Poll of the Day > Just got an ad for jordan b peterson on Gamefaqs

(+) Yeah! (+)

adjl posted...

I'd just prefer to categorically avoid talking to somebody

There was a person I attended college with. He would bring up Final Fantasy in every conversation. I avoided talking to him too.

That you think that's comparable says a lot about you as a person. Nothing surprising, I'm afraid, but a lot nonetheless.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I would like everyone who disagrees with me to know that I am indifferent to you. You are just text that appears on a screen. And I sincerely hope that to you I am the same.

That doesn't answer my question.

Jen0125 posted...

Why are you okay with someone lacking regard towards other regular people?

Jen0125 posted...

That doesn't answer my question.

I think that does answer the question. I don't mind that you lack regard for me.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think that does answer the question. I don't mind that you lack regard for me.

Can you directly answer a question?

Jen0125 posted...

Why are you okay with someone lacking regard towards other regular people?

Jen0125 posted...

Can you directly answer a question?

In this essay I will answer why I think it's okay for someone to lack regard for other regular people. Other people lack regard for me and I'm okay with that. So I think other people should be okay with it too. That explains why I think it's okay for someone to lack regard for other regular people.

adjl posted...

That you think that's comparable says a lot about you as a person.

Yes, I don't find either especially significant. They just tell me about the level of quality that I can expect from a conversation with them. On the other hand if I were seeking out a conversation on that subject I know who to go to.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They just tell me about the level of quality that I can expect from a conversation with them.

"I can't expect a quality conversation from trans people."

It's genuinely disturbing that you don't see the problem with what you're saying.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They just tell me about the level of quality that I can expect from a conversation with them.

it would be a much higher quality conversation than you're capable of providing

like jesus christ guy.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

it would be a much higher quality conversation than you're capable of providing

like jesus christ guy.

Got him

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

In this essay I will answer why I think it's okay for someone to lack regard for other regular people. Other people lack regard for me and I'm okay with that. So I think other people should be okay with it too. That explains why I think it's okay for someone to lack regard for other regular people.

Thank you for actually answering the question.

adjl posted...

"I can't expect a quality conversation from trans people."

You would think that, if you think trans people can only talk about their pronouns. You asked for a very specific scenario where they make an issue out of that. I do think I can't expect a quality conversation from someone who makes that an issue. I don't think that's all trans people talk about. I do think I can have a quality conversation with a trans person on some different subject. Maybe you're the one with the problem.

Also worth noting: When I talk about "accepting trans people as their target gender" reducing their risk of suicide by half, that doesn't just mean using the right name/pronouns when interacting with them. Cutting all contact with them as soon as you learn that they're trans isn't some loophole that gets you out of doing anything more to accept them. Deliberately ostracizing people for being trans is exactly the opposite of accepting them and subsequently also increases their risk of suicide.

So I ask you again: In what situations is it so important that you deliberately reject a trans person's gender identity as to justify doubling their risk of suicide?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You would think that, if you think trans people can only talk about their pronouns.

Where did I say that?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I do think I can't expect a quality conversation from someone who makes that an issue.

"Hi Bill!"
"My name's not Bill. It's Jake."
"*To yourself* (Guess I can't expect a quality conversation from Bill, I'd better just avoid him)"

This is literally what you're proposing. I hope I shouldn't have to point out to you how utterly ludicrous such a response is.

adjl posted...

Deliberately ostracizing people for being trans

... is not what I presented in the scenario that you asked for. In the scenario it was only after the other person insisted on it that I would have ended the conversation. They aren't being ostracized for being trans. They're being ostracized for their conduct in the conversation.

adjl posted...

"My name's not Bill. It's Jake."

https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/proper%20noun-vs-pronoun

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They aren't being ostracized for being trans. They're being ostracized for their conduct in the conversation.

"Their conduct in the conversation" being to identify themselves as being trans in response to you failing to realize it. So you're ostracizing them for not hiding their gender identity. Oh look! We're right back at the exact opposite of accepting them and therefore elevating their suicide risk. Funny how you keep trying to dodge that little piece of factual reality instead of trying to come up with a justification for disregarding it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/proper%20noun-vs-pronoun

Potato, potato. You'll notice I also used the term "deadnaming" in the discussion leading up to this, which was very deliberate because it all falls under the same umbrella: Accepting the gender identity of trans people includes both getting their name right and getting their gender right whenever using gendered language.

If you really want to be that rigid about it:
"This is my friend Bill, she's really good at soccer."
"She? I'm a guy, dude."
"*To yourself* (Guess I can't expect a quality conversation from Bill, I'd better just avoid her)"

Oh hey that response looks just as stupid this way as in the first version. It's almost like the actual semantics of the situation didn't change at all.

(Side note: this is an example of a situation in which you might use third-person pronouns to refer to somebody who's present, since for some reason you struggled to conceptualize that)

adjl posted...

Their conduct in the conversation" being to identify themselves as being trans

No... Their conduct being to make an issue out of it. I see no reason they can't identify themselves as being trans and then move on to discuss something else. Maybe it's your view of trans people that they're unable to do that. I think they are quite capable of that because I don't expect being trans to be the whole of their personality the way you seem to.

adjl posted...

"This is my friend Bill, she's really good at soccer."
"She? I'm a guy, dude."

Now I'm questioning how good of a friend they are to mix that up. In the other scenario I figured it was the first conversation I'm having with them and I know nothing else about them.

adjl posted...

Oh hey that response looks just as stupid this way as in the first version.

No argument there.

BoomerKuwanger posted...

I don't know how you de-radicalize people

The problem might be that it's not a radical position to want to be able to ignore people. Like I said before... The opposition has been a moderate stance. I don't believe we've seen an extreme stance in the opposite direction.

BoomerKuwanger posted...

What's so silly about it all is like... you don't have to "believe in" or like trans people to use the proper pronoun and name to their face. People fake being nice to people they would rather not have to deal with all the time for various reasons. It's a shame that this is something that you would even have to fake niceness with, but I'd say that's still preferable to being outright mean

Maybe it's a peer pressure thing, like they don't want their friends to catch them using the proper pronoun, but that would require transphobes to have friends in the first place

A significant amount of transphobia boils down to one of two things:

• Homophobia, specifically the fear of being attracted to somebody who could be construed as being the same sex
• Believing that gender dysphoria is just a "delusion" and that they know better and therefore have a moral obligation to not "play along" with it

The former doesn't really apply here, the latter is just factually incorrect (based on the science as it currently stands, gender-affirming care yields better outcomes on average than rejecting the trans identity). This, though, I expect is neither, and is instead Skard being overly attached to his hypothetical first impression and jumping through whatever mental hoops he needs to to hold on to that. He seems to know better than to actively disparage trans people (though he lacks the capacity to recognize that people like Peterson are not so generous, and has tried to argue on prior occasions that things like transphobia and racism don't actually happen to any meaningful degree), so he's come up with a contrived way to avoid actually doing so while still clinging to his hypothetical first impression (that is, accidentally msigendering the person). This is why we get the strawman of "why would I want to talk to them if all they want to talk about is their gender identity?": He's unwilling to accept that he just made a mistake and needs to correct himself, so he's turned the other person into the issue.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I see no reason they can't identify themselves as being trans and then move on to discuss something else.

We're talking about you deliberately misgendering them. They likely have moved on to discussing something else, but they've had to come back to the issue of their gender because you insisted on getting it wrong. Even that's just your own addition to the scenario; perhaps they haven't said anything because they're uncomfortable trying to correct you after you've deliberately misgendered them.

I asked for a situation in which you would be justified in deliberately misgendering somebody instead of accepting their identity, knowing the impact that can have on their well-being. You've responded with a situation in which you accidentally misgendered somebody, then manufactured them going on and on about that mistake as an excuse to just disengage from the whole issue. That's not you deliberately misgendering them, meaning it's not an answer to the question I asked.

If you can't come up with a scenario in which you feel you would be justified deliberately misgendering somebody? Welcome to the club of not being a transphobic nuggetwanker! "I can't think of such a scenario" is a perfectly valid answer to my challenge, though that comes with the caveat that you abandon your defense of Peterson by saying that (or, more accurately, if you can't come up with a scenario in which he feels justified deliberately misgendering somebody, though that's implicit in not being able to come up with your own scenario because you could have just copied his).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Now I'm questioning how good of a friend they are to mix that up.

I'm not here to judge how attentive you are to your friends. Just to come up with analogies that illustrate how absurd it is to cut somebody out of your life because they corrected you when you got a key part of their identity wrong.

We should form our society based on clownfish where the most alphaest alpha male turns into a girl for the sake of the colony

Oh no, what happened to Skard's account?!

BoomerKuwanger posted...

thinks that online represents real life

Even then, trans people "going on and on about their trans identity" online tend to be doing so because it's contextually appropriate to do so. They're discussing their experiences with other queer people (online being a good place for that because it's significantly easier to find other queer people there than in meatspace), discussing current events and politics related to trans issues, or are just blogfaqsing about it for the sake of getting their thoughts down on paper (which is fundamentally no different from blogfaqsing about anything else). If you're seeing trans people talk about being trans a lot, it's because you've put yourself in a context where people are expected to talk about being trans, in which case there's really no room to complain about it.

In a way, I'd say it's mostly just selection bias: For many people, they're only aware of the vast majority of trans people of whom they're aware because they see them talking about being trans. They don't experience the silent majority, which skews their perception about how vocal the total population is.

Sarcasthma posted...

Oh no, what happened to Skard's account?!

Not the post I expected to do him in, honestly.

Normally I close threads of mine that end up in arguments/debates because it is annoying what with the notifications i'm probably too lazy to turn off, but I let this one continue because Adjl generally argues logically and doesn't devolve into trolling or stupid insults like what happens half the time on the internet.

BUT I didn't actually read much of this thread, so I Adjl better hope he didn't diminish my preconceived notion....or else. OR. ELSE.

Sarcasthma posted...

Oh no, what happened to Skard's account?!

Didnt he say his last purg was like 9 months?

i think he really learned something this time.

Cacciato posted...

Didnt he say his last purg was like 9 months?

He did, but he said that six months after the post that got him purg'd.

argonautweakend posted...

Adjl better hope he didn't diminish my preconceived notion....or else. OR. ELSE.

Your butt diminished your preconceived notion.

My butt?!

Oh wait, correct usage of "your". Sorry.

adjl posted...

Your butt diminished your preconceived notion.

Hornyposting is forbidden, Canuck.

you're forbidden

peace out dorkenheimer

A close reading of 20th century history indicates as nothing else can the horrors that accompany loss of faith in the idea of the individual. it is only the individual after all, who suffers. The group does not suffer..........only those who compose it. thus, the reality of the individual must be regarded as primary if suffering is to be regarded seriously. without such regard, there can be no motivation to reduce suffering and therefore no respite! instead production of individual suffering CAN and HAS and will be again rationalized and justified, for its supposed benefits, for the future...and the group.

https://youtu.be/IvBm0ZUfe7I

Lol what a fucking nerd

The saddest thing about his literal baby tear rant (about how it is an unfair and cruel reality that suffering is offloaded on the individual rather than the group) is that he's accidentally damning the very ideologies he loves to support and lamenting the lack of existence of the very ideologies he spends half his time denouncing.

"you should clean your own room"

*goes into a coma to get room cleaned*

https://youtu.be/ylyptoT0QaQ

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/d8bfe636.jpg

wait so the bears people have been talking about aren't big hairy gay guys

Nade_Duck posted...

wait so the bears people have been talking about aren't big hairy gay guys

There's no reason they can't be both.

faramir77 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/d8bfe636.jpg

I've seen a lot of people massively over thinking the bear hypothetical but this takes the fucking cake.

i'm a dude and i'd still pick the bear

a bear is going to leave you alone unless you spook it. when hiking in bear country or camping or just being there, the one thing you're supposed to do is make noise. they even make noise making accessories specifically so you just make constant noise which lets any bears in the area know you are there.

this doesn't attract them, it's not food, but it lets them know where you are, and gives them warning if they're sleeping or hanging out so you don't spook them.

bears tend to stay away from people, food being the exception, but they don't want to see you just as much as you wouldn't want to actually see a bear.

meanwhile, it is a known quantity that people will act different if they think there is no one else around that could see anything.

men, women, others, all should choose the bear over a man.

The argument is possibly dangerous but predictable with clear cut precautions and steps to take so you don't encounter one or if you do, you are safe.

A human however can possibly be dangerous and unpredictable with no real clear cut steps to take to prevent it or come out of it safe.

That's the argument. Which is basically what torchic said but I had to say this too because so many people just cannot figure it out.

adjl posted...

There's no reason they can't be both.

nice

Everyone assumes the bear will be docile and the man will be a predator.

It's more about predictability vs unpredictability. Humans are much less predictable than bears.

Zareth posted...

Everyone assumes the bear will be docile and the man will be a predator.

bears are predictable, their routines have been thoroughly documented multiple times, and it's a known quantity. if a bear is going to attack you, there are reasons for it. you either have food, you scared it, or you're too close to its dwelling and it has cubs.

humans are not. you could meet the most innocuous person, both go your separate ways and you wouldn't even know they were stalking you planning on doing something to you because you just happened to be there and there's no one around to see anything happen.

bears don't do that. they're very straightforward animals.

Zareth posted...

Everyone assumes the bear will be docile and the man will be a predator.

Nobody assumes anything. It's a matter of predictability:

• Bears are dangerous, but generally only in specific situations that you can avoid to mitigate that danger. In addition, if you do find yourself in one of those situations, there are fairly reliable ways to deescalate or escape them and avoid harm
• People are dangerous less often than bears, and often less dangerous than bears when they are dangerous, but if they're dangerous it's because they've decided to be, for reasons known only to them. You can't mitigate that harm by avoiding certain situations (other than "don't be alone with them," which has already been defined as not being an option by the scenario) because you can't know what situations are going to be dangerous, and you can't really know the best way to deescalate those situations to avoid harm if you do get caught in one.

It's not a matter of assuming that the man is a predator, it's a matter of not being able to know that he's not. The bear, meanwhile, is a known variable: It's a bear. Choosing the bear is a matter of choosing a predictable hazard over an unpredictable element. Even if the unpredictable element is probably less dangerous overall, the fact that you have less control over the situation and less ability to proactively mitigate the threat makes it scarier.

Now, on the flip side, odds are the dude is going to be more helpful for becoming un-lost than the bear is, and personally I'd be inclined to consider that value enough to mitigate the associated risks (which are actually fairly low for any randomly-selected guy), but I also don't really have to worry about the whole sexual violence angle and that skews my assessment. I fully understand why so many women would rather stick with the devil they know than roll the dice on an unknown factor. Not being in control of the situation is scarier than risks you can reliably predict and mitigate.

guys you're supposed to treat the bear vs man meme as a joke, not seriously

i encountered a bear in the woods while i was with a man

we held hands and ran down the trail