights laws to use personal pronouns that are not the specific pronouns an individual has stated they wish to have used in referring to themselves, Shepherd was hauled up before a University complaints tribunal because she had presented both sides of the argument on this issue in a classroom using a video of Peterson to show one side of the argument. What has made it a worldwide sensation is that she taped the discussion of her meeting with the complaints tribunal which must be listened to in full to understand where things have now reached.
Here is a video from the United States that explains the background, but before I go on, I do have to say how outraged I am about the way he discusses Canadians. Nevertheless, in spite of his clear racist anti-Canadian attitudes, in the interest of understanding the story, here is the video discussing the entire episode which has an excerpt from her tape of the interview by the complaints tribunal which really gets to the heart of the issue.
Finally, here is the full recording of her discussing the issue with the University. Runs more than 40 minutes but worth your time. The disturbing notion presented by one of the academics was the philosophically-empty equation that “Opinion minus Evidence is Prejudice” (O-E=P) with the only form of evidence apparently permissible being publication in a peer reviewed journal. Once control over what is published in peer reviewed journals is sealed up (see the debate on climate change which is even brought in by one of the professors) certain ideas can never be presented within an academic environment. So they have to provide students with a “critical tool kit” before they are permitted to hear different opinions. Try this on for size (33:35):
“Everyone is entitled to their opinions but we have a duty as educators, as scholars, as academics, even as public intellectuals to make sure we are not furthering the kind of what I call charlatanism”.
Such self-delusion! Makes you sick. And there is little doubt that the same idea would be found at the highest reaches of the academic world.
Terrifying. She is astonishing and brave. Dissidents come in all forms and it is fortunate we are still able to bring these things to the attention of others. And like she says herself, her enemies are “insane”. But let me just add that while she has become very famous for her personal bravery, the person you should pay attention to is Jordan Peterson himself. Let me present you with a bit of Peterson as well, where he is discussing, among other things, a statement by some other professor somewhere that “there are no biological differences between men and women”. Peterson begins at 2:17.
This is from Google images based on this request: images of what people in 1900 thought the year 2000 would be like. Here’s one:
Lots more at the link.
Every so often someone is able to slip the bounds of political correctness and he is one and is near unique since he can say all of what he says and not be pulled to the ground.
A Pareto pattern – a small proportion of people end up with the bulk of the goods. But it’s not the same people, just the same one percent proportion but with different groups at the top.
This man is amazing.
Quite an amazing rant! How does he keep his job at a university? His greatest ability beyond clarity of thought is patience. I don’t know how he does it. Just watch.
Then there is this rant on the oppression olympics: “of course you’re a victim” – “things are complicated”. Here his advice: “Be a better person”. “We’re so ungrateful!”
And just one more on: advice to students, beginning with: “Read Great Books!”
And then finally, the Top Ten Rules for getting on.
Very sound! Anyway, one more and this one on intelligence.
IQ as a predictor of perfomance with conscientiousness as the other possible predictor which, unfortunately, no one knows how to measure. Practical intelligence – street smarts – has shown no relationship to outcomes. Anyway, all common sense, as with everything else he says. And a continuation below since the first one ends so quickly.
Massive contributor to life-time success. And, my goodness, one more on not being a patsy.
Necessary, as Jung said, to integrate your shadow.
And one more, and the last which might have gone first.
Who is he?
Jordan Bernt Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist, cultural critic, and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are the psychology of religious and ideological belief, and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.
He earned a degree in political science in 1982 and a degree in psychology in 1984, both from the University of Alberta, and his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from McGill University in 1991. He remained at McGill as a post-doctoral fellow for two years before moving to Massachusetts, where he worked as an assistant and an associate professor in the psychology department at Harvard University. In 1997, he moved to the University of Toronto as a full professor.
Dr. Jordan B Peterson has been a dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender, short-order cook, beekeeper, oil derrick bit re-tipper, plywood mill labourer and railway line worker. He’s taught mythology to lawyers, doctors and businessmen, consulted for the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development, helped his clinical clients manage depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, and schizophrenia, served as an advisor to senior partners of major Canadian law firms, identified thousands of promising entrepreneurs on six different continents, and lectured extensively in North America and Europe.
He has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stunt plane, piloted a mahogany racing sailboat around Alcatraz Island, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with a group of astronauts, built a Native American Long-House on the upper floor of his Toronto home, and been inducted into the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe.
With his students and colleagues, Dr. Peterson has published more than a hundred scientific papers, transforming the modern understanding of personality, and revolutionized the psychology of religion with his now-classic book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. As a Harvard professor, he was nominated for the prestigious Levinson Teaching Prize, and is regarded by his current University of Toronto students as one of three truly life-changing teachers.
From Canada. Discussion of discipline handed down to Wilfrid Laurier University graduate student and Teaching Assistant Lindsay Shepherd for playing a 3 minute clip of a TV program with Jordan B Peterson debating Canada’s bill C-16 which would criminalise the use of certain gendered pronouns. The point Peterson is trying to refute is a statement made by some other PROFESSOR that there are “no biological differences between men and women”. Peterson begins at 2:17.
Lindsay Shepherd describes the eventual reaction of the university and her fellow students.
She is tougher than they are, shrewder, more clued in, but this is now and not even the medium term. Finally, here is the full recording of her discussing the issue with the University. Runs more than 40 minutes but worth your time. The disturbing notion presented by one of the academics was the equation that Opinion minus Evidence is Prejudice (O-E=P) with the only form of evidence permissible publication in a peer reviewed journal. Once control over what is published in peer reviewed journals is sealed up (see the debate on climate change which is even brought in by one of the professors) certain ideas can never be presented within an academic environment. The enemy seems to be “alt-right” opinion. So they have to provide them with a “critical tool kit” before they hear different opinions. Try this on for size (33:35):
“Everyone is entitled to their opinions but we have a duty as educators, as scholars, as academics, even as public intellectuals to make sure we are not furthering the kind of what I call charlatanism”.
Such self-delusion! Makes you sick. And there is little doubt that the same idea would be found at the highest reaches of the academic world.
Terrifying. I am actually astonished that when this became public that there was still enough reality left in their heads that they pulled back on their consideration of whether to terminate her employment. This then is an interview with Lindsay giving the background.
And here is one last commentary, this one from the United States. Has an excerpt from her tape of the interview which really gets to the heart of the issue.
She is astonishing and brave. Dissidents come in all forms and it is fortunate we are still able to bring these things to the attention of others. And like she says herself, her enemies are “insane”. Meanwhile will we still be able to teach free market capitalism when they turn their attention to that?
AND THERE’S MORE: The story is picked up by Steve Hayward at Powerline: The Inquisition at Laurier University.
And for some direct quotes from the Inquisition Ms Shepherd was forced to endure here via Steve Hayward “are some key excerpts and delightful commentary from Raffi Grinburg at Heterodox Academy“. But of more value are Grinburg’s comments between the quotes such as this which was picked up by Steve Hayward and is really to the point.
At Laurier—and other universities—can teachers be disciplined for being anonymously accused of violating an undefinable policy? If so, this has chilling implications for teaching and learning. Teachers will have to guess at what policies might protect students’ sensibilities, and eye their classrooms with fear. Each student is a potential accuser, so teachers must plan their lectures with the most easily-offended student in mind, taking account of all topics that could cause offense. In fact, since 2015 we have been hearing many reports of teachers self-censoring, “teaching on tenterhooks,” and cutting potentially controversial materials from their syllabi.
Anyway, I am thinking of applying for membership in the Heterodox Academy whose structure and aims are discussed here. My hesitation is Conquest’s Second Law: any organisation that is not by nature right wing eventually becomes left wing.
Hurray! And I’ll bet they all stood up for Oh Canada before the game began.
And here are the last few moments of the game.
And now here is the whole game, all three-plus hours.
There are times when I think newspapers are inhabited by clueless clowns and then there are times when I think things are even worse. This is written by the person The Australian has designated as its “National Security Editor”: Tony Abbott’s vacillations leave him at risk of permanent irrelevance. I realise the difficulties of a cabinet government, in which his cabinet contained Malcolm, Julie and Christopher, and the intractability of a hostile Senate, which made impossible passing some of the things the Libs wished to do, are beyond the comprehension of some people, but here we are.
Having presided over the most brutal emasculation of the Westminster system since Federation, Tony Abbott is now busy singing the praises of Western civilisation. . . .
It was Abbott, who along with other conservative MPs, foisted the same-sex marriage plebiscite on this country. Plebiscites are grimy, divisive affairs, beloved by tyrants as a means of mobilising one group in society against another. They are kryptonite to a Westminster democracy, which holds the parliament as the supreme source of moral authority. . . .
Wasn’t it Abbott who fought to the wire for the right of priests and celebrants to refuse to solemnise gay marriages? Indeed it was. But where was Abbott when Pauline Hanson walked into the Senate chamber in a full length burqa? . . .
As for free speech, the sine qua non of all democratic life, Abbott’s record is none too flash. He flirted with the idea of banning Hizb ut Tahrir, a militant Islamic group whose anti-Western bluster is offensive, but otherwise harmless. . . .
He has since called for the entire abolition of the Human Rights Commission, a consequence-free act of political posturing that does nothing to remove one of the country’s most illiberal laws, one his government left encoded in our statutes.
Etc, etc. I’ll pick a couple from the comments. If there was one that supported what he wrote I completely missed it.
An amazing blend of Abbott hatred, SSM enthusiasm and a wilful blindness to the dangers posed to western society by the likes of Hizb ut Tahrir. Gee I am glad you write about security and do not have the job of maintaining it.
I for one support Tony in this. Christianity is a core element of the Western tradition, not Islam. Islam is in fact against the Western tradition in many of its practices. How can the author be so selective in this aspect. It is an Abbott bashing exercise first and foremost and expects us to overlook the disingenuous and fallacious arguments that he cobbles together in a lame attempt to convince the reader that this is more than just a hate-filled diatribe against TA.
Buying the OZ is like voting for the Libs. You wouldn’t do it except that all of the others are worse. Not much worse as this shows, but still worse.
Law of Markets 