-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
I don't like JP, I even think he is dangerous and worry about his influence on young males but this type of characterization and twisting of facts doesn't help. I've seen the videos and it's clear that the part he disagrees with is the compelled speech. That's a valid concern - just because a law is a human rights law doesn't mean it's well designed or won't have undesirable side effects. To be fair, from what I've heard he was wrong about compelled speech/had misunderstood the law, so ultimately he made a fool out of himself but that's beside the point.
Sam Harris is definitely not right-wing. Btw what is up with the hate for him here on Resetera? He has his flaws for sure (like the anti SWJ stuff, and his position on the middle east)but I still think it's a good podcast overall and I would not say that SH and JP are very much alike at all.
Last edited:
Honestly the OP's article wasted a lot of words when all it needed to do was quote a passage and share those charts. Makes it clear that it's bullshit.
The guys throwing in as many big words as they can are never the people who actually are all that smart.
The guys throwing in as many big words as they can are never the people who actually are all that smart.
What?
He literally testified in front of the Canadian Senate to ask them not to pass C-16.
He literally testified that human rights protections for trans people wouldn't help us... because 30 trans people support him.
https://joeclark.org/peterson/transcript_20160517.html#PetersonP1
I'm not so sure people, even on the opposite side of Peterson, would have misinterpreted the bill to that degree if it hadn't been for people like him spreading misinformation. A lot of people are going to be looking through that lens he muddied up.
The Lindsay Sheppard situation had nothing to do with C-16 as a law. That was a simple case of faculty over-reach. Stop spreading misinformation.
He literally testified that trans people being protected against discrimination like POC or women or LGB people wouldn't bbenefit us
Lindsay did not ger fined, arrested... because that's not what the bill does.
But she did get famous and powerful enough to be able to invite a literal neo nazi to speak at her school sooo.
Bill C-16 added 18 words to Canadian laws, 16 of them being the phrases "gender identity or expression" four times over, and the remaining two being "or" and "on".
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/first-reading
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/first-reading
I've devoted enough head-space to his antics, thanks. The later is recognizing people I have butted heads with in the past.
It also extends into other court issues Canada is dealing with, and how bizarre/problematic 'Human Rights Commissions' are.
The only reprehensible thing about Frozen was how often I still hear its soundtrack.
Wait what
I mean isn't this guy supposed to be all about that free speech thingamajig? Or is that just to be transphobic, and doesn't apply to uh, writing feel-good Disney sisterhood movies or something?
This guy is a moron and a nutcase. How the hell can anyone take him seriously is beyond me.
"Just asking questions lol"
And then characterize anything related to race or sexuality as politically driven, because one party views you as inhumane and undeserving of equal rights.
Bonus points for coming up with a label you can scare the other side with, and rally people around. Identity politics and neo Marxist postmodernism anyone?
So the C-16 rule isn't saying you must call someone under a certain pronoun or face prosecution? That's the kind of thing I've heard but I've not really followed the rule or Jordan Peterson story much.
From the bits I've seen of him he shoehorns religion in to a lot of things.
From the bits I've seen of him he shoehorns religion in to a lot of things.
Yeah so he testified against a bill. Not Human Rights.
Now, I think a case could be made on the basis of the dignity clause of Article 1, pertaining specifically to the usage of he/she as pronouns when the state refers to a person, as they so choose. That makes obvious sense. For the new pronouns... it's a lot murkier. The Charter was drawn up in the 50s. I am unconvinced that someone who insists on being referred to as "Xhe" or whatever is having their Human Rights violated when someone doesn't use a new word like that. Goes against Article 18, which is freedom of opinion and expression.
Don't get me wrong, guy is a national embarrassment at this point, and I am playing the lawyer here, but you used "literally" a lot upthread and that's not actually the case, near as I can see.
And lying through his teeth. There was an eye witness who caught Sandusky in the act.
I think Rationality Rules has done a good job dissecting some of Peterson's remarks, especially as he's championed as an intellectual fortress amongst his cultish fans.
You can see he pulls the mysticism as truth card as his central position, which of course outs his philosophical axiom as corroded. His nonsense about metaphorical truth is Deepak Chopra dogshit.
His testimony included him actually claiming trans people having the same protection from discrimination in employment, housing, etc... wouldn't be beneficial
Cause hey that's what C-16 does puts T folk on par with LGB, Men, Women and POCs
But notice he didn't lie. Just asked if it could be true. That appears to be the MO. Do heinous shit and signal boost heinous shit while allowing an easy way out for yourself.
Has this guy commented on gamer gate? He seems to be popular among that group.
Sam Harris rebukes a lot of his horseshit. I think they are going to debate soon.
The courts are pretty clear that misusing a pronoun doesn't count as discrimination. Speech alone isn't enough to incriminate someone.
https://www.cba.org/News-Media/News/2017/May/CBA-position-on-Bill-C-16
Wouldn't it being a bill to amend the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code make it count as a human rights issue
Yeah, I support C-16, I disagree with Peterson. I think the bill has some flaws in the way it was written but its obviously coming from a good place. Anyways it passed, he lost, and I know you've got more stamina than I for the details of this argument so I will head to the bar and wish you a good night.
If I recall correctly, his first podcast with Peterson as a guest was a total disaster, cause he couldn't pin the guy down on some very basic terminology, like what "knowledge" was or "existence" or some insane thing like that. I wouldn't put Harris in the same category either because i think Harris is actually trying to understand, whereas Peterson is basically Mansplaining Personified.Yerffej said:
jesus christ
the rabbit hole for gassed-up contrarians leads to some randomly dark places
Over-reach because they misinterpreted the bill. She's a free speech absolutist, and not the only one. BC and Alberta both have professors that are absolutists.
No, but the people that harassed her, and threatened her career did so by misinterpreting the bill. She took her 5 minutes of fame and is obviously trying to stretch it. Faith Goldy is a piece of shit, but Canada has hate speech laws to prevent her from going full Furher.
On a side note, I had to google her invitation and it actually lead right to your post here, which is kinda cool.
No. Her situation had nothing to do with Bill C-16. She didn't misgender or mislabel anyone. She played an interview with Peterson talking about C-16 during a lectire which some other faculty members had issues with because she didn't give context.
Literally, that situation had nothing legally to do with C-16.
Isn't this the asshat that was on Pod Save America during one of their "Ok, Stop" segments being interviewed by Tucker Carlson, that said if your child's school includes information about issues like systemic racism, racial equality, and other minority issues you should take them out of that school?
You've been educated quite a few times, you use words and terminology that shouldn't be used, and you hide behind your ignorance to argue disingenuously.
I'd say you are barely containing your desire to troll this community, quite frankly, I don't think you will change your conservative ways because all of the things that people have tried to educate you here on in discourse, you've basically considered anathema and antithetical to your views.
Peterson is a monster, the humanity of minorities and trans, gay, or bi people is not up for debate and I'm appalled that the mod team continues to let people like you stay here.
Aside from the fact that the segment used was Peterson's nonsensical reason for opposing Bill C-16?
Also, not to single you out since i've seen a fair number of people doing this, but it's probably not a good idea to defend Shepherd in light of her showing her hand, so to speak i.e. giving a literal Nazi and former Rebel contributor a platform:
EDIT: I thought we weren't supposed to have more JP threads given the rabbit hole that the last major one became.
Because they were idiots...
Like you're blaming the bill for idiots who just repeated what Peterson was wrong about.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not defending Sheppard. I'm only pointing out that her situation was not Bill C-16 gone awry like the other poster was arguing. I actually do side with the faculty in that she should have given context beforehand.
This guy sucks...
This guy's game is apparently to say something non-committed and agreeable up front, and then just go down the rabbit hole with his crazy beliefs so people don't realize he's a right wing loony.
I'm not blaming the bill for anything. I'm saying Petersons justification(however stupid) for opposing the addition actually came true. Which is why he got so popular. There are a million other things you should criticize him on(sexism, blatant theism, Islamophobia, cult of personality), but his opposition to Bill C-16 shouldn't be a cornerstone of "Peterson = alt-right" because it is a weak-ass cornerstone.
Same, but as the article says... he's not really saying anything new. The motivational stuff is good... But it's the same motivational stuff everyone has said
Except it didn't.
I didn't come true.... because the Bill never actually was used against her by people with the power to enforce the bill.... And he was already popular before Lindsay Shephard.... hence why she used him in her grammar class.
And I was using his testimony as an example of him taking a stand against my human rights.
- Status