-
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.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure he only agreed for editing purposes, that's how cable TV is. They need something worthwhile they can show the audience. Because we've all seen Peterson be ignorant before, lol. I dig that airhorn bit too.
EDIT: full segment below
The whole clip is even better.
In seconds, a comedian dismantled his pro-discrimination argument and he realised the error of his ways. This is why I liked The Daily Show and their correspondent interviews.
I just enjoyed it for the entertainment value of Peterson coming out against the civil rights movement without realizing it.
Is Jim Jefferies no longer a sexist islamophobe? I seem to remember him saying some pretty blatant shit in one of his stand up routines.
That's really not free speech. Besides, Peterson isn't a lawyer. He absolutely deserved to get effed in that scene.
If they are talking about the cake thing...then it very simply comes down to this analysis:
Would the baker refuse to make that cake for anyone? Then fine.
Would the baker refuse to make that cake because of who asked for it? Then not fine.
I think he realized it. He knows what he's selling.
He just quickly realized that being against the civil rights movement is worse than walking back his stance.
Yeah, what's even more amusing are some of the comments talking about triggered SJWs/liberals or whatever, while being seemingly incited by the fact that Peterson is criticized. What's even more amusing is that some will say that all they want a more balanced video, but then only go on to praise the end bit with the airhorn where the campus protester is the butt of the joke. The Jeffries video doesn't excoriate Peterson as much as it could, but it's still not good enough for some people who just want "a more balanced video."
I just hope YouTube analytics don't start recommending a bunch of Peterson-related material to me again. Even watching videos critical of Peterson tends to yield "Peterson shuts down liberal in 10 seconds flat"-esque videos as recommendations.
There is now a kind of institutionalized disliking of content that doesn't fit with the right wing narrative. Take Joe Rogan for example. Lot of people respect this guy. Any clip or video where he pushes back on a right wing individual on a subject that is pretty much resolved among the logically minded (Candace Owens - climate change, Steven Crowder - marijuana) gets a much larger than normal amount of dislikes. Basically, this modern conservative youth movement that centers around some idiotic conception regarding manhood, religion, culture, history, etc has become a hivemind that is easily induced into supporting arbitrary opinion or action x merely because x is perceived as conservative. It's incredibly mindless and idiotic, but they are too stupid to see it for what it really is.
So a baker is allowed to refuse to make a cake celebrating gay marriage if a straight person orders it?
Yes. I think in the Supreme Court case, however, the cake wasn't expressing any message itself. It was simply a regular wedding cake for a gay couple.
Iirc, the argument was the baker didn't refuse on the grounds that the customers were gay, but that by selling them a cake for a wedding he would be endorsing gay marriage, and to force him to do so would be a violation of his first amendment rights.
Last edited:
I see. So for all the uproar about "compelled speech" the issue is about nothing more than non-discrimination of service based on class/identity, also known as the bare minimum of human decency. It'd be interesting to see a case where say, a straight couple ordered a cake for their son's wedding saying something like "Congratulations Adam and Steve". Refusal to do so would be based on class/identity, just not the class/identity of the customer. If that was allowed, it'd show just how weak those laws are in comparison to some hate-speech/anti-discrimination laws globally.
Yes. I don't know what makes a cake "gay" (from an artistic standpoint, but for the sake of argument, lets say there are "gay" cakes), but if a straight person orders it, the state should NOT be allowed to force this person to bake the "gay" cake.
The "artistry" of the cake is what makes this different. If the dude was making red velvet cupcakes all the same for everyone, and then refused to to sell the red velvet cupcake to the gay couple, then that is bullshit, and should not be allowed to deny service. If these were personalized wedding cupcakes that could somehow be "gay" and the baker would never make these for anyone ever under any circumstance, then the government should NOT Force him to do so.
I don't want a government being able to do that. That is a dangerous road.
Whelp, if that's all it is. Then you can ask the baker to bake the cake (which Im sure is in one of his catalogs or something), he cant' deny service on those grounds as he would make that cake for anyone.
Then, when you get it, stick the grooms on the top like in the picture above, and be done.
I thhink i have seen the imaginarium like 10 times its so weird XD i would make a gif of pervy white peterson if i knew how
this is a Gay cake
LOL. Well, i guess it comes down to whether that baker would never bake that cake under any circumstance or just not back that cake for the gay couple.I thhink i have seen the imaginarium like 10 times its so weird XD i would make a gif of pervy white peterson if i knew how
this is a Gay cake
Thats the only question that matters on this.
I think it just comes back to a discussion about what should be considered offensive to the peoples in question. If someone had requested, say, that a Christian baker make a cake with the message "F*ck Jesus", I think most of us would consider it fair for that baker to refuse. But I simply cannot see any harm in a cake celebrating a gay wedding or LGBT+ pride. That on its own is not hate, simple as that.
I think that's been talked about before, but that's a good summary with direct quotations from the court of appeals opinion.
I like that the court really didn't want to waste time on the rambling of the madman.
His fanboys only reading the headline and proclaiming this as evidence for the courts having "leftist bias" against free speech in 3, 2...
The first reply to that tweet is a literal "the court took him out of context" remark.
Like fuckin' clockwork.
I looked at the guy's twitter account.
He seems to be mocking Peterson's fans.
A reactionary that has a worldview that is less ideologically consistent than a swiss cheese on fire is not being "shat on", he's just being discussed, and when one is as illogical, clueless and incelbaiting as Peterson is, most of the discussion will just be critical.
A discussion on Torquemada wouldn't be more positive, and that's not because anyone was being mean.
If Jordan Peterson's messages keep coming across so badly this consistently, should his fans not at LEAST admit that he's a bad speaker and can't communicate his messages well?
This is what always gets me about people with toxic awful fanbases and terrible messages who claim that no, they didn't actually mean that. If that's really the case, can you at least take responsibility for and call out the shitty people using you and your teachings as an excuse to be shitty people? Can you at least admit that maybe you were not brilliant at getting your message across? If everyone is taking your messages wrong; even if that is somehow their fault; do you not think maybe it's about time you change your tactics and switch up how you say things?
This is what always gets me about people with toxic awful fanbases and terrible messages who claim that no, they didn't actually mean that. If that's really the case, can you at least take responsibility for and call out the shitty people using you and your teachings as an excuse to be shitty people? Can you at least admit that maybe you were not brilliant at getting your message across? If everyone is taking your messages wrong; even if that is somehow their fault; do you not think maybe it's about time you change your tactics and switch up how you say things?
Based on the tweet immediately above your post, I get the feelings that his supporters will blame the listener for being too stupid to get what he's saying instead of blaming Peterson for not saying it well.
The problem is that they will either blame the person interviewing these dark Web lot as being too stupid to understand or they will blame the medium such as twitter for causing them to lose the nuance they apparently possess.
- Status