• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

D.A.

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
425
Did you not read the rest of it which is the actual law? Because you wanted the actual law. That is what was amended to the Canadian Human Rights law so here's a link to that

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/

Here's some of what it considers discriminatory practices:



Give it a read

I'm trying to see the pertinent portions, but not sure where they are, the summaries are also quite vague which doesn't inspire confidence. Some Lawyers in favor and against Peterson do agree with Peterson that c 16 is problematic. Peterson said the university's legal team counseled them regards his stuff. Not sure but seem to recall him claiming even discussion of appropriateness of pronouns is also potentially illegal too.

Canada isn't that the place with Trudeau? The guy that corrected a woman who was using the word mankind? The guy that going to other places sometimes overdresses in distorted view of the regions customary clothing, like it's a costume party and he's gone overboard on party city? Quite an appalling guy.
 

SixPointEight

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,297
Some Lawyers in favor and against Peterson do agree with Peterson that c 16 is problematic.

Source? As far as I am aware of, a single one said it's problematic.

corrected a woman who was using the word mankind? The guy that going to other places sometimes overdresses in distorted view of the regions customary clothing, like it's a costume party and he's gone overboard on party city? Quite an appalling guy.

Yes. He makes embarrassing mistakes from time to time. I'm not sure if you're implying that this somehow discredits C16, because it doesn't.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
I'm trying to see the pertinent portions, but not sure where they are, the summaries are also quite vague which doesn't inspire confidence. Some Lawyers in favor and against Peterson do agree with Peterson that c 16 is problematic. Peterson said the university's legal team counseled them regards his stuff. Not sure but seem to recall him claiming even discussion of appropriateness of pronouns is also potentially illegal too.
As far as I know, there is only one lawyer who agrees with Peterson. There is an entire organization called the Canadian Bar Association which is full of lawyers and judges who think C-16 is fine. There seems to be what we call a consensus pertaining to C-16 and it isn't in Peterson's favor.

As for the bill, why are you reading summaries? I linked the full text of the Canadian Human Rights Act for you to peruse at your leisure and so you didn't have to rely on interpretations and summaries.
 

Saucepan Man

Member
Oct 27, 2017
122
.
Canada isn't that the place with Trudeau? The guy that corrected a woman who was using the word mankind? The guy that going to other places sometimes overdresses in distorted view of the regions customary clothing, like it's a costume party and he's gone overboard on party city? Quite an appalling guy.

There's legitimate things to ding Trudeau on other than petty nonsense peddled by right-wing media/memes. E.g. election reform and that one vacation he had that was an conflict of interest. Not stuff like the peoplekind joke Trudeau made after a long-winded and awkward question asked by a student to break the ice.
 

David Ricardo

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
254
We all need to start saying the truth, Peterson will be proud
Yes, in the video with Sam Harris he talks about a different truth. A Darwinian truth. I've seen about one hour of it and I stil don't get what Petersons point is. According to the comments, Sam Harris and him didn't come to agree in the duration of the video.
Basically, Sam Harris talk about scientific truth. That's the one I believe in. If something is scientifically true, then it's true. 2 + 2 = 4. If you create a virus that kill us all, then the virus works. Its scientifical basis is true.

But according to Peterson, he believes in a Darwinian truth. That is, what works for humanity is true. But if it kills us all, then it's not true. That's an evolutionary point of view. Like in evolution, the genetical variations that work survive, so they are true. But genetical variations that don't work die. So they aren't true.

Basically he is adding some sort of moral aspect to the concept of truth. In the sense that, if it helps humanity is true. But if it kills us all then it isn't true. Even if it is scientifically true.

Here I have to go with Harris. I believe if something is scientifically true, it's true. Like the hydrogen bomb. It doesn't matter whether it kills us all or not. To me the hydrogen bomb is still true. It exists whether it kills us or not.

I don't get why Peterson mixes the concepts of truth and some kind of moral, but in this case I disagree with him. It's my biggest disagreement with him. Climate change I can understand why he is wrong, he is looking at the wrong data. But this, I don't even understand what he is trying to say. It doesn't make sense.



Maybe I missed the details, the link doesn't go to the actual law but parliament website, but without defining what constitutes hate propaganda or offenses, the summary at least does not tell me what can or cannot be punished nor the extent of punishment.

We do know that internet posts or comments and distasteful joke videos are now subject to severe penalties in other countries.
You didn't miss anything. The text he posted explains nothing about pronouns. I think this is it:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-pre...-and-gender-expression/7-forms-discrimination
 

D.A.

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
425
Source? As far as I am aware of, a single one said it's problematic.

In this thread it was said that while good intentioned the lawyer arguing against Peterson in a video agreed with Peterson regards effects on pronouns of the law. Jared Brown, that seemed to consider the law problematic also argued against it. So that is two lawyers agreeing in some way with Peterson.


Also an answer on politic stackexchange had the following:
Q. Will "gender identity" and "gender expression" be defined in the Bill?

A. In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms "gender identity" and "gender expression" are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms "gender identity" and "gender expression" have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example. The Commission has provided helpful discussion and examples that can offer good practical guidance. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will provide similar guidance on the meaning of these terms in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
As stated above, the government will leave it up to courts, tribunals, and commissions, such as the specifically mentioned Ontario Human Rights Commission, to define how the law is enforced.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Ontario Human Rights Commission website specifically states that using the incorrect gender pronoun may be considered discrimination.

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Other relevant case law includes a case where the Vancouver Police were fined by the human rights tribunal for, among other things, misgendering a trans woman by using her legal (male) name and male pronouns instead of her preferred name and pronouns.
 

SixPointEight

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,297
One, or two vs the professional association of the bar didn't make a compelling argument before and it doesn't now.

Also am completely unwilling to revisit the « what's wrong with calling the people the way they want to be called » argument.

But the Vancouver police, who had to say this as an answer for being fined due to misgendering someone, summed it up quite well:

"One of those core values is respect, and we expect our officers to be respectful of each and every one of the hundreds of people they encounter on a daily basis."
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
One, or two vs the professional association of the bar didn't make a compelling argument before and it doesn't now.
In that video David posted, Peterson basically said to state your truth and let other people call you idiot, dumb, or whatever and after five years, you'll be articulate and unafraid to speak your truth. Nothing about changing your mind or learning. Just speak your truth continuously.

These two are doing just that.
 

David Ricardo

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
254
In that video David posted, Peterson basically said to state your truth and let other people call you idiot, dumb, or whatever and after five years, you'll be articulate and unafraid to speak your truth. Nothing about changing your mind or learning. Just speak your truth continuously.

These two are doing just that.
2:21-2:37
"If you are going to stand up for something, stand up for your truth. It'll shape you. Because people will respond, and object, and tell you why you are a fool and a biased moron, why you are ignorant. And then, if you listen to them, you'll be just that much less like that the next time you say something."



How is the bolded "nothing about changing your mind or learning"?
 

dusteatingbug

Member
Dec 1, 2017
1,393
In that video David posted, Peterson basically said to state your truth and let other people call you idiot, dumb, or whatever and after five years, you'll be articulate and unafraid to speak your truth. Nothing about changing your mind or learning. Just speak your truth continuously.

These two are doing just that.

The most postmodern thing about Peterson is how he basically repackaged Scientology into a weird resentful Canadian self-help movement where instead of thetans it's Maoist postmodernist SJWs and instead of a charismatic but insane sci fi author it's a balding douchebag from Alberta who wears suspenders and is beloved by young boys without dads
 

dusteatingbug

Member
Dec 1, 2017
1,393
2:21-2:37
"If you are going to stand up for something, stand up for your truth. It'll shape you. Because people will respond, and object, and tell you why you are a fool and a biased moron, why you are ignorant. And then, if you listen to them, you'll be just that much less like that the next time you say something."



How is the bolded "nothing about changing your mind or learning"?


For fuck's sake THE DUDE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT MARXISM AND POSTMODERNISM ARE AND HAS BEEN CORRECTED ABOUT THOSE IDEAS BY DOZENS OF PEOPLE

 

ry-dog

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,180
There's a reason why r/philosophy and r/AskHistorians hate Peterson and r/badphilosophy love him. He's using one interpretation of postmodernism, that ironically he fits into, that foolishly tries to connect marxism with postmodernism - it's written by Steven Hicks, who was a nobody before Peterson. He thinks postmodernism rejects an objective truth, but it doesn't, it just criticises it and recognises that what's considered true can be completely coloured by culture. Which even a 10 year old could look at and agree with, look at how we view homosexuality now than how we viewed it before.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
2:21-2:37
"If you are going to stand up for something, stand up for your truth. It'll shape you. Because people will respond, and object, and tell you why you are a fool and a biased moron, why you are ignorant. And then, if you listen to them, you'll be just that much less like that the next time you say something."



How is the bolded "nothing about changing your mind or learning"?

He says that after five years you'll be articulate which means he's more concerned with sounding right than being right.

He keeps talking about pronouns and post modernism, shitnhe is wrong about but he keeps saying the same thing. He's speaking HIS truth and perfecting his gishgalloping

The most postmodern thing about Peterson is how he basically repackaged Scientology into a weird resentful Canadian self-help movement where instead of thetans it's Maoist postmodernist SJWs and instead of a charismatic but insane sci fi author it's a balding douchebag from Alberta who wears suspenders and is beloved by young boys without dads
Who would be Lord Xenu?
 

kristoffer

Banned
Oct 23, 2017
2,048
There's a reason why r/philosophy and r/AskHistorians hate Peterson and r/badphilosophy love him. He's using one interpretation of postmodernism, that ironically he fits into, that foolishly tries to connect marxism with postmodernism - it's written by Steven Hicks, who was a nobody before Peterson. He thinks postmodernism rejects an objective truth, but it doesn't, it just criticises it and recognises that what's considered true can be completely coloured by culture. Which even a 10 year old could look at and agree with, look at how we view homosexuality now than how we viewed it before.
I think the point Derrida always tried to make was that you use a deconstruction of symbolism to uncover truth that was previously obscured, without having to reject either interpretation. I agree with some of Peterson's points about a kind of "postmodern way of thinking" that permeates some fields of academics but he's got the plot completely wrong wrt Derrida.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
Every once in a while in this thread, I expect someone to write a defense that is "CONNOTATION AND DENOTATION" like the Time Cube Redux thread on the old site that broke Mandrake.
 

David Ricardo

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
254
He says that after five years you'll be articulate which means he's more concerned with sounding right than being right.
The quote I bolded directly contradicts the accusation you threw at D.A. and me in your previous post. You can try to change subjects or emphasize other sentences, but you have been exposed.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
The quote I bolded directly contradicts the accusation you threw at D.A. and me in your previous post. You can try to change subjects or emphasize other sentences, but you have been exposed.
Oh no! I've been exposed! Like you haven't been exposed time and time and time and time again in this thread.

And that one part doesn't contradict what I said. Immediately after your quote he says you'll be tougher and more articulate and able to communicate. He doesn't say that you'll be wiser.
 

ry-dog

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,180
The quote I bolded directly contradicts the accusation you threw at D.A. and me in your previous post. You can try to change subjects or emphasize other sentences, but you have been exposed.

Saying your views will be different if you accept you're wrong isn't much of an endorsement for changing your mind or challenging your view point. It's just a fact.

If you no longer believe the things you believed before, you no longer believe the things you believe before.

Am I missing something? Because this sounds like a bunch of nothing
 

David Ricardo

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
254
Oh no! I've been exposed! Like you haven't been exposed time and time and time and time again in this thread.

And that one part doesn't contradict what I said. Immediately after your quote he says you'll be tougher and more articulate and able to communicate. He doesn't say that you'll be wiser.
He says you will be less of a fool, less ignorant and less of a biased moron. Isn't that like the definition of wiser? Dude, you got caught, just give up.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
Peterson responds to criticism by wondering why it is allowed to be published and threatening to slap the person offering it.

He doesn't listen like ever
Maybe he just doesn't listen to criticism because it is coming from women, and there's no point in trying to engage in a conversation with them because the threat of violence inherent in conversation is moot because society won't let him punch women? /s
 

raterpillar

Banned
Nov 12, 2017
1,393
There's legitimate things to ding Trudeau on other than petty nonsense peddled by right-wing media/memes. E.g. election reform and that one vacation he had that was an conflict of interest. Not stuff like the peoplekind joke Trudeau made after a long-winded and awkward question asked by a student to break the ice.
Just wanted to say that I have the toy in your avatar sitting on my shelf because it's such a fucked up mess and I love it.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
He says you will be less of a fool, less ignorant and less of a biased moron. Isn't that like the definition of wiser? Dude, you got caught, just give up.
First, he brings this up about having to pay a "price" which could be controversy or whatever. Speak your truth and people will object and say you're a moron and whatnot and if you listen to them, you'll be less like that. I'd agree with you if he didn't add the other stuff about being tougher and more articulate which colors that statement to be about sounding like a moron and ignorant because you didn't articulate yourself well. He's not talking about the content but how it is expressed.

Second, if you believe that is what he is talking about you haven't done much listening to us.

As always, PRECISE LANGUAGE
 

David Ricardo

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
254
First, he brings this up about having to pay a "price" which could be controversy or whatever. Speak your truth and people will object and say you're a moron and whatnot and if you listen to them, you'll be less like that. I'd agree with you if he didn't add the other stuff about being tougher and more articulate which colors that statement to be about sounding like a moron and ignorant because you didn't articulate yourself well. He's not talking about the content but how it is expressed.

Second, if you believe that is what he is talking about you haven't done much listening to us.

As always, PRECISE LANGUAGE
Wow man. You are unbelievable. You just keep moving goalposts to the infinity. It is impossible to have a honest discussion with you.
 

ry-dog

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,180
Wait hold up...
He says "stand up for your own Truth".
That's a view point he spends most of his book's last chapters railing against.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Wow man. You are unbelievable. You just keep moving goalposts to the infinity. It is impossible to have a honest discussion with you.
EDIT: I'm just gonna drop it
2nd EDIT: I'm not going to drop it after some words of encouragement.

How did I move goalposts? I've been saying that he isn't talking about content. He is talking about how it is expressed. The video is him saying that there is risk in speaking out. People are going to pushback and say stuff, but if you communicate it well (or gishgallop like he does constantly) then it'll be harder for people to call you those things.

Like I said, if he stopped at "if you listen to them, you'll be less like that" I'd agree with you, but given the context of that statement, meaning what comes before and what comes after, he is not talking about the content. He is not talking about what you saying being stupid, it is how you present it that makes you look stupid. Look at what he says: people will object, call you a biased moron, call you ignorant, you're a fool. It's not what you say that is ignorant or biased or foolish, it is you. But if you learn from that and become tougher and a better communicator, you won't sound like a biased moron or ignorant or a fool according to Peterson. This is called reading between the lines, or subtext. Context clues and shit.

Wait hold up...
He says "stand up for your own Truth".
That's a view point he spends most of his book's last chapters railing against.
Yup. Peterson's post-modernism.
 
Last edited:

raterpillar

Banned
Nov 12, 2017
1,393
Yes. He has a video where he says something along the lines of "if something isn't true, but acting like it was true gives the expected results, then it's true." I was tired when I watched it and didn't understand why he said it. I think it has something to do with the bible, but I still don't know what his reasoning was exactly.

I know that you will use this to attack him, but it was him who said to say the truth and whatever happens is because it had to happen. So there it is.

There is a 2 hour video of him and sam harris titled: "what is truth? Darwinism and pragmatism." It must be there. I'll watch it and probably tomorrow tell you what I find.
It's cartoonishly stupid and, hilariously, a great example of the worst excesses of postmodernism. He genuinely believes that truth is what improves our chances of survival and reproduction. Not, to be very clear, that knowing the truth is more *likely* to improve our chances of survival and reproduction - but whatever increases our chances of survival and reproduction. This is, quite obviously in direct contradiction to his little speech in your favourite video up there. Jordan Peterson contradicts himself a lot because Jordan Peterson is a charlatan and a dingbat and doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about, ever.
 

D.A.

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
425
One, or two vs the professional association of the bar didn't make a compelling argument before and it doesn't now.

Also am completely unwilling to revisit the « what's wrong with calling the people the way they want to be called » argument.

But the Vancouver police, who had to say this as an answer for being fined due to misgendering someone, summed it up quite well:

What I was reading there did not only include complaints about misuse of pronouns but complaints about the use of the legal name. I don't know the details, but if legal name changed I would presume they would refer by new legal name. If legal name has not changed, use of existing legal name by itself cannot be illegal.

There's a reason why r/philosophy and r/AskHistorians hate Peterson and r/badphilosophy love him. He's using one interpretation of postmodernism, that ironically he fits into, that foolishly tries to connect marxism with postmodernism - it's written by Steven Hicks, who was a nobody before Peterson. He thinks postmodernism rejects an objective truth, but it doesn't, it just criticises it and recognises that what's considered true can be completely coloured by culture. Which even a 10 year old could look at and agree with, look at how we view homosexuality now than how we viewed it before.

Coloured in the mind, a distortion. But truth is independent of the obsever or his culture.
 

oneils

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,126
Ottawa Canada
Yes, in the video with Sam Harris he talks about a different truth. A Darwinian truth. I've seen about one hour of it and I stil don't get what Petersons point is. According to the comments, Sam Harris and him didn't come to agree in the duration of the video.
Basically, Sam Harris talk about scientific truth. That's the one I believe in. If something is scientifically true, then it's true. 2 + 2 = 4. If you create a virus that kill us all, then the virus works. Its scientifical basis is true.

But according to Peterson, he believes in a Darwinian truth. That is, what works for humanity is true. But if it kills us all, then it's not true. That's an evolutionary point of view. Like in evolution, the genetical variations that work survive, so they are true. But genetical variations that don't work die. So they aren't true.

Basically he is adding some sort of moral aspect to the concept of truth. In the sense that, if it helps humanity is true. But if it kills us all then it isn't true. Even if it is scientifically true.

Here I have to go with Harris. I believe if something is scientifically true, it's true. Like the hydrogen bomb. It doesn't matter whether it kills us all or not. To me the hydrogen bomb is still true. It exists whether it kills us or not.

I don't get why Peterson mixes the concepts of truth and some kind of moral, but in this case I disagree with him. It's my biggest disagreement with him. Climate change I can understand why he is wrong, he is looking at the wrong data. But this, I don't even understand what he is trying to say. It doesn't make sense.




You didn't miss anything. The text he posted explains nothing about pronouns. I think this is it:
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-pre...-and-gender-expression/7-forms-discrimination

how very post modern of peterson (using his definition)
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Wow man. You are unbelievable. You just keep moving goalposts to the infinity. It is impossible to have a honest discussion with you.
EDIT: I'm just gonna drop it
2nd EDIT: I'm not going to drop it after some words of encouragement.

How did I move goalposts? I've been saying that he isn't talking about content. He is talking about how it is expressed. The video is him saying that there is risk in speaking out. People are going to pushback and say stuff, but if you communicate it well (or gishgallop like he does constantly) then it'll be harder for people to call you those things.

Like I said, if he stopped at "if you listen to them, you'll be less like that" I'd agree with you, but given the context of that statement, meaning what comes before and what comes after, he is not talking about the content. He is not talking about what you saying being stupid, it is how you present it that makes you look stupid. Look at what he says: people will object, call you a biased moron, call you ignorant, you're a fool. It's not what you say that is ignorant or biased or foolish, it is you. But if you learn from that and become tougher and a better communicator, you won't sound like a biased moron or ignorant or a fool according to Peterson. This is called reading between the lines, or subtext. Context clues and shit.

To add on to this: his statement is content neutral because you don't know for sure if you are being an ignorant, biased, foolish moron just by going from your opponents. I'm sure many of us have been called that even though we were right. A lot of times, we cannot convey our points well enough. Again, all of this is couched in his point of taking a risk to speak your truth. He wants you to toughen up in order to speak out. He then goes on to say that professors are protected for their speech and how there is always risk with speech.

The whole point of his little diatribe and what he values is a tough person who can communicate well and can handle themselves under pressure. That is his conclusion. His endpoint of that piece of advice. His theme. His goal. Those are his values and being right is not one of them.
 

ry-dog

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,180
What I was reading there did not only include complaints about misuse of pronouns but complaints about the use of the legal name. I don't know the details, but if legal name changed I would presume they would refer by new legal name. If legal name has not changed, use of existing legal name by itself cannot be illegal.



Coloured in the mind, a distortion. But truth is independent of the obsever or his culture.

Well yeah, but it's not saying there isn't an objective truth, it's critiquing what people consider to be objective
 

Saucepan Man

Member
Oct 27, 2017
122
Just wanted to say that I have the toy in your avatar sitting on my shelf because it's such a fucked up mess and I love it.
32722.jpg

;]
 

David Ricardo

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
254
EDIT: I'm just gonna drop it
2nd EDIT: I'm not going to drop it after some words of encouragement.

How did I move goalposts? I've been saying that he isn't talking about content. He is talking about how it is expressed. The video is him saying that there is risk in speaking out. People are going to pushback and say stuff, but if you communicate it well (or gishgallop like he does constantly) then it'll be harder for people to call you those things.

Like I said, if he stopped at "if you listen to them, you'll be less like that" I'd agree with you, but given the context of that statement, meaning what comes before and what comes after, he is not talking about the content. He is not talking about what you saying being stupid, it is how you present it that makes you look stupid. Look at what he says: people will object, call you a biased moron, call you ignorant, you're a fool. It's not what you say that is ignorant or biased or foolish, it is you. But if you learn from that and become tougher and a better communicator, you won't sound like a biased moron or ignorant or a fool according to Peterson. This is called reading between the lines, or subtext. Context clues and shit.

First goalpost:

You said in Petersons video there was "Nothing about changing your mind and learning".
https://www.resetera.com/posts/6603325/

I quoted Peterson saying that listening to those who respond and object you will make you less of a fool, less ignorant and less of a biased moron the next time you speak.
https://www.resetera.com/posts/6603893/


Second goalpost:

You say Peterson "doesn't say that you'll be wiser."
https://www.resetera.com/posts/6604684/

I point to you that saying "you will be less of a fool, less ignorant and less of a biased moron" is basically the definition of wiser.
https://www.resetera.com/posts/6604905/


Third goalpost (the one quoted above):

You don't deny any more that the sentence I quoted implies what I said, even saying you'd agree with me if those were the only sentences, but you say that "given the context of that statement... ...he's not talking about the content." Like he is saying you would learn to be a better communicator but the content would be the same.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/jo...lectual-we-deserve.30669/page-52#post-6605342

For you point to be true, Peterson would have to be saying that an ignorant and biased moron would think the same as an unbiased knowledgeable person. Is that what you are saying? That's indefendible.

Edit: I see that you tried to add something more to your final point because it sounded weak even to you. But you almost made it worse. If Peterson thought that listening to your oponents doesn't tell you if you are being biased or ignorant, why would he argue that listening to them makes you less biased and ignorant? If they were just wrong, you would say the same shit over and over, and still be as biased and ignorant as always. It doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:

dusteatingbug

Member
Dec 1, 2017
1,393
I quoted Peterson saying that listening to those who respond and object you will make you less of a fool, less ignorant and less of a biased moron the next time you speak.
https://www.resetera.com/posts/6603893/

jordan peterson has been the subject of several well researched takedowns from several different angles and all he ever does is have a twitter meltdown and threaten to slap people or challenge quote accounts to debates
 

thesoapster

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,913
MD, USA
(paraphrased) "Present your arguments, listen to all the critics, and you'll be more informed of their opinions and biases, as well as more aware of your own."

Have we forgotten that Jordan Peterson doesn't necessarily misinterpret or make shit up, but sometimes just repeats fairly common sense sentiments? Why is telling people to engage with each other and listen to each other so deserving of elevated status?

edit: That clip above is quite good lol.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
This should just be the Jordan Peterson OT at this point lol
Might as well be. Just put OT in the title

And David we're both talking to brick walls and it's going nowhere. However I will say that I didn't move goalposts. I was using wise, learning, and changing your mind interchangeably. Given the context, I thought that was obvious, but I should have communicated that better. Maybe in five years I'll be a force to reckon with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.