Here is the debate held Nov 19 at 9:30 am at the University of Toronto on Free Speech, Political Correctness and Bill C-16.
Participants included Dean David Cameron, who introduced the debate. Mayo Moran, a law professor, who moderated it, psychology Professor Jordan B Peterson, speaking out against the legislation, and Professors Brenda Cossman and Mary Bryson, who defended it.
Thank you to everyone supporting me, and for the many insightful comments regarding this debate.
Did not watch aforementioned debate. Have followed press coverage, hence the following points.
Professor Peterson is a public intellectual, hence he has to have an opinion on many issues.
If I were in his place, I would probably do what his transgender student wanted, which is to address them the way they want to be addressed.
I suppose Professor Peterson is saying he does not want to be considered a potential criminal because he is saying the words
he is forming in his brain. He may be calling the bill too intrusive, considering he is a professor and likes to speak his mind.
Bill C-16 tyrannizes every citizen; disenfranchises every person of their free speech and forces people to be enslaved by the dictates of persons who do not know who they are
In her first 10 minutes Brenda Cossman said that there would be no legal consequences if a professor (or anyone else requested to speak a made-up pronoun) declined the request to speak a word he or she or they disliked, and instead offered to speak use the requester’s proper name (thereby avoiding all third person pronouns, gendered or neologized). If true, this would open up a middle ground. Prof. Peterson would be freed from the obligation to “be a mouthpiece for language I detest”, and the non-binary person making the request would be free from designated by unwanted gendered pronouns. So I have two questions:
1) Would Prof. Peterson be satisfied with this compromise? (Names, not pronouns)
2) Would the Law be satisfied with it? (In other words, was Cossman telling it straight?)
Cossman was weakest when she spoke about a $250,000 as if it were a trivial matter that need not worry anybody. For a well-heeled lawyer like Cossman, perhaps such a fine would be trivial, but for most Canadians it would be a draconian, life-changing punishment. Too severe for a pronoun infraction in my view. But then any punishment is too severe for such a transgression in my view.
The “names only” solution is really impractical. Consider the following sentence: “John came over and showed me John’s book.” What do you understand when you hear that sentence? It sounds a bit weird, right? If the situation was that a guy named John had a book, which he came over and showed you, you would use a pronoun. You would say, “John came over and showed me his book.” Therefore your decision /not/ to use a pronoun implies that there must in fact be /two/ people named John: one who came over, and a different one whose book was shown. The ordinary pragmatics of the English language break down under this forced misuse. I do not think it is a viable solution.
Yes it does sound “a bit weird” (no quarrel there), but then so does “John came over and showed me hir book” (or whatever other neologism pronoun John might want to go by). I can see the appeal of the “they” solution (“John came over and showed me their book”), and I admit that some people (in weaker moments) already talk like this (though I agree with Professor Peterson that correct grammar is worth preserving). Even the “they” solution becomes “weird” (not just ungrammatical) when it is extended to reflexives: “You’ll never guess who just came over and gave me their book. John themself!” (I had to type that twice to get it past Prof. Peterson’s ever vigilant autocorrect!) There is a bit (just a bit) of respectable historical precedent for “themself”. The early sixteenth-century English poet Sir Thomas Wyatt uses it in line 5 of his poem “They Flee From Me” (worth reading) but he has artistic reasons for doing so (and they have nothing to do with our current gender identity battles). Here is a link if you want to read that great poem: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/45589
The real point of my questions, however, was not to argue that “names only” is an elegant solution. My hope was to find a middle ground where a pedant like me (John himself) could have peaceful, constructive dialogue with a person who (however weirdly to my ears) thought of themself (no autocorrect this time, interestingly) as “themself.” That is not a word I would ever use (except in relation to Wyatt’s poem), but I am willing to try to find a compromise (hence “names only”). I was also hoping to find a middle ground where Professor Peterson could continue to be himself (a good self to be) without fear of losing everything he owns. That was the point of my second question (“Would the Law be satisfied?”). My own workaround in the case of John and John’s book would be: “John came over and showed me the book” (or “a book”, depending on context).
The nameonly solution is certainly a possibility, John: I appreciate your “peacekeeping” impetus. However, using names only is still coercive: it puts thespeaker or writer in the position of having to gerrymander their own languageto fit the arbitrary boundaries set by another. I still find this altogether unacceptable,especially when state or employer-mandated sanctions are threatened. There aremany things that I’d prefer people to say, rather than what they actually do: thereis no law in place to force people to say what I want to hear, which is just the way it ought to be. (I’m an “outsider” in the culture wars. Those in controlare not the slightest bit interested in my comfort. In fact, they are oftenscheming to make me feel even more uncomfortable, with punishments attached.)
Re using names only, let’s say I wanted to tell my sister about a visit with an old friend I haven’t seen for ages: “Jane, I had the best visit with Abby yesterday. invited Abby for lunch. Abby arrived at 12:30 and stayed until 5:30! We talked about a million things! Abby showed me pictures of Abby’s grandchildren and cottage. Abby told me about Abby’s wonderful Baltic cruise with another of our college friends. Abby told me about Abby’s plans now that Abby’s retired. Abby is going to do volunteer work and Abby plans to travel as well. I was interested that after living in London for many years, Abby usually takes public transport now rather than Abby’s car. It was great fun to catch up. Next month, I’ll be going to Abby’s house, where
Abby’s going to show me one of the pictures that Abby brought on Abby’s cruise.” WHAT a mouthful! Instead of being spontaneous, the speaker/writer has to be very conscious to skew common speech patterns as well as his/her own comfort in order to please a newly minted group of special snowflakes. For me, this is a matter of principle and even equality: the cultural Marxist SJWs don’t give society at large any leeway at all and yet demand that the rest of us bow the knee to their outlandish, unnatural demands.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—
that’s all.”
The pronoun wars are about power, period.
(John, you wrote, “My own workaround in the case of John and John’s bookwould be: ‘John came over and showed me the book’ (or ‘a book’, depending on context).” Good try! But the MEANING has been changed. “The” or “a” are not synonyms for “his”. Why should we turn ourselves and common and meaningful language patterns into pretzels to accommodate people who have no interest in reciprocating? And, as I said, this is, above all, a power play. One does not give in to a toddler’s tantrums unless one
wants to become that kid’s slave. These adult toddlers are no different: no
matter what one does, they’ll always want another concession. I’m altogether with Professor Peterson: nip this narcissistic behaviour in the bud.)
In the case of Abby and Jane, you would presumably talk candidly (in your own “safe space”), since you are talking to your sister (unlikely to rat you out to the Human Rights Commission). If you talking directly to a trans person, the pronoun issue would not even come up, since we all use “you” when speaking face-to-face. Difficulty arises only if you are speaking about a person (a student say) who is not present, to other people (colleagues) who are aware of the student’s demand that certain pronouns not be used. Professors do this all the time. An extreme version of Professor Peterson’s position (and I do not think he himself holds this extreme view, so it is not really his position) would be:
“Jane has asked us to call her ‘they’, but sod that, she looks like a guy to me so I’m going to call him ‘he'”
That would be boorish in my view. It should not be grounds for legal punishment (either fine or incarceration) but it is still boorish. A gentler alternative (and I think this is Professor Peterson’s position, it is certainly mine) would be:
“Jane has asked us to call her ‘they’, but I care about grammar and it is my mouth doing the talking right now, so I shall decline that request but accommodate Jane by using ‘Jane'”
Yes that is a mouthful, but it is the lesser of two evils in my view. Prof Peterson is on record as saying he would call Theryn Meyer “she”, so I think he would not be the kind of boor who insists on applying pronouns based only on his own ocular perception. The real issue for him is not so much “they” as the kooky made-up pronouns that come with an ideological baggage. To require people to speak the ideology of their opponents is like requiring a conservative to mouth pieties about “neo-liberalism” (whatever that means) or (if the boot is on the other foot) requiring free citizens to stand erect and bark “Heil Hitler”. Professor Peterson is right to remind us that the latter happened. I am looking for a workable solution that is neither boorish nor totalitarian.
John, my little story was used to show what more than a one sentence comment would sound like with names only. (And how do you know that my sister isn’t a/n SJW? One wouldn’t need to speak to a normal person that way!) I don’t think you’ve addressed the substance of what I said. E. g., Using s/he, her/him wasn’t the issue: but it’s at least within the rules of grammar and relatively easy to accommodate, unless one is under compulsion. But it’s still another person trying to control the interchange, which may be against the will of the speaker/writer. The model you’ve proposed here, especially if it’s a teacher or professor with multiple students, still requires some kind of clairvoyance or phenomenal memory, even if one has been able to keep straight–whoops!–all of the pronoun variables in the first place.
You have not addressed the power play here. Most of us are considerate people and happy to accommodate reasonable expectations. Ramp up the expectations to “ludicrous speed” and even usually courteous people are not so willing to go along.
John, the pronoun war is all about totalitarianism. I don’t believe you can square that circle.
Judy, first off, I love the Alice in Wonderland quotations. I have myself often used Humpty Dumpty, but the believing impossible things one is even better for this pronoun / gender identity debate. Thank you for that one. I too can imagine nurturing doubts about someone’s self-declared gender identity. But is it always wise or politic to blurt out one’s private doubts about such a personal matter? Does one even have a moral obligation to do so? Or not to do so? I am grateful to Jordan Peterson for making me ponder these questions. Where you and I perhaps differ is that I would rather see the “pronoun war” as a debate rather than a war. Jordan Peterson is most compelling for me when he makes the point that it is the SJWs who see all dissenters as “enemies.” I do not want to become a mirror image clone of a SJW, engaged in a war that could lead to the fascism of the right as easily as the fascism of the left. We are living in very unstable times. For the first time in my life (I am almost 60) I think it is not only not impossible but even not improbable that the United States will disintegrate into civil war in my lifetime.
Thanks, John. I appreciate your comment. But I will never be a mirror of the SJWs because my default position is to treat others with respect. Within reason, I’d be quite willing to accommodate a considerate person’s wishes. However, once the wishes of the other are no longer either reasonable and/or considerate of others, as in others being compelled on pain of state or work place sanctions, then I would be less inclined to comply. I’m 67 and have seen this train wreck coming for some time. That the state seems to be taking the side of those who are bitter and out for revenge is something to fear.
Capitulation is the only solution. In a free society capitulation must work both ways.
Love the “Alice in Wonderland” bit :)
Phil. here’s another Alice in Wonderland quote that seems to fit this situation nicely:
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the [White] Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
maybe i need o read that book to arm myself :D
The pronoun wars are about the abuse of power.
John, I want to echo Judy’s appreciation for your inclination to find a peaceful solution. If I was brusque in dismissing the “names only” solution, my frustration is really directed at Cossman, who made what I think are a number of impractical suggestions throughout the debate.
I want to clarify that I wasn’t trying to over-simplify by describing my example sentence as sounding “weird”. My point is that in terms of pragmatics “weird” really matters! Weirdness carries meaning! If a speaker repeats a name instead of doing the normal thing and using a pronoun, it signals to the listener that something is up. And I think that the most reasonable interpretation of such a sentence is that there must be two different people involved, who go by the same name. So my point is that the “names only” solution doesn’t even really work, because we end up speaking sentences that don’t mean what we wanted them to mean.
This is very different from the weirdness of using a word like “themself” that has only appeared once or twice in some very old poetry. (Thanks for the link, by the way — interesting stuff.)
I also don’t want the state telling me how to speak, but that’s a different story.
On the legal side of things, i.e. your question (2), I too would like to know the answer. Let me first say that I am no lawyer, but nevertheless I really don’t trust Cossman’s assessment. You’re referring to the point where she said, “So, what it seems to require is the use of ‘he’, ‘she’, or ‘they’. And if you don’t like that, then you can always just use their name.” Well that sounds nice and simple, but earlier she quoted the Ontario Human Rights Commission as using some really weasely-sounding phrases. They say that, “refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name or proper pronoun could constitute gender-based harassment.” Okay… Who says what the so-called “proper pronoun” is?
Later she quoted them as “clarifying” that, “Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity” would “likely be discrimination” in certain social arenas. Again I’m left wondering what is the meaning of the phrase, “a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity”. Who decides what “matches”? My fear is that it’s some shadowy figure sitting on a “Social Justice Tribunal”, and from the sound of it those things are a monstrosity and should be dismantled immediately.
Steve, thank you for an immediately useful comment, especially the quotations from Cossman. As always in cases like this, the words to look out for are the little words, prepositions and especially (in this case) conjunctions. Specifically the weasel shift from “or” to “and”:
Cossman statement 1: “refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name or proper pronoun could constitute gender-based harassment”. Ignoring that weasely “could,” let’s focus on “or”. Does she mean: “you have a choice of using either name OR pronoun (so use the name if you don’t like the pronoun)” or does she mean: “failure to use either name OR pronoun could constitute…” etc The former interpretation allows for compromise, peace, middle ground; the latter enforces totalitarian conformity.
Cossman statement 2: “Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity … likely be discrimination”. Notice that “or” has now morphed into “and”. So if Cossman has the faintest notion of the significance of the words coming from her mouth (and I’m not confident that she does), we have no choice at all (despite her earlier “or”). We are required by law to utter both name AND pronoun, OR else.
The little words matter. Sometimes (as in this case) they make all the difference. We all tend to get flummoxed by the big words like “freedom,” “equality”, “diversity”, but it is the little words like “or” and “and” or “of” that often free or enslave us (there is a huge difference between “diversity in” and “diversity of”). For more on this topic, view the (very brief) talk by Sir Christopher Ricks when he received an honorary degree at the University of Western Ontario this Fall. His address begins at 6.00 in the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYKCLhjer-M
“I also don’t want the state telling me how to speak, but that’s a different story.” No, that is the story.
The transgendered have no poetic license in the culture. There is no middle ground when being coerced.
Leaving aside invented pronouns, which would be to ordinary conversation what a car with a boot on its tire would be to driving, I have a problem with the whole notion of demanding the accommodation of people’s self-identities when those identities do not match the speaker’s view of that identity, as a mark of “respect.”
A man who “identifies” as a woman is, in my view, denying reality, i.e., operating under a delusion. As a matter of kindness toward the delusional, I may choose to play along with the delusion and have done so in my professional career for many years, but that is hardly evidence of respect.
It seems to me that what the transgender person is demanding here is not to be reminded that others don’t see him as he wishes others would see him. I can understand that this disconnect between his own sense of identity and others’ perception of him is uncomfortable, perhaps even painful. But others DO see him differently, so he is asking them to deny their reality in favor of his own. His demand is that others sacrifice their truth, which is based in reality, for his comfort, which is based in delusion.
This gets, of course, even more bizarre when we talk about the “non-binary” or the “otherkin” or the “species dysphoric” whose self-identities can in theory proliferate infinitely. Are they all to be “respected” by drawing the rest of us in as unwilling accomplices to their narcissism or self-delusion? And is this totally bogus “respect” to be acquired at the point of a gun, which is, after all, what a law is?
It’s hard to imagine that this insistence on force to compel obeisance to their delusions will not increase and exacerbate hostility toward these over-powerful but numerically very small groups. There’s little true “hatred” toward such groups today. Western civilization has inculcated a high tolerance for eccentricity and most people who think about the transgendered or otherwise oddly-self-identified at all probably feel vaguely sorry for them, not hateful. But put a boot on someone’s throat and reactions are likely to get more vehemently negative.
That is an excellent comment, AnnJo, and I agree with almost everything you say. My one demurral is that you assume the ‘reality’ of someone’s sex is self-evident to the well-wishing, ‘playing along’ beholder who perceives ‘a man’ when the person demanding ‘respect’ identifies as ‘a woman’. There are times when your account rings true. Perhaps a majority of such cases (male to female transition). But I have also seen ‘non-binary’ people who really do look ‘non-binary’ (so much so that I have been unable to tell what their ‘real’ sex is). Maybe they are just good at faking, or living out their ‘delusions’, but the ‘reality’ in such cases is still unclear. We should also remember the genuine (physical) condition of hermaphroditism. It affects a tiny minority of a tiny minority, but hermaphroditism does in my view satisfy your rigorous standards of ‘reality’. Someone who is hermaphrodite from birth is not delusional. Arguments on both sides of this ‘non-binary’ debate have tended to lump all ‘non-binary’ people together (even when the argument is that they constitute a wide ‘spectrum’). It seems to me that there are at least three discrete categories that do not shade into each other (except for political reasons, to achieve political ends). The three categories are: 1) genuine hermaphrodites who were born that way and whose ‘true’ biological sex bewildered the doctors who delivered them; 2) people whose internal identity is (for whatever reason, ‘delusional’ or otherwise) at variance with their physical body; 3) (the most tragic) people who were born male but had their penis severed soon after birth in a horrific accident inflicted in hospital by a malfunctioning machine intended to circumcise, not castrate. Such accidents do occur. More frequently than we are told. They are hushed up by hospitals (in fear of negative publicity) and also by the parents (wanting to protect their child). The ‘solution’ is always the same: an emergency sex change followed by hormone treatment in a desperate attempt to make the change real. I have often wondered how many of the people now demanding ‘non-binary’ status began life in this horrific way. If the accident had not happened, they would not now be seeking recognition and respect as a ‘non-binary’ person. But such accidents happen and they have consequences (physical, psychological, political). Another possibility to consider (though I am unqualified to have an opinion about it) is the theory that plastics in the environment wreak havoc on the hormones of infants. Political voices on the Left would likely discourage this line of enquiry (since it implies that ‘non-binary’ people deviate from a natural norm), but those same voices are the ones that routinely berate the Right for denying or discouraging research into the environmental impact of global warming. My point is not that the Left is hypocritical while the Right is not. Like all arguments about double standards, this one cuts both ways.
When I spoke of delusion, I was referring to people who are anatomically and genetically one sex, but who psychologically are unhappy with that fact and wish to be the other sex. People who suffer from an anatomical abnormality or, as you mention, an accident resulting in medical efforts to deal with the consequences, are obviously not delusional about reality, they simply are unable to determine what it is and must make the best of it. And I don’t 100% discount the possibility that what some transgender people experience is attributable to some brain structure or brain chemistry deviation that we have not yet discovered. A deviation, though, by definition is not a ‘natural norm’. There are a few human beings born without two and only two legs, but human beings are still bipedal, and the occational abnormalities are not “part of the ‘normal’ spectrum. That’s why they’re called abnormal.
Regardless, the issue is not WHY people feel as they do, but whether their feelings allow them to demand that other people express a reality that is not their own, and punish people who object with loss of livelihood, loss of employment, maybe even loss of liberty.
Amendment Eight to the American Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment must equal the crime. A $250,000 fine is cheap for the loss of freedom of speech. The death penalty inflicted for refusing to be a slave to the dictates of the state is more to the liking of the despots who claim to own the citizen. “One person cannot own another person” Abraham Lincoln. “Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me” nor the lack of pronouns pronounced.
Although I rarely entertain thoughts about ‘the beckoning finger of fate’, in the case of my encounter with the medicinal ideas which are the fruit of the TRUE academic and thinker Mr. Peterson I feel comfortable employing such terms, tounge comfortably in cheek but supremely thankful for the rare opportunity to use such terms. I work (ed) at an International School in Asia, & long story short the owner got convicted of fraud, & sent to jail
(seperate from the embezzled pension funds of faculty). As the school fell apart & closed I had more time to catch up with some reading. A bunch of that was Nietzche and some of the many he has influenced. While doing a youtube scan to try and catch some worthwhile commentary on the subject I stumbled upon Mr. Peterson’s filmed class lecture on that proud pole & that other startingly insightful human named Doestoevsky. For the sake of breivety i’ll just say with mind & spirit alight i clicked on his tremendous lecture entitled evil vs tragedy. thats some of the most brilliant insightful psychologicl/literary/human analysis/battle cry that ive come across right there. After pursuing more of the man’s ideas, obviously bourne from an ardous and thus all the more piercing experience of walking through the flames of rigourous and patiently honest work, I stumbled upon the unfortunate bullshit circumstances he found himself in with regards to bill C-16 and this onerous & malevolently mutated strain of authoritarian thought that has been growing and now dares to try & wrap its slimy tentacles around the LEGITEMATELY principled voices of men such as Mr. Peterson. Yet it may prove that in this case thier powerfully pungent varient of sanctimonious & resentfull bullshit will serve as fertilizer to those awake enough, thanks to the truly moral stand of a man like Mr. Peterson. In this convluence of events he has proven the mettle of his character and intellectual insight, he has in fact spoken his truth which can act as one of the many sparks jumping around, cast forth by other moral and decent human beings of insight so that may burn together to clear the field of our vision of such life stultyfying p.c. authoritarian argot. Thank you Mr.Peterson-for the years of dedicated work to helping your fellow man, for your generosity in developing & sharing the life authoring program, and for providing an inspiring example with your recent stand.
Well said that man, I stumbled upon Dr Peterson in a similar manner and found him to be clear and concise in thought on a level rarely seen in any field let alone when talking about the Human Condition. I have more trouble with seeing how everyone else can’t see what is in front of them than understanding Dr Peterson. He appears to have the clarity and wisdom of someone who hasn’t gained his knowledge from books alone but from some type of deep mediation using reductive principles. Speaks with the grace and surgical incision of a well educated man. It seems to me like Truth and all of the underlying ways to asses if something can stand up on it’s own logical merit are what is under attack here. I can see how all this historic Marxist Ideology and Post-modernist clap trap is being bought hook line and sinker by lesser stable minds, these people must be over feminised in someway they display largely female characteristics (not the good ones) I mean it is like they are actively advertising for some external authoritarian male force of will to sort their situation out for them in an overstated imbalanced way. The cause and effect relationship isn’t straight forward by any means but maybe it’s time to admit that removing the balanced family unit (Unity principle) and having less relevance for men (as natural men) in the increasingly service sector workforce is causing un-natural role development for men and women away from natures intended starting points. Million examples here. The resultant ‘Families’ with just women bringing up the kids (No-Offence effective Role Models) are effectively being socialized into an over-feminized way of dare I say left brain thinking. (Don’t shoot me im not an academic). It’s not hard to see how this unbalance increases from the causal core out into the world where they are still effectively looking for some type of ‘leadership’. They seem to lack logic and order to their thinking as they haven’t experienced the necessary socialization that occurs when a male and female brain transmit and recieve information to one another in a natural balanced loop of order and chaos but in a complimentary opposite way. There has to be 2 opposing poles for any transmission and reception of any system, we as part of nature cannot fall outside that balance without painful consequences obviously. I know this is all stating the obvious but the solution has to be found in the ultimate reductive version that carries all relevant principles.
We need to allow for Truth to mould natural shape bricks if we are to build a wall that will stand in all weather, Otherwise we will need the State to artifically strengthen the wall, and at best these leftist principles are always short-term sticking plasters to the initial problems of balance we create through ignorance and lies, lies always lead to more lies the truth stands bu itself. Part of the trouble has to be the fact that we take it as a given that the economy is a seperate super entity and somehow seen as ‘off limits’ to reform. Is it not a system for exchanging value within an agreed belief system. Wheres it getting us exactly? Equally poor Vs Unequally Rich seems to be the only 2 possible outcomes currently. How to balance the 2 so as to not impede the best minds? and also allow for egalitarian ideals? Has to start with the family unit, if the current economy isn’t helping solidify us in this most basic need then it isn’t a natural economy and simply doesn’t serve us anymore. The last thing we need is a knee jerk reaction to our problems by asking for bigger goverment putting more weight on the other side of the see-saw. Every child knows the safest way of a see-saw is to reduce the problem weight in the first place as a move against catastrophism. Human Greed dissolves when people discover the underlying nature of things and the massive responsibility you feel when making ultimate discoveries equips one for just about any task. I personally believe everybody is capable of experiencing the greatest revelations but definitely not in our current choose left or right paradigm that holds people in the box marked ‘present’. It should be great thinkers like Dr Peterson who dictate policy not these sold-out brain dead political creatures of fear that currently occupy the stage selling fear to the masses in equal doses with prescribed remedy. One last rant- It’s not so much our current position that worries me but the direction we are moving in being ignored that is more troubling, it appears to be gaining speed. Never Give Up people. Peace.
She as referring to “we” as being lawyers. As in, Dr. Peterson has a very bad habit of talking about things he does not understand (mainly, the law).
I do not understand the law either (how many people really do?), but I can concede that point and still resist the lawyers’ (and legislators’) attempts to police every aspect of my daily life, action, word, and thought. Professor Peterson has a very GOOD habit of pushing back against totalitarianism, which is why some of us admire him. It is worth remembering also that this was not a debate specifically about the law. It was a debate about free speech (at least that is what the caption read at the top of my screen). The law is relevant to that debate, of course, but so are a lot of other things, including personal autonomy and psychology (a subject Professor Peterson does understand). One of the difficulties with the debate was that each speaker was concerned to defend his or her (or their) own academic turf, with the result that many of the arguments went past each other. At least Professor Peterson was aware of this difficulty. I lost count of the number of times the third speaker used the phrase “peer reviewed” as a stick to bully Professor Peterson, as if her (or their) discipline was the only one that mattered. It was such a relief when Professor Peterson finally used the same phrase in rebuttal and challenged the speaker (whose name eludes me) to a further debate in which he would call his own (modestly unnumbered in the debate) 114 &