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 Imaginarium of Dr. Jordan Peterson
Vic Berger Presents: Welcome to the demented world of insane professor Dr. Jordan Peterson.
https://youtu.be/6T47opnLyFw
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.
Wow... 10k likes/10k dislikes.
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.
So a baker is allowed to refuse to make a cake celebrating gay marriage if a straight person orders it?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.
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.So a baker is allowed to refuse to make a cake celebrating gay marriage if a straight person orders it?
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 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.
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.So a baker is allowed to refuse to make a cake celebrating gay marriage if a straight person orders it?
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)
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.
this is a Gay cakeYes. 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.
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
In the end, the court restricted Peterson's proposed evidence "significantly," even recommending he use "scripting" to prevent him from rambling to the jury on topics "not pertinent to the matter before the court."
The court finds that people are not lobsters.I like that the court really didn't want to waste time on the rambling of the madman.
Even the lawyers of the defendant agreed.
The defence did not call Peterson as an expert witness at the second trial.
His fanboys only reading the headline and proclaiming this as evidence for the courts having "leftist bias" against free speech in 3, 2...
This is America.
The first reply to that tweet is a literal "the court took him out of context" remark.
Like fuckin' clockwork.
Well at least you're not just asking questions.It seems like the purpose of this thread is to shit on this guy at every turn
It seems like the purpose of this thread is to shit on this guy at every turn
It seems like the purpose of this thread is to shit on this guy at every turn
It seems like the purpose of this thread is to shit on this guy at every turn
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.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?
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.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?
It seems like the purpose of this thread is to shit on this guy at every turn
It seems like the purpose of this thread is to shit on this guy at every turn