I have been inspired to present my response (below) to the premise that ‘denying’ a pronoun should have “legal ramifications” in cartoon form. It seems fitting somehow.
Like part 1 of this edition of Rebuttals of the Week! – the subject of debate was the reaction of the tolerant, non-judgemental, morally superior champions of diversity at the University of Toronto to psychology professor Jordan Peterson‘s public stance against political correctness… and his principled rejection of the premise that he is obligated to affirm the subjective self-conception of people who identify as transgendered by adopting their preferred use of pronouns.
OtD took issue with this statement of mine: “You can ask me to use whatever pronoun you wish. But I am not obliged to indulge that request.”
To which OtD replied: “Unless you are in a situation where you denying that pronoun is a denial of service or identity or harassment. In those cases, there are legal ramifications.
A situation where ‘denying’ a pronoun should have “legal ramifications”?
Yes folks, we are living in a Monty Python sketch on a societal scale.
The self-anointed enlightened class responded to all this logic and carefully reasoned argument by chucking the label ‘bigot’ at him, attacking his character and generally calling for his head on a platter.
As is evident from the sample of comments below and in the next Rebuttals of the Week!, the catalyst for their outrage was not the quality of Peterson’s argument, but his unwillingness to conform to concepts they deem to be supreme and sacrosanct.
As I have pointed out in other Rebuttals of the Week!, it is this intolerance of nonconformity that drives the aggressive emotionalism that is so characteristic of the progressive’s response to dissenting points of view. And it is the privileging of the pre-rational urge to attain social affirmation above all other considerations – including objectivity, reason and the pursuit of truth – that determines the progressive’s opinion and makes him immune to interventions of reason.
Here is the first sample of my interactions with Professor Peterson’s critics….
freedom of speech is still fully intact. you still have the complete right to say things that are blatantly ignorant (like the idea of this event…) and not risk persecution from your government.
what free speech DOESNT let you do is literally DENY someone’s gender identity because its you dont believe in it and have no one call you out for it.
you people are a goddamn joke.
Okay. Now the next comment from WR is a perfect example of how NOT to confront the assertions of ‘progressives’. It isn’t that the point he is trying to make is incorrect. It’s that simply presenting an alternative opinion to the one being expressed by a ‘progressive’ doesn’t accomplish anything. Remember, they’ve already decided that not sharing their opinion is the same thing as being wrong and stupid. They don’t assess the veracity of your opinion in contrast to their own… they just react to the insolence of not submitting to the absolute perfection of their position.
Man-made climate change ‘science’ seems to be unique among scientific disciplines in that it doesn’t matter how consistently it generates predictions that turn out to be wrong when compared to real world observations…. it never justifies re-assessing the validity of the theory.
Scientist accused of ’crying wolf’ on climate change with claim that Arctic sea ice would vanish
Instead, we get the argument from the very people who kept getting it wrong for 10 to 20 years that we are obliged to consider this track record irrelevant and to accept that all the claims, predictions and policies they are promoting today are beyond questioning.
Shockingly, there are still adults out there who believe their absolute refusal to recognise any justification for any degree of scepticism about the claim is the most rational position to hold on the issue.
” But if you accept, even as a probability, that global warming is real and that it imposes costs of its own, potentially catastrophic, then the costs of action need to be reckoned against the costs of inaction. Put simply, the world cannot do nothing — nor can Canada, if it wishes to maintain its position as a member of the world community, avoid doing its part.”
This is exactly the problem we should expect from blurring the boundaries between what is supposed to be factual, ‘hard’ science… and the vague, subjective supposition, personal opinion realm of politics and social policy.
Coyne is actually making the argument that the implausible subjective belief that carbon taxes will have the effect of altering the temperature of the entire planet by exactly 2 degrees, 50 years from now and thus avert a future catastrophe that exists only as a conjecture… amounts to an obligation upon the sovereign nation of Canada to impose upon itself an onerous, extra layer of taxation to demonstrate our subordination to the preferences of an undemocratic, supra-national governing class.
What is going on here? Has everybody lost their minds?