Cool. You have the philosophical position that all social interaction is Force. Like I said, that's got a long tradition behind it and while I don't particularly find that definition useful, it is clarifying.
I don't see where I made that statement. I have the position that any forms of social interaction that involves Coercion or Compulsion under threat of retaliation is force.
You are the one that took the definition of force and applied such to "all social interaction". Do you truly have such a negative view of society and how they interact, or are you trying to put words in my mouth to win a discussion?
They tried to fire him and he had to deflect them with lawyers you say?
There was a lawsuit? The threat of a lawsuit? There was formal action to fire him or begin firing procedures?
I'm sure you can produce all of that. I don't pay that much attention to Peterson's stunts, so it is entirely possible this is real and not him fundraising off of "My enemies are trying to silence me!".
Jordan Peterson's experience with U of T over his criticism of gender pronouns is well documented. I'm sure you can find everything about U of T's actions towards him with a simple search. Your ignorance of the example does not invalidate the example.
That was a bill about criminal law, it didn't have anything to do with forms of address in the House. Are you thinking of a different law?
Nope, my mistake was forgetting how broad the law actually was. As it was changes to the Human rights Code, it also encompasses legislating language used in the House.
So your argument is that a TV show can't fire someone who they think is going to affect the ratings of their show?
Curious.
Would you still define the situation that way if the TV shows criteria for estimating a ratings decline was the person making Social media comments in support of Gay Marriage?
Well. You never bothered to learn about science, the history of science, STS, or even apparently the basics of Thomas Khun and the concept of the paradigm.
OK. Well. That's a lot to catch up on.
I have. And if my memory serves, Khun was primarily focused on Scientific consensus, which is different from Social consensus. I know he did theorize about Social consensus having been used, and leaking into Scientific Consensus in the past. However, I think it is important to point out that most opinion of Social Consensus in Science is that it is undesirable. As it taints the scientific process.
Social Consensus in science is theorized to primarily be concerned with the rather subjective judgment of values, instead of the judgment of facts. The pure process of scientific consensus consisting of Scholarly communication, replication of reproducible results by others, Scholarly debate, and Peer Review, is desirable.
So what are your limits on that? Given language is plastic and ever evolving, how far are you willing to go for this?
Exactly. Language evolves. And just like evolution it is a random occurrence. It is not engineered, and it is not forced.
A mutation in a language presents itself to the environment of society. People will either choose to acknowledge, accept and begin to use that mutation or they won't, and it dies. If they do, and it eventually becomes part of the lexicon of society, it is no longer a mutation, it becomes the standard. But the environment of society should not be Coerced, Compelled, and legislated to acknowledge, accept and use that mutation. That is no longer evolution, that is no longer natural selection. Indeed if force must be used it is because that particular Language mutation is not naturally becoming the standard in Society.
And if that is the case, this is no longer the evolution of language. This is imposing a language.
That you think this is a relevant example really shows how completely you fail to grasp what is being discussed.
The same could be said about you for not seeing how it is a relevant example.
I presume you feel that French Canadians being asked to have access to services in French is also something ridiculous? If you don't, do you understand the difference?
I don't recall French Canadians demanding that all Canadians replace English with French.
It is being demanded of me from a small group, that I replace all previous English Pronoun meanings that I use, and have existed for Centuries, with new pronoun meanings, simply because that is the way they want to communicate. Sounds very much like my example.
Ah! So if society agrees this is better, you will do it? You are just fighting because you think you still might win?
You fundamentally accept the premise!
I accepted the premise of your first Sentence of negotiating conflict without it turning violent.
The rest of your statement seems to progress from the standpoint that the pronoun issue being accepted by the majority is already a fait accompli. I simply pointed out it is not. If it were, it would be naturally regarded by Society as the standard. It would not have needed to be legislated. It would not be continuously sparking such debate among University Scholars, politicians, and society. You may yet have to find a way to accept your place in Society regarding this issue.
I asked. You interpreted it as an attack.
You asked?
Unless you are saying that you are intending to defend people to not be fired for being non-gender conforming (a position I doubt given all you have said).
The part underlined in bold sounds less like a question, and more like an accusation.
But you keep right on pretending you took the high ground.
But your entire argument appears to be "they are wrong and they aren't allowed to talk about it".
Not even sure what this last statement even applies to. Which argument? The point you just quoted before this statement?
The fact that the Left uses Labelling tactics to shut down debate?
This is rapidly getting to the point where this discussion has exhausted being a cogent debate, and is devolving into standard obfuscation tactics. Requesting further examples to validate previous examples that are easily found and don't change the relevance. Attempts to put words in someone's mouth that clearly wasn't said. Attempting to twist meanings that clearly were not indicated.
Thank you for the discussion, but I no longer wish to participate in the games that have, and are to come.
