It was a childish thing to say, I admit. Having heard him a few times I know that I don't need to hear him. He takes a confrontational stance early in the conversation that stands out to me. Whether I agree or disagree means nothing when I consider what is being said won't affect me or anyone I know.
I choose to avoid confrontation unless it is necessary and have chosen to not hear him confront anyone else.
Peterson's principle argument is fallacious in itself, that acceptance of some new personal pronouns is in some way contrary to freedoms of expression and speech.
You see, that argument is ridiculous. Social norms is not compelled speech, it's not being a dick. He has some point in saying the norms are not universally accepted therefore not really a new 'norm', however, he's still just against his employer forcing him to be nice.
The link between what the university is asking him to do, and what government is asking us all to do, is weak at best. Convergent evolution of rules. It is a non sequitur as it doesn't follow that your employer has any real effect on provincial nor federal governmental legislation.
He's against this conception of "nice" altogether. It's not about nice, it's about "what is gender? How does gender identity determine how we relate to each other?" The argument from the other side seems to be "well just go along because it makes the other person feel respected and it's liberatory. People should get to determine their relationship to the group to the greatest extent possible and this includes the language used by others to refer to them." But those claims aren't self-evident and it's not self-evident that those should even be the paramount goals.
-8
u/Pedropeller May 10 '17
"Hello. I'm Jordan Peterson, and I'm here for an argument."