The Honesty of Transgender Identity

[Gameface]

I had a funny moment as I read this part

A red headed Caucasian is more likely to face tolerance issues

thinking he was saying that people don't tolerate red heads at first, and then I read the next part of the sentence.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Let's make it interesting. I will prove my statement is accurate. If I can, you will be banned from Jazzfanz for life. If I can't I will stop posting. We can have @Stoked enforce. Agree?

no i will be coming to utah at end of regular seaosn start of playoff. unless utah is eliminated from playoff contention early


i will bring the money you bring yours i will take the test in front of you! if it is in the top (what percentage do you want. 10% 8% 5% 2%?) you pay me the money
but since you guarantee it. don't worry abut losing your money ps i tried to send you a pm with my contact information incase the getsapo takes me away to banscwutz again. like they took away the capitalist Jews to camps in the 40's. but seems like you blocked me and i can send you my private info. jason has my email address so has babe. they can supply it to you in case i got banned. woudl apreciate a way to contact you by the end of regular season/ beginning of playoff

you wont lose your 10.000 dollars since you gave a guarantee

 

[DutchJazzer]

There is no question that different groups can have different characteristics. But your comment on identification is like saying that all big nosed people are a race, then responding to objections by stating than anyone can clearly identify the big-nosed race just by looking at them. The grouping is artificial, and based mainly on appearance. There is no reason why Ethiopians and Namibians should be classified as the same thing. They don't even look the same. Race is not only useless, it's less than useless. Since Ethiopians and Namibians are quite different from one another, they won't be subject to the same genetic risks. Those populations with a high incidence of a genetic trait will increase the average for everyone, even those lacking said trait (and vice versa). Just like in your example of red heads, who are clearly not considered a separate race, but still require special attention that they wouldn't get if they used the averages of the more artificial "Caucasian race".

they can be a subrace(no offense meant mods dont know if this is right word to use. ban me if it hurts your feelings wont be suprised. anytime i log in i am suprised i am not banned. dont mean in in derogatory way. )
like bears. you have for example polar bears panda bears and grizzly bears. they belong to the bear family or ursidae family.

 

[DutchJazzer]

But there are biological factors tied to race. Blacks are more likely to face anemia while almost never facing Aspergers. A red headed Caucasian is more likely to face tolerance issues with anesthesia. The amount of melanin one biologically possesses. Scientists can identify races from skeletal remains. What am I missing here?

Ps, I have a geography degree. (In spatial software engineering, not anything related to the human side of the study though so take my demographic observations with that in mind)

exactly i cannot say that anthropologist can determine race from skeletons. science is racist and offensive. sorry i hurt people feelings with what antorlpologist say scientifically

ps i only have aerospace engineering degree

 

[DutchJazzer]

as a side note: jazzgasm does not want or can backup his guarantees!

 

[Archie Moses]

*raises hand*

I have an anthropology degree. Race is not biological. Good day.

I found this topic interesting and something I never really thought about. Then google happens and I find myself down that rabbit hole.

From what I understand, there are many scientists that are split on race being biological or a social construct. In anthropological, it used to be taught that way but changed insomuch that even the definition clarifies:
Anthropology.

1. (no longer in technical use) any ofthe traditional divisions ofhumankind, the commonest beingthe Caucasian, Mongoloid, andNegro, characterized by supposedlydistinctive and universal physicalcharacteristics.
2. an arbitrary classification of modernhumans, sometimes, especiallyformerly, based on any or acombination of various physicalcharacteristics, as skin color, facialform, or eye shape, and nowfrequently based on such geneticmarkers as blood groups.
3. a socially constructed category ofidentification based on physicalcharacteristics, ancestry, historicalaffiliation, or shared culture:Her parents wanted her to marry withinher race.
4. a human population partiallyisolated reproductively from otherpopulations, whose members sharea greater degree of physical andgenetic similarity with one anotherthan with other humans.

TIL...

 

[JAZZGASM]

as a side note: jazzgasm does not want or can backup his guarantees!

1. I am in not in Utah
2. I said you may have the lowest IQ, not that you definitely do. So it was a true statement. Sorry your high IQ could not see that. I don't need a test to see how smart you are. Your posts do that for you.

 

[DutchJazzer]

2. I said you may have the lowest IQ, not that you definitely do. So it was a true statement. Sorry your high IQ could not see that. I don't need a test to see how smart you are. Your posts do that for you.

wow that is a real scientific ways.

you said one of lowest i said i am in top 10% of world population at least.

but that doesnt matter your feelings outweigh the actual iq test that i have taken in the past. good to know.

if only we knew that when i got expelled from high school. and had to go through testing because i was a problem child. to go to psychologist and all that ******** government sanctioned ****. they wouldn't let me back in school. or how about the time in university me and my some schoolmates went to actually get tested. (not counting the stupid internet tests ofcourse)

no those are invalid! jazzgasm guaranteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees that my iq is among the lowest on jazzfanz. without taking a real iq test.

facts bro GO BY FACTS.

the offer is still on the table though. but as we see your guarantee MEANS NOTHING!

 

[JAZZGASM]

wow that is a real scientific ways.

you said one of lowest i said i am in top 10% of world population at least.

but that doesnt matter your feelings outweigh the actual iq test that i have taken in the past. good to know.

if only we knew that when i got expelled from high school. and had to go through testing because i was a problem child. to go to psychologist and all that ******** government sanctioned ****. they wouldn't let me back in school. or how about the time in university me and my some schoolmates went to actually get tested. (not counting the stupid internet tests ofcourse)

no those are invalid! jazzgasm guaranteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees that my iq is among the lowest on jazzfanz. without taking a real iq test.

facts bro GO BY FACTS.

the offer is still on the table though. but as we see your guarantee MEANS NOTHING!

I have made no guarantee other than my original post was accurate. Your posts demonstrate your intelligence. No test needed. Glad this site has an ignore function. You aren't worth the effort.

 

[gandalfe]

I have made no guarantee other than my original post was accurate. Your posts demonstrate your intelligence. No test needed. Glad this site has an ignore function. You aren't worth the effort.

Yeah, Dutch is just not worth getting upset over. Like a little yappy dog. Sure, he poops on the carpet, but luckily you have a robot to clean that up. (The ignore feature)

 

[Gameface]

I have made no guarantee other than my original post was accurate. Your posts demonstrate your intelligence. No test needed. Glad this site has an ignore function. You aren't worth the effort.

Freaky Deaky Dutch

 

[jope]

There is no question that different groups can have different characteristics. But your comment on identification is like saying that all big nosed people are a race, then responding to objections by stating than anyone can clearly identify the big-nosed race just by looking at them. The grouping is artificial, and based mainly on appearance. There is no reason why Ethiopians and Namibians should be classified as the same thing. They don't even look the same. Race is not only useless, it's less than useless. Since Ethiopians and Namibians are quite different from one another, they won't be subject to the same genetic risks. Those populations with a high incidence of a genetic trait will increase the average for everyone, even those lacking said trait (and vice versa). Just like in your example of red heads, who are clearly not considered a separate race, but still require special attention that they wouldn't get if they used the averages of the more artificial "Caucasian race".

To further dig down the rabbit hole, aren’t any anthropogenic classifications “artificial” and arbitrary? They are just attempts to organize data.

 

[Siro]

To further dig down the rabbit hole, aren’t any anthropogenic classifications “artificial” and arbitrary? They are just attempts to organize data.

It is about useful definitions. Scientists put things into categories because sometimes generalizations can be very useful. I already explained this. Race is just something people are brought up with. It has no scientific value, and it is not used in any biological science (like I explained, race gets in the way of identifying high risk populations in medicine and genetics, it doesn't help it).

 

[Stoked]

This is as good a thread as any.

Recently been listening to Jordan Peterson debates and open forums.

He seems quite intelligent and I find myself agreeing with him a lot.

What are people’s thoughts on him? Good, bad and what am I missing?

 

[Zombie]

This is as good a thread as any.

Recently been listening to Jordan Peterson debates and open forums.

He seems quite intelligent and I find myself agreeing with him a lot.

What are people’s thoughts on him? Good, bad and what am I missing?

He's really good at making himself appear much more intelligent than he actually is.

 

[JimLes]

Peterson is your typical alt-right male, just disguised in a slightly more presentable package. He's more eloquent, but his points tend to be the same.

 

[Zombie]

This excerpt from his book Maps of Meaning contains the worst kind of overwrought nonsense. Not that there isn't a grain of truth to what he's saying, but it's far from revolutionary and intentionally obscured with verbosity meant to make is sound more profound than it is.

"Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation. Procedure “a,” appropriate in situation one, and procedure “b,” appropriate in situation two, may clash in mutual violent opposition in situation three. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges. When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. This organization and reorganization occurs as a consequence of “war,” in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived (affective) incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure. In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future. Permanent satisfactory resolution of such conflict (between temptation and “moral purity,” for example) requires the construction of an abstract moral system, powerful enough to allow what an occurrence signifies for the future to govern reaction to what it signifies now. Even that construction, however, is necessarily incomplete when considered only as an “intrapsychic” phenomena. The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience. This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction. It is also the case that such subjugation is actually indicative of insufficient “intrapsychic” organization, as many basic “needs” can only be satisfied through the cooperation of others."

Here's another example from the same book:

"Law is a necessary precondition to salvation, so to speak; necessary, but insufficient. Law provides the borders that limit chaos, and allows for the protected maturation of the individual. Law disciplines possibility, and allows the disciplined individual to bring his or her potentialities—those intrapsychic spirits—under voluntary control. The law allows for the application of such potentiality to the task of creative and courageous existence—allows spiritual water controlled flow into the valley of the shadow of death. Law held as an absolute, however, puts man in the position of the eternal adolescent, dependent upon the father for every vital decision, removes the responsibility for action from the individual, and therefore prevents him or her from discovering the potential grandeur of the soul. Life without law remains chaotic, affectively intolerable. Life that is pure law becomes sterile, equally unbearable. The domination of chaos or sterility equally breeds murderous resentment or hatred."



Just, ugh.

 

[Jonah]

Peterson is your typical alt-right male, just disguised in a slightly more presentable package. He's more eloquent, but his points tend to be the same.

Peterson has fans that are alt-right but is not alt-right himself. He’s an individualist conservative prone to spouting nonsense. Not all conservatives are alt-right. Putting the alt-right label on him is a lazy way to try and discredit him.

 

[JimLes]

Peterson has fans that are alt-right but is not alt-right himself. He’s an individualist conservative prone to spouting nonsense. Not all conservatives are alt-right. Putting the alt-right label on him is a lazy way to try and discredit him.

That's just ********, plain and simple. He's alt-right because he says the same stuff they say. You can't spout alt-right stuff, and then claim it's being taken out of context or that people don't quite understand exactly what you're trying to say or that "human psychology" backs you up and then not be alt-right simply because you say you're not alt right.

I could pull up examples but there's no point since it's been done by plenty of others.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-context-of-jordan-petersons-thoughts-on-enforced-monogamy/

Critics are frequently berated for “taking him out of context.” So what I want to do now is put Peterson’s own words in context.

Jordan Peterson is a man who has said that feminists have an “unconscious wish for brutal male domination.” He’s a guy who rails against divorce, and the birth control pill because women would likely be happier if they “allow themselves to be transformed by nature into mothers,” and because allowing women to choose anything other than motherly transformation leads to declining birth rates “in the West” that might “do us all in.”

In case you were thinking, “Hey, that sounds kind of racist,” have some more context: Peterson says “no one can talk about” about that last bit because of “egalitarianism and diversity.” The context of his interest in “enforced monogamy” is that this is a man who thinks women who don’t want to be sexually harassed at work are “hypocritical” if they engage in a “sexual display” by wearing makeup. Peterson admonishes us that women and men working alongside one another is just an experiment, one that is only 40 years in. The man’s grasp of history is so shallow that if he ever goes back to teaching at U of T they might want to get a lighthouse put in his brain so the undergrads don’t run aground there. The professor warns us that it just might not be possible for men to spend eight hours in the same workplace as a woman without harassing her and explains that that “almost all of the hyper-productive people are men” and women aren’t really driven to work at the top anyway.

Peterson talking about the importance of enforced monogamy isn’t alarming because it’s been taken out of context; it’s alarming precisely because of its context. If, as Peterson argues, our “dead-end” non-monogamous society can be largely blamed on birth control, what is the best way to turn back the clock to the days before the pill and “whiny” feminists who should just get hobbies? Peterson says he never suggested “government-enforced” monogamy, merely “socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated” monogamy. Let’s take him at his word. If pulling the pill off the market isn’t an option, do you just “socially promote” women not using it? Do we build a database of all the pharmacies that sell it, hoping to drive them out of business?

What does that look like? Given the context that is Jordan Peterson, it’s hard not to think it looks like shaming women for refusing to conform to their proper archetypal role as mothers, producing what really matters—heroes and, of course, slaughter-preventing sex-providers. Perhaps, coming from the man who views attempts to foster gender equality as part of a “murderous equity doctrine,” it looks like pushing women out of the workforce, quietly passing them over for men for, you know, their own good.

If, as Jordan Peterson pinky-swears, it doesn’t involve the government trapping women in abusive marriages by restricting divorce, does it mean ramping up the shaming of single women, blocking them from fully participating in public life, putting back some of those barriers that only recently fell away? Single women have long been a punchline in the same circles now busily making single men a righteous cause. That is not incidental.

I mean, how the **** is this not alt-right stuff? From enforced monogamy and sympathy for incel mass-murderes, to victim-blaming rape, to blaming birth control for some alleged Götterdämmerung he believes our society is heading towards, to suggesting there has to be something wrong with you for wanting rights for Muslims, to believing women and men working together may not be natural, to the terribly racist assumption that immigration(from coloured and non-Christian places, natch) will "do us in."

 

[Jonah]

That's just ********, plain and simple. He's alt-right because he says the same stuff they say. You can't spout alt-right stuff, and then claim it's being taken out of context or that people don't quite understand exactly what you're trying to say or that "human psychology" backs you up and then not be alt-right simply because you say you're not alt right.

I could pull up examples but there's no point since it's been done by plenty of others.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-context-of-jordan-petersons-thoughts-on-enforced-monogamy/

I mean, how the **** is this not alt-right stuff? From enforced monogamy and sympathy for incel mass-murderes, to victim-blaming rape, to blaming birth control for some alleged Götterdämmerung he believes our society is heading towards, to suggesting there has to be something wrong with you for wanting rights for Muslims, to believing women and men working together may not be natural, to the terribly racist assumption that immigration(from coloured and non-Christian places, natch) will "do us in."

Many who identify as conservative (or liberal for that matter) hold sexist and misogynist views. It’s been that way for centuries. That doesn’t make them alt-right. The alt-right movement sprang from white nationalism. It’s an attempt to update and mainstream a supremacist philosophy with a less toxic label.