Anything is possible in the online world. So, people for whom the online world has primacy expect the same to be true in the real world. Obviously this creates conflict with generally older people who live in the real world.
That’s the way he sees it, and the logic is easy to grasp. My concern though is not the pandora’s box effect – what’s wrong with, say, me pretending to be a human? – but the failure to value the real world. It used to be that people would say you shouldn’t trust anything you read online, but now it’s the other way around. “I can’t find it on the interwebs, so it must not be true.”
This seems to comport with the concerns raised in the conversation, unless I’m misunderstanding you.
He keeps bringing it back to identity, especially gender identity. It’s as if he thinks (or feels) transgenderism didn’t exist in a meaningful way before people went online, which any anthropologist could easily debunk.
While claims of transgenderism have increased dramatically in recent years, especially among certain demographics, I’m failing to see the contradiction you do.
I didn’t hear him saying that. I heard him saying that transgenderism has become more acceptable online which then affects the real world. And people have different perceptions of what constitutes the real world.
JP points out that people go through phases of dealing with identity: first playing around with it, then “negotiating” it with the world, then becoming adults who are secure in their identity but also capable of doing their own thing (not quite the words he uses but something like that). They speak of the psychological effect of online culture as disrupting this by making people skip the second phase… and later JP implies more or less this means the destruction of the family and therefore of civilization, because in order to be sane one must have a family, and the traditional way to do that is to get married and have children, and if one is transgender (he seems to imply) one can’t do that. The gender identity talk is mostly coming from Bret though, who says he uses it as an example of online culture because it’s the “clearest” example or something like that.
And yet… people still “negotiate” identity with the world whether online or off, as they have since basically forever. And when negotiating, the more options you have, the easier it is (usually) to get what you want. Don’t like the counter-offers you get when you try to sell your product at this market? One stall is just like the next? Then go to the market across the street.
It’s certainly logical that the internet facilitates an easier negotiation for minority groups because they can, on average, more easily find people who share or at least respect the identity they want to express, so this can very logically explain why transgenderism is more visible now, as well as various other identities.
This is not really new though – it’s like the rise of big cities, but on another scale, as now if you’re in a minority you don’t need to leave your village to go and congregate with your fellows in some neighborhood of a metropolis, because you can stay physically where you are and have access, in a way that you as a member of the the-internet-has-always-existed generation find meaningful, to hypothetically every single member of your identity group on the planet. Thus the minority identity communities are more visible and more powerful, but online culture did not create them.
So how is this a bad thing?
JP and Bret tie it in with their concern about (1) the destruction of the family and (2) the general echo chamber effect.
The first one is easy to critique because the reasons why the family as an institution (on a grand scale) isn’t what it used to be have much to do with economics and little to do with gender identity or any other facilitated-by-the-internet identity.
The second one is a concern that’s easy for me to share. As they say, you can intentionally bring dissenting views into your life and benefit from them, but it’s not straightforward. (I don’t think they specifically mention Overton here, but it’s the same idea – it applies to the individual mind, not just society.)
Whether one agrees with the concept of gender-as-distinct-from-sex or not, it’s a historical fact that the concept* predates the internet by far. He (Bret) seems to think if it weren’t for that pesky online culture stuff, the concept would have no relevance because people would just look at each other’s genitals and say “well that settles it”.
So for me his point that the new normal is for people to take the online world as the one that really matters is concerning, yes, but not the reason he uses as the epitome.
*(not necessarily with the words “sex” and “gender” as we understand them in modern English, but the same basic idea in one form or another, i.e. biological sex is not the be-all-and-end-all)
To repeat myself: I didn’t hear Bret say that at all. Perhaps he thinks it.
I’ve been listening to Jordan’s podcasts recently. His most recent interview with Bari Weiss was one of the most information and pertinent I’ve listening to in a long while
I need to try that one again, JP seemed kind of pushy and distracting.
I thought this was kind of JP relevant
“Taking part in an investigation is often uncomfortable for all those involved,” the BCCNM website reads. “However, the process is not intended to be punitive. An investigation is a neutral information-gathering process.”
Oh, never mind then.
Defend oneself against a neutral information gathering process.
It smells like the same boring game as usual. A very detailed complaint about many statements over a period of time doesn’t make for an outrageous enough headline to have the desired clickbait effect.
A Canadian nurse is under investigation by a health regulator after complaints were made about an “I [heart] J.K. Rowling” billboard she paid for—a signage some argue supports the author’s views on transgender people.
Note the wording: even if the billboard had nothing to do with the complaint under investigation, the statement would still technically be true.
Let us know when the facts come out.
You’re certainly not defending yourself! Just neutrally giving information during a process which could end with you being punished
The potential punishment being losing the ability to work. Which apparently isn’t punitive.
But, no need to be worried. Nothing to see here!
As long as we can all agree that penises are a social construct and JK Rowling is Satan incarnate. So that we know society is prioritizing the important stuff. And pronouns.