Welcome to The Duncan Trussell Family Hour Center for Self-Optimization

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

78 posts in this topic

So excited to listen to podcast! Congrats on pressing my gag reflex within the first 13 seconds with 3 simple words, "old lady mucus."

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about 40 minutes in, and this is a fantastic conversation! Great guest, @duncan!

He mentions around 41:00 a book about a woman who lived as a man for a while. The book is by Nora Vincent Self-Made Man. It's an awesome book and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the concept of gender. Dr. Peterson tried to make a point about the experience destabilizing Nora Vincent, but I assume he's misremembering the book or he's operating off of hearsay. The book is pretty clear that what caused the author the breakdown was lying to every single person she was interacting with for an entire year about who she was and worrying about getting caught. The book is not about a transgendered person trying to live the life they want to, it's a journalist trying to understand how the male experience differs from her own, and she lies about who she is and risks her safety in doing so. It's a high stress and unsettling experience, and that's what causes her breakdown in the end--not the fact that she was living as a man when she is in fact a woman.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh oh. I feel a rant coming on.

First, thank you @duncan for at least talking about this and having some humor around it. Second, just because a group is able to rise out of marginalization doesn't mean that the current group of privilege then becomes marginalized. To think otherwise is a highly limited belief. Don't give into the fear! People who seek social justice, by and large, do not want to oppress white people. They want equal access to privileges of education, economy, and health for all. To say that these Canadian bills and the LGBT community have pernicious intentions is truly confounding. They are seeking equal rights under the law. If you didn't have equal rights, what would you do?
 
This man, Dr. Peterson, is trying to play a role in determining labels and titles in an effort to maintain the status quo of power and privilege for the heterosexual, white, male. Why in the hell should he or anyone else care about how others wish to be identified or what their preferred pronoun is? It doesn't effect you in any significant way! I mean really, are we trying to bring back the Red Scare?... labeling progressive humanities academics who are challenging the antiquated patriarchy as "Marxists" and "post modern extremists." What an interesting and fantastical paranoia!

Furthermore, Peterson completely fails to recognize both the economic and identity oppressiveness of our capitalist system. This is not to say that communist and socialist systems of the past were any better. But to say that these Canadian bills are the work of post modern extremists is itself an unfounded and extreme view. What does this man have to lose, or any other white male, to accept others for whatever gender or pronoun they feel they need to be called by? He suggests that for a woman (who feels like a woman) to change gender identity results in destabilization. He is right. This is the same reason why someone who is labeled by society as a woman but feels like a man (or visa versa), but is not allowed the identity of a man also suffers from intense destabilization. Please note, Modernism and The Enlightenment is based on the excellent ideas of equality and justice thought of by a bunch of white men who then didn't think they should extend the same human rights to those who are not white or male.
 
Bless your sweet soul, but @duncan, you say "apparently the straight white male is the worst thing to be on earth right now?" I know you're a comedian, but this is a serious conversation (as many of yours are, which I deeply appreciate) and being a comedian is no excuse for ignoring realities of oppression. For a straight white male to assume the role of victim by having this response is also confounding. We are the not the worst things on earth. We are the most privileged in our society. People who talk about oppression and social justice, by and large, are saying that other groups deserve just as much privilege and power as straight, white men. To label those who speak out for social justice as post modern extremists is the same defensive, limited, and prejudice act that others assume who say that all straight, white men are an awful, racist people. Really, how many conversations have you had with people who are not white or straight about this? If your people had been oppressed for centuries without access to privilege, and still are, how would you feel and talk about these issues? In fighting for rights and social justice, do you really think that marginalized people are fighting to oppress white men?
 
Bless his heart, but this psychologist is one who, to no fault of his own, was educated and trained in a professional world that failed to recognize the importance of multicultural dimensions when considering the psychological well being of individuals and communities. Also, he professes to have a great amount of respect for logic and science, yet he makes completely unfounded, illogical connections between gender and sexual orientation. He suggests that there is some kind of direct correlation between gender and sexual orientation; that if one is determined by biology, then so too the other must be. Where is the logic or science for that? The truth is that no one knows what determines either of these things exactly. Gender and sexual orientation are not just a matter of organs and biology. There seems to be continuum and a lot of grey area with no clear biological, psychological, or cultural explanation for either. 

Duncan, or any man for that matter, if you would like to lift an existential weight off your tender, sweet shoulders then I would kindly suggest surrendering to the reality that you do have privilege as a straight, white male, that other groups are oppressed due to the lack of access to this same privilege as a result of our inability to surrender. Further, I would suggest you seek to have more discussions with people who are more different from yourself. And have them on your podcast for Christ sake! Not only would you expand your audience, but it would be even more enlightening! Yes, these discussion can be uncomfortable. Surrender to the discomfort!  Remember that any success you have achieved involved first facing fears and being very uncomfortable. If we choose not to have such discussions, then it is undeniably a convenience and privilege we have as white men. Oppressed people have no choice but to have these conversations if they have any hope of gaining equal rights.

Aside from everything based on white male fear and paranoia, this episode was exquisite!

Stepping down from soap box.

 
Edited by notahater_abuttlover
9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post Notahater_abuttlover

I'm glad not everyone out there is lapping up Jordan Peterson's disingenuous arguments. 

Edited by Foos
6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, notahater_abuttlover said:
He suggests that there is some kind of direct correlation between gender and sexual orientation; that if one is determined by biology, then so too the other must be. Where is the logic or science for that? 
...
I would kindly suggest surrendering to the reality that you do have privilege as a straight, white male, that other groups are oppressed due to the lack of access to this same privilege as a result of our inability to surrender.

The overwhelming majority of people have a gender which matches their sex, and are attracted to the opposite sex. I think it's a very fair statement to say that biology decides gender and sexual orientation, and that variations are just that... Totally fine deviations from the norm which should be treated with respect, but which are indeed anomalies. Certainly (and this is his point) we must retain the right to make that argument, even if it turns out to be wrong.

 

I've been wondering a lot about white privelage. How would you define white privelage? Is it simply defined by the fact that we won't be discriminated against?

 

Edit:

Bill c16 is blissfully short and we can all read it in a couple minutes. There's nothing specific about gender pronouns. It seems like a fair way to protect a male who acts and identifies as a woman (or vice versa or whatever). I think Peterson's general points are fair, but that he's incorrect about being sued for not calling people zhe or whatever.

Link: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8609176

Edited by pattmayne
Added link to bill text
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His podcast is going in the gutter. No worries though ill tune in. It just was wayyy to much hype in here on this one episode. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, stein22501 said:

His podcast is going in the gutter. No worries though ill tune in. It just was wayyy to much hype in here on this one episode. 

Bah! The bill c16 stuff is the least interesting part of what he says, in this episode or anywhere.

I'm finding that his own podcast (lectures) is (are) more interesting than his interviews though. However, I'm looking forward to the one with Sam Harris. And I really enjoyed his talk with Duncan.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Admin wizards for the empty post. My phone is at it again.

@pattmayne Where's the pronoun list, and all that? It that just a summary or what? I also doubt this will result in a gulag by the way. And yeah the dtfh still rocks my socks. JPs lectures are indeed way more interesting than C16.

@notahater_abuttlover The white privilege argument is sloppy, and racist. It's not a privilege to be accepted by racists. It's a curse. 

My ramen noodles don't transform into something more nourishing just because I'm eligible for KKK member ship. 

Despite being raised by a poor Mexican family in a shithole town, fighting redneck racists, having cops point a gun at the back of my head, having black, Japanese, Mexican, Gay, Muslim, and Pagan friends. And being poor myself. Despite all that; My skin color makes me an oppressor.

Even if my white background is that of starving, traumatized, Czech immigrants, who lived 5 deep in a shack, and came to America in early 1920's. Then killed actual nazis in an actual war. That's still not good enough. Even contempt for Bush Jr., let alone the coming of Trumpito, is not enough.

I'm not the only one who has a diverse back ground, and who has been in the violent, soul draining, disgusting, trenches of unbridled actual racism and bigotry. But we're all monsters because a law makes us leary.

Sjws are one of the prices of the internet. It's my perhaps addled supposition that they are perhaps the result of an excessively sheltered life. That's not a new hypothesis, but I'll elaborate on that by saying that being sheltered while envying the chaotic freedom of slightly older Bush Jr. era latch key kids. Who were very rebellious. So the actually privileged new generation had to up the anti in order to build they're developing ego's. Which all happened at lightspeed via unprecedented technology. In addition to the effect of the first black president. Which made it more difficult to easily formulate rebellion. Plus technology helping the valid rebellion of the now exposed element of police brutality and racism. 

In the 90's grunge fasion was quickly exploited by corporate America. Similar to todays quest for rebellion being exploited by politicians. And to have the older generation hop on board mutes rebellion and forces the youth to up the anti even further. The ever present paranoia of being labeled a bigot makes the already difficult process of the Phoenix nearly impossible. The process is nearly destroyed when infantilization is provided and endorsed by the very universities that used to aid the process. "Saferooms" with toys and puppy videos are an ultra version of belittling macho blood thirsty marine recruits. Which was already done shortly after 9-11 by counter culture youth. Again a case of upping the anti. 

Human rights made it so that children are not allowed to work. They are underdeveloped. So are these gender philosophies. They're only 4 or so years old. Which is why they should be at least examined before given the power of law. Especially when sjws are positing neo-bigotry. You can't make friends when you call people their own enemy. 

Even though my own identity is disregarded because of my race, gender, and sexual preference I still endorse my accusers to create all kinds of new beings and believe they should be treated fairly. But they can expect alot of justified opposition when they group anyone questioning something they haven't even figured out themselves in with actual bigots. 

Sometimes ya gotta admit your just trying to be cool.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Letters I'm also an underprivileged white guy which is why I kind of struggle with the white privelage idea. Grew up poor, moved a lot, stressed-out family, no community or nearby family... developed weird mental and social and emotional problems, still trying to learn to interact with people and succeed at normal tasks. The cycle of poverty does not give a fuck about my "privelage." But if there is some real process they're talking about, I want to know what it is.

It's frustrating because if we confront poverty that will actually reduce the harm of racism by making people less vulnerable. But to other lefites I start to sound like a white supremacist, or at least "complicit in white supremacy."

.....

We can treat each other with respect but can't legally enforce respect. Yet, I think it would be a creative stretch of the law to bend that bill enough that you could sue for being called "him."

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the "white privilege" that many lefties talk about, theres alot of misunderstanding on all sides.

Not being allowed to point out white privilege is a form of political correctness, because it offends whites who are underprivileged. its kind of ironic. Just as I can legitimately say that some muslims are terrorists and muslims who are not terrorists will find that offensive.

 

Its not as much about race as it is about skin color in my opinion. Go to india, and you will find that people with lighter colored skin are treated much differently based on the caste system. Im sure you can google around and find studies that have been done on how people with darker skin colors are perceived around the world. This is white privilege, it does not just apply to white europeans, but it applies to white people or lighter skinned people of other races. In general around the world, darker skin has negative perceptions attached to it.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, shite said:

Not being allowed to point out white privilege is a form of political correctness

I'm not offended or anything, but it always sounds bizarre considering I've always been broke. There's also "handsome guy privelage" and "grew up in the suburbs instead of the slums privelage" and "your parents aren't crazy privelage" and lots of privelage which you never hear about but which, in my opinion, drastically override any skin-color privelage.

Most jobs in North America, a dumb or dirty white guy will lose out to a smart and clean black guy. Agree or disagree? But poverty and upbringing can make you dirtier and dumb.

So it's not "offensive" to talk about white privelage. It's a distraction from the much larger economic issue which binds us all.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, pattmayne said:

I'm not offended or anything, but it always sounds bizarre considering I've always been broke. There's also "handsome guy privelage" and "grew up in the suburbs instead of the slums privelage" and "your parents aren't crazy privelage" and lots of privelage which you never hear about but which, in my opinion, drastically override any skin-color privelage.

Most jobs in North America, a dumb or dirty white guy will lose out to a smart and clean black guy. Agree or disagree? But poverty and upbringing can make you dirtier and dumb.

So it's not "offensive" to talk about white privelage. It's a distraction from the much larger economic issue which binds us all.

Yes I agree that the person with the better resume will get the job usually. And if they dont, then its a loss to the company.

on your other points I agree somewhat.

I just see so much hate and racism on the internet these days, and I think about all the black children that probably see this stuff starting at an early age, this cant be healthy psychologically. Whereas if you are white you dont have to deal with that. Its not really possible to calculate the impact of each of these privileges you mentioned might have and to compare/contrast them. There are to many variables at play, so i guess, I dont know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, shite said:

I think about all the black children that probably see this stuff starting at an early age, this cant be healthy psychologically

I agree, but the creation of victim-mentality and resentment towards "white privelage" might be just as bad, or worse. A poor black kid and a poor white kid could be united in their struggle. The fucked up concept of white privelage might divide and conquer them. It is not a path to unity, strength, respect, or success.

Edit: And what about the poor white kid who must be extra stupid if he failed to capitalise on his white privelage?

Edited by pattmayne
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would Krishnamurti say about gender pronouns?

 

Why did the conversation about the Nora Vincent book remind me of this 80's movie?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White privilege is an interesting subject.  I understand some of the backlash created by it.  It is hard for a working class white person who struggles to make a living to feel that he is privileged.

There have been some interesting studies that have showed white privilege does exist in some pretty subtle ways (and more overt ways). 

For example

"With more than 1,500 observations, the study uncovered substantial, statistically significant race discrimination. Bus drivers were twice as willing to let white testers ride free as black testers (72 percent versus 36 percent of the time). Bus drivers showed some relative favoritism toward testers who shared their own race, but even black drivers still favored white testers over black testers (allowing free rides 83 percent versus 68 percent of the time). "

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/opinion/research-shows-white-privilege-is-real.html

or

Study showing that employers prefer to hire candidates with caucasian-sounding names over those with black-sounding ones

http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ321/orazem/bertrand_emily.pdf

 

I think where white privilege is most prominent is in hiring practices.  White people are more likely to be in positions of power (ie business owners and managers).  All things being equal on the resume, I think white people are more likely to hire the white person.  I don't think this is done as overt racism, rather people tend to hire people they are more similar to. 

 

Don't be mistaken that white privilege is the only type of privilege discussed.  There are privileges that come from class, sexual orientation, ability, beauty, speaking the common language without an accent, growing up in a household that reads books, etc.  Part of the discussion around privilege is dispelling the belief of "the equal playing field" that is used to justify inequalities. 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This episode has given me a hell of a lot to think about. One question that springs to mind, is why do people want to seek redemption by solidifying or altering identity when Buddhism tells us that attachment to identity is delusion and that identity does not exist in any absolute way?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I'm a huge fan of the family hour but Jordan Peterson, ugh. He was on Joe Rogan's podcast and it was so hard to listen to his one sided contrarian dribble. It's refreshing that I'm not alone in this. I mean I get it, critical thinking and the willingness to have a open dialog about race/sex/gender without having to be called a bigot or a racist is seriously lacking; however, almost everything else I hear from this guy is just pure nonsense.

By the way, I happened to be white and grew up dirt poor w/ a dad that OD'd on heroin and a mom literally in prison. I was worse off than literally anyone I know now black, white, or whatever. The white man can be poor and racism can still exists. Those things can mutually exists and aren't interdependent. Sometimes I think people (myself included) just have a desire to have some kind of binary answer to the complex story in their heads. Also, the quicker we can decouple race and class and start talking about the disgusting distribution of resources in this country the better. 

Edited by DTW
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The pendulum has returned this very day dear friends! The chaos dragon has again returned with a new hair cut and some extra nasty friends this time around. Hark unto thee, dear bearers of the holy latch key! Hark unto thee oh fearless of Chiraq! Hark unto thee multi gendered shockers of bigotry! The hour is upon us all! Unite! Cast away yon squabbles and hashtags of nill worth! Thou must not placate, and befuddle thoust brothers, sisters, and starbellied sneeches a moment more. Do not reapet the sins of your forebearers! Buy naught, Lie naught, Cry naught. Heed the good DrPeterson, and Lord Lavender. Invoke Horus, FIX YOURSELVES, and hold the fuck on. 

Edited by Letters
candy and nuts
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is Jordan Peterson's core message really: Fix Yourself as best you can, take control of the reigns of your own life, and look to enduring myths of the past and the tragedies of history with reason to establish your own sense of what is good to value. Peterson could just well be a big finger that points to an example of character (his own, or someone elses who we'd like to be).

He definitely seems to slide toward the conservative end of values.

Above all, do not be consumed and ruined by your resentment or bad faith (my own problem).

 

 

Edited by Nihil Loc
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peterson on Sam Harris today: "I see science as a tool rather than a description of reality."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it crazy how everyone can admit that mental disabilities, birth defects, any disorder you can think of all have hard science behind them, are all treated by medical professions, which is viewed as a good thing, yet we're all supposed to act like being transgender is completely normal.

 

I view it exactly the same as people who believe in nonsense religions expecting everyone else to accept it and play along just because it makes them feel better. Just as organized religion is a sickness upon society that is in desperate need of treatment, so is the idea that it's completely acceptable to change your gender rather than looking at it from a medical and scientific standpoint as something majorly wrong and then trying to find the cause and perhaps a cure.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Toma said:

I find it crazy how everyone can admit that mental disabilities, birth defects, any disorder you can think of all have hard science behind them, are all treated by medical professions, which is viewed as a good thing, yet we're all supposed to act like being transgender is completely normal.

 

I view it exactly the same as people who believe in nonsense religions expecting everyone else to accept it and play along just because it makes them feel better. Just as organized religion is a sickness upon society that is in desperate need of treatment, so is the idea that it's completely acceptable to change your gender rather than looking at it from a medical and scientific standpoint as something majorly wrong and then trying to find the cause and perhaps a cure.

I would argue that we 'treat' far too many 'conditions' with 'medical professionals'.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pattmayne said:

Peterson on Sam Harris today: "I see science as a tool rather than a description of reality."

A tool that helps us describe reality through its use. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now