Jordan Peterson Suspended from Twitter
nationalpost.com
nationalpost.com
He goes through great length to make the situation seem as complicated as possible by constantly naming former and current name, as well as any pronoun in every sentence.
It is not complicated. You accommodate a person who transitioned as soon as you became aware from a source you trust that speaks for them that they transitioned. (Trans people speak for themselves, do not assume they are possessed by some ideology or demon.) You treat it as any other name change like on that might happen after a divorce. You refer to past achievements with the new name but there is no urgent need to change every old document. It is not hateful if you missgender people if you are getting used to concept. No gender police will come and put you in prison. If someone insists on dead naming a trans person it probably is hateful. While there is no objective standard to tell that apart, people kinda know as they know when you spite someone for other reasons. It is ok to ask but expect that they might be exhausted from explaining so try to do your own research first and react to to their feedback if they tell you you are doing anything wrong. You are two people and you can work that out. Also try to make their life simpler in ways which cost you almost nothing, they sure are going through a lot. If you'd ask people who go out of their way to harm trans people you work with, ask them not to.
But when he can no longer get hard by thinking about Elliot Page it is now a crime to provide medical care for somebody.
Here is your reply: I never aimed to give a reason for that. But since you asked so nicely let me explain to you from first principle:
Twitter is maintaining a social networking website. A space where anger and other emotions easily are amplified. Since we decided as a society to leave the control of this place to for-profit companies and not as a kind of public utility those companies are allowed to process use us with the same standard other companies are allowed to process their clients. While Twitter can discontinue service for arbitrary reasons it choose to do so in this case because a prominent person reported about their happiness with a medical proceagus was purposefully called a name and pronoun to invalidate Elliotts (and others) identity. While doubting someone's identity is not always harassment or hateful in this case this judgement seems sensible to me. Telling a stranger "You are not a chess player" without further context is not hateful. Repeatedly telling someone "You are not a chess player" can be harassment (if and only if the person doesn't want to be called that). But how do we deal with the case where a group of people coordinate and tell someone "You are not chess player" once each? It gets murky. It is harassment but hard to proof. However we as society have agreed that if a person called someone "You are not a chess player because you are a women" that this is harassment . You could justify that by showing a group exists which acts coordinated and tells female chess players that "You are not a chess player" and that the persons who say that act as part of that group. As society we agreed that calling trans people by their old identity repeatedly is a thing they do not want (unless specified by them otherwise) and is therefore harassment. Here i apply the argument that there is a group of people coordinated by common media consumption that calls trans people by their old gender. That JBP acts as part of that group can be established through multiple means such as past conduct however the additional claim that the elective operation a doctor performed on Elliot is illegal shows to me that he acting as part of such a group. I hope that I have convincingly established that JBPs message was harassing. In addition JBPs actions give strong reason why one might think he has an intense dislike for trans people and is acting motivated by hate. We've established that JBP acted hatefully, harassing another person for their gender and gender identity. This is an action banned on Twitter's terms of service. I hope you learned something from this.
Society has not agreed to this, which is why this is such a controversial issue.
Also, just doing something somebody doesn't like is not harassment. I'm sure Peterson isn't a fan of being called a bigot and everything else he is called every day on Twitter. Should that count as harassment? People have an "intense dislike" towards him. People who say mean things to him often times are "acting motivated by hate".
I am sorry you have not realized that Trans people do not like being called by their old identity.
Would you like to argue why trans people like to be called by their old identity repeatedly?
I encourage you to ask trans people whether they would find it harassing if they are repeatedly called by their old identity.
I do not see how this can be contentious or controversial beyond people acting obtuse.
> Also, just doing something somebody doesn't like is not harassment.
Definition Cambridge dictionary tagged LAW for harassment:
> illegal behaviour towards a person that causes mental or emotional suffering, which includes repeated unwanted contacts without a reasonable purpose, insults, threats, touching, or offensive language
Was JBP speech illegal? We will only find out if Elliot sues and the appeals process has ended. It certainly meets other definitions from the same dictionary:
> behaviour that annoys or upsets someone
So, yes. Doing something someone doesn't like can literally be all it takes for it to be harassment.
> Should that count as harassment?
Yes, it might be harassment (in a legal sense). If the behaviour upsets him yes it is in the normal sense. The behaviour is also toxic.
Twitter can (as it is currently private company) mostly decide it's own rules of moderation without input from society. It decided to give "race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease" special protection. Freedom from being called a bigot is not afforded, neither is political association protected (that would cover calling someone a bigot because he is a conservative). Twitter due to limited moderation resources has to restrict itself to moderating the important or often reported cases. In my experience toxic replies on Twitter are hidden under a spoiler in Twitter, below all other comments.
What can JBP do about it if it upsets him: Statements of fact are usually excluded from laws on speech restrictions in the western world. He has any right to sue someone that this is harassment. He would just risk ending up with a situation where a court confirms that one might call him a bigot.
> Would you like to argue why trans people like to be called by their old identity repeatedly?
Which has nothing to do with societal acceptance?
Plenty of people don't like what others say, but that has nothing to do with acceptance.
The majority of Americans reject the concept of trans. One poll I saw showed the percentage of people accepting it was declining. I couldn't find, but I think it was Pew.
>I encourage you to ask trans people whether they would find it harassing if they are repeatedly called by their old identity.
And I encourage you to read what I write. I am talking about acceptance not what you should or shouldn't do.
>I do not see how this can be contentious or controversial beyond people acting obtuse.
It is easy to see how it is controversial. Some people do not believe it is possible to be trans. They believe in a gender binary. Perhaps you are the one being obtuse if you don't see how it could controversial?
>So, yes. Doing something someone doesn't like can literally be all it takes for it to be harassment
>Yes, it might be harassment (in a legal sense). If the behaviour upsets him yes it is in the normal sense. The behaviour is also toxic.
I guess we have a fundamental difference in opinion on the definition of harassment. I don't think just saying something mean on Twitter to somebody is harassment.
>What can JBP do about it if it upsets him
Peterson obviously won't do this. He believes people should be free to call others bigots regardless if they are a bigot or not.
> Some people do not believe it is possible to be trans. They believe in a gender binary.
Trans people do not violate the gender binary. They were the one and want to be the other. Non-binary people is the label for people who violate the gender binary. There are people who want transition to non binary state but that is a minority of Trans people.
What many of them believe in is that a soul has a sex and that God makes no mistake when assigning souls to bodys. So they believe to be Trans is to act against Gods will.
> The majority of Americans reject the concept of trans. One poll I saw showed the percentage of people accepting it was declining. I couldn't find, but I think it was Pew.
I also found no such poll either. The polls i found for the US very a lot on the question being asked. Trans people in the military, strong support. Trans athletes not so much.
Also why focus this on the US? Elliot Page and Jordan B Peterson are both Canadian. A country where there is a solid support for trans people at least since the 2010s. So it is not controversial there at all.
In fact the complete Bill C16 stuff from Jordan B Peterson was him drawing attention to the fact that he disagreed with the direction his society was taking. His stance against the Bill was controversial.
So i do not see how i am obtuse here talking about (a potential legal matter between) two Canadians and applying Canadian standards.
> I guess we have a fundamental difference in opinion on the definition of harassment.
Your definition differs with the country where the legal system would settle whether it is harassment.
> And I encourage you to read what I write. I am talking about acceptance not what you should or shouldn't do.
The only thing you wrote to me on the matter was:
> Society has not agreed to this, which is why this is such a controversial issue.
Where i interpreted "this" to mean "As society we agreed that calling trans people by their old identity repeatedly is a thing they do not want (unless specified by them otherwise)" as you refer to my standard of harassment later explicitly.
> Also, just doing something somebody doesn't like is not harassment.
You will not be able to find survey even under evangelical Christians which denies that " calling trans people by their old identity repeatedly is a thing they (Trans people in context of the original quote) do not want". This is statement of observation. Evangelicals are aware of this they do in fact do the opposite to harass trans people sometimes.
Now that i have taken apart what you wrote at the point you were replying to me, accusing me not to read, tell me: Is it agreed and non controversial that "Trans people don't want to be called by their previous gender"?
I was typing on my phone. I should have typed it all out. I know there is a difference between trans and gender binary. I should have been more complete in my wording.
>What many of them believe in is that a soul has a sex and that God makes no mistake when assigning souls to bodys. So they believe to be Trans is to act against Gods will.
Why are you bringing up religion? There are millions of nonreligious people who deny trans is a thing. So much for steel manning.
>I also found no such poll either. The polls i found for the US very a lot on the question being asked. Trans people in the military, strong support. Trans athletes not so much
Here is the poll https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/america...
"A rising share say a person’s gender is determined by their sex at birth"
"Majority of U.S. adults say gender is determined by sex assigned at birth"
>Also why focus this on the US? Elliot Page and Jordan B Peterson are both Canadian. A country where there is a solid support for trans people at least since the 2010s. So it is not controversial there at all.
Page lives in America.
>In fact the complete Bill C16 stuff from Jordan B Peterson was him drawing attention to the fact that he disagreed with the direction his society was taking. His stance against the Bill was controversial
I think a lot of people who opposed Peterson's position don't actually know what his position is. He does not actually oppose using people's preferred pronouns in general. He has said this many times. He is opposed to forcing people use preferred pronouns and will use non-preferred pronouns when people try to force him to do otherwise.
>So i do not see how i am obtuse here talking about (a potential legal matter between) two Canadians and applying Canadian standards.
I was saying you were being obtuse for not understanding why somebody may not support your view.
Also, like I said above one of them lives in America which is why the US is important.
>Your definition differs with the country where the legal system would settle whether it is harassment.
Which legal system would take it? The one where the alleged victim lives or the one where the alleged attacker lives?
>Where i interpreted "this" to mean "As society we agreed that calling trans people by their old identity repeatedly is a thing they do not want (unless specified by them otherwise)" as you refer to my standard of harassment later explicitly.
I don't think anybody denies trans people do not want to be referred to with their previous pronouns. That however, was not what I was saying.
>You will not be able to find survey even under evangelical Christians which denies that " calling trans people by their old identity repeatedly is a thing they (Trans people in context of the original quote) do not want". This is statement of observation. Evangelicals are aware of this they do in fact do the opposite to harass trans people sometimes.
Had no clue you are telepathic and can determine people's motives. Surely it could just be that they literally do not believe something is true so they don't say it? Instead of steel manning like you talked about in your first paragraph you are straw manning and assuming motives.
Also, why are you continuing to bring up religion which has no impact on this issue?
>Now that i have taken apart what you wrote at the point you were replying to me, accusing me not to read, tell me: Is it agreed and non controversial that "Trans people don't want to be called by their previous gender"?
I am not suggesting that trans people not wanted to be called their previous gender is controversial?
So much for taking apart what I wrote.
Because that's "What many people believe" https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/27/views-of-tr...
> I should have been more complete in my wording.
Then i am sorry if i over reacted, just leaving out the non binary part would have fixed it.
> Here is the poll https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/america...
I suggest you have a look at the section:
"Many say it’s important to use someone’s new name, pronouns when they’ve gone through a gender transition"
where there is a strong majority for calling trans people by their pronoun. Just summarizing that entire survey by one of its stats seems dishonest. It is complicated in the US.
> Also, like I said above one of them lives in America which is why the US is important.
Does Elliot actually live in the US though? I could find mo source for this. He sold his LA mansion. I could find a blog spammy website which claims Hammersmith, London, United Kingdom and many articles where he claims he was in Canada during the pandemic and also about him last being seen in Toronto. I do not see how this relevant though since:
> Which legal system would take it? The one where the alleged victim lives or the one where the alleged attacker lives?
I suspect any lawyer on behalf of Mr. Page would sue in the legal system where they have the best chance. As far as i know he is still a Canadian.
> Had no clue you are telepathic and can determine people's motives. Surely it could just be that they literally do not believe something is true so they don't say it?
Please try to engage in good faith.
> He does not actually oppose using people's preferred pronouns in general.
I never claimed he was. That would be retarded position to take. That is not what i think larger (Canadian) society has a problem with. You are basically repeating his claim about he aims to do. I have both his recent books and learned about him through his video about Bill C16 YouTube recommended to me, watched two different recordings of lectures on maps of meaning. I followed him a lot before he vanished from the face of the earth. I do not think he really recovered from his illness. Let me tell you how i see him now. He is a person who plausibly (although less plausibly so after this incident) says he means no harm to trans people and would treat trans persons he knows with respect. What the left takes issue with is his political activism to limit and walk back protection of trans people from hate. The results from his activism be would permission to harass trans people as a group by trying to deny them the status of a protected group. This is the content of Bill C 16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H... I recommend to read that article assuming Jordan B Peterson might be dishonest or misguided about his intentions and then reflect.
> I am not suggesting that trans people not wanted to be called their previous gender is controversial?
You literally were and you choose not to reply to the part where i go through what you wrote and show that this is how i only could interpret it. Moving on. Now that we established that it is not what you disagreed with, what part of my argument exactly did you disagree with? With regard to what society did you disagree with it?
Maybe you should look again? 37% of non religious people disagree with trans. You are discounting the opinions held by millions of people because it doesn't fit your narrative.
>I suggest you have a look at the section:
Unfortunately the heading disagreed with the title of the chart so I wasn't sure if pronouns were actually included or just name.
Most people who disagree with the concept of trans are fine with name changes since name changes are something they find acceptable.
>Does Elliot actually live in the US though? I could find mo source for this. He sold his LA mansion. I could find a blog spammy website which claims Hammersmith, London, United Kingdom and many articles where he claims he was in Canada during the pandemic and also about him last being seen in Toronto. I do not see how this relevant though since:
I am not sure as well.
> I suspect any lawyer on behalf of Mr. Page would sue in the legal system where they have the best chance. As far as i know he is still a Canadian.
I am not sure if Page would have standing? If a crime takes place across a border can it be enforced in another country? I guess it depends on where Page is living.
>Please try to engage in good faith.
You are the one claiming you were going to steel man and yet you didn't.
> I never claimed he was. That would be retarded position to take. That is not what i think larger (Canadian) society has a problem with. You are basically repeating his claim about he aims to do.
Correct. I don't believe in assuming people are lying when they clearly and explicitly say something.
> Let me tell you how i see him now. He is a person who plausibly (although less plausibly so after this incident) says he means no harm to trans people and would treat trans persons he knows with respect.
I assume you believe using the non preferred pronouns causes harm?
>What the left takes issue with is his political activism to limit and walk back protection of trans people from hate. The results from his activism be would permission to harass trans people as a group by trying to deny them the status of a protected group. This is the content of Bill C 16.
I agree this is what the left believes. My problem is if you are going to support free speech you need to allow speech that groups dislike. If Canada disagrees with free speech, that is fine, but they should stop pretending they do.
> I recommend to read that article assuming Jordan B Peterson might be dishonest or misguided about his intentions and then reflect.
I fully understand there is a disagreement. Peterson believes it will be used to go further than supporters claim. I don't know if it will go further, but as far as I can tell Peterson genuinely believes it will.
>You literally were and you choose not to reply to the part where i go through what you wrote and show that this is how i only could interpret it.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was attempting to say others using the preferred pronouns is controversial, not the opinion held by trans people on the topic.
>Moving on. Now that we established that it is not what you disagreed with, what part of my argument exactly did you disagree with? With regard to what society did you disagree with it?
All I disagree with is the idea that society supports using preferred pronouns. Maybe you weren't claiming otherwise in your original post?
I think American society disagrees with this. Other societies like Canada likely have higher support, but I haven't seen any research on this. Regardless of the exact numbers, large percentages of all societies disagree with this and people are having __soft__ persecution when they disagree.
As long as we also extend this reasoning to cover the virulent anti-white rhetoric all over Twitter which many people don't like...but the picking and choosing of what sort of "bigotry" is ok, is why you see people taking issue.
Since they seem to be wide spread in your feed, i could have a look at some examples you send my way in the next 30 hours.
Or for a more scholarly analysis with data - https://quillette.com/2018/08/17/a-closer-look-at-anti-white...
Nothing burger. Thank you for making me spend 100 minutes.
When scrolled through a ton of the replies to Andrew Yangs tweet i found a lot of harassment of Andrew Yang "Lol you are not white" but that was anti-asian. There some people displayed cynical or Malthusian opinions. Some of which might be cover for anti white racism. There were people who did not see a problem with those statistics, a despicable bunch. There was one calling for white genocide, which i pointed out "put white people in reservations" as anti-white and calling for genocide which should be banned by the Twitters standards. Overall i scrolled through a ton of Tweets and sorted every one i saw. There was some anti-white stuff in there but i have seen a higher concentration of anti black racism, anti jewish racism or anti asian racism (such as the replies to this tweet) in other places on Twitter.
I think i tried to convince myself but i did not found a virulent amount even under a tweet which was supposed to be a prime example. Whether my effort convinces you that i tried honestly that is up to you.
Then later:
> According to Twitter’s hateful conduct policy, users may not “promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.”
It's quite a stretch to equate using someone's given name and alleging criminal activity with promoting "violence" or "directly attacking" or "threatening" someone. Twitter is being arbitrary, as is their right.
He should be aware of his influence and acting in a more ethical manner.
And yet, here you are complaining about it to the media. Seems like you might actually care a little. Methinks the "intellectual dark web" doth protest too much.
Accidentally, by mangling an idiom, but still.
I think David Mitchell has a thing about this?
"I could care less.”
I was under the impression only Americans use that phase, and others like Brits and Canadians would use I couldn't care less.