Jordan Peterson interview on C4

JRant

20Cent wrote: »

No government policy to put anyone in jail for misgendering someone.

Au contraire

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/bruce-pardy-meet-the-new-human-rights-where-you-are-forced-by-law-to-use-reasonable-pronouns-like-ze-and-zer

It would appear that you are in direct contradiction to the very people who proposed this legislation in the first place. One of you is wrong and I know where I'd be putting my money.

20Cent

JRant wrote: »

Au contraire

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/bruce-pardy-meet-the-new-human-rights-where-you-are-forced-by-law-to-use-reasonable-pronouns-like-ze-and-zer

It would appear that you are in direct contradiction to the very people who proposed this legislation in the first place. One of you is wrong and I know where I'd be putting my money.

I'd believe the Canadian Bar Association who call petersons interpretation a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation.


www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

Franz Von Peppercorn

20Cent wrote: »

Petersons own words.
https://youtu.be/WQ-M5MgqVOo

So he says that if brought before some Canadian equality court over the transgender issues he will refuse to pay whatever fine, and that will involve a prison sentence.

What’s your point about that again?

Franz Von Peppercorn

20Cent wrote: »

I'd believe the Canadian Bar Association who call petersons interpretation a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation.


www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

Busted link.

Anyway refusing to pay a fine does lead to incarceration in most jurisdictions.

20Cent

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Busted link.

Anyway refusing to pay a fine does lead to incarceration in most jurisdictions.

To be charged under c16 the court would have to rule that calling someone the wrong pronoun met the threshold of hate speech which is advocation genocide against a group. It would have to be something much more extreme than refusing to call someone ze or whatever.

20Cent

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

So he says that if brought before some Canadian equality court over the transgender issues he will refuse to pay whatever fine, and that will involve a prison sentence.

What’s your point about that again?

Whats a canadian equality court?
You mean a court I presume.
He would have to be in contravention of human rights and hate speech laws. Very extreme speech like calling for genocide. Despite his hysteria not using pronouns that the person prefers to be referred to doesn't meet this threshold.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

Whats a canadian equality court?
You mean a court I presume.
He would have to be in contravention of human rights and hate speech laws. Very extreme speech like calling for genocide. Despite his hysteria not using pronouns that the person prefers to be referred to doesn't meet this threshold.

Why do you persist in debating this stuff?

Anyway, you have yet to answer my old question about your wilful lies.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106886751&postcount=1847

markodaly

A good debate held a few nights ago on the topic of Political Correctness. Jordan Peterson and Stephan Fry make a formidable team, who the other side unable to counter the arguments intellectually resort to make it personal, especially about Peterson. Michael Dyson in particular lets himself down with a racial slur.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s twice I’ve seen the word ‘hate’ thrown around flippantly. First in relation to how it’s fine to hate men in America, and here where everyone supposedly hates Peterson.

The desire to be the victim of hatred is interesting in and of itself. It’s very much part of the message Peterson and trump are selling. There’s clearly a market for it.

Yet it’s not hard to demonstrate that the same approach has been used by a large number of trumps critics for a long time. All they’ve really done in that respect is realize that what’s good for the goose and all that.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Yet it’s not hard to demonstrate that the same approach has been used by a large number of trumps critics for a long time. All they’ve really done in that respect is realize that what’s good for the goose and all that.

Maybe so. Peterson and trump aren’t shy about profiting from people who want to believe they’re hated and oppressed.

take everything

https://youtu.be/djZNpTR5iL8

Here's the evil prick.

Being all funny and reasonable.

This guy is clearly a danger to society with such rationality.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe so. Peterson and trump aren’t shy about profiting from people who want to believe they’re hated and oppressed.

Well, given they’ve seen so many groups do that for the last three or four decades why should they be. We’ve been offering this stuff as a liberal arts career option for some time now so why is it a problem if someone else makes hay in the same manner?

Not saying that’s their motivation btw. One of your two names is already very rich and the other seems to have taken a lot of flak he could have avoided for something that is far less lucrative that supporting the more influentials social movements. But hell if that is their reason they’re following well established precedent

johnp001

tritium wrote: »

Yet it’s not hard to demonstrate that the same approach has been used by a large number of trumps critics for a long time. All they’ve really done in that respect is realize that what’s good for the goose and all that.

Just finished listening to a very interesting podcast that came out this week on broadly this subject.
Ep. 1159 Did "Racists" and “White Supremacists” Get Trump Elected?

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well it’s a separate issue so I assumed the other posters position on toxic masculinity for the sake of discussion.

I had this before. I asked posters for examples of toxic masculinity and some examples I agreed were unfair. Some examples I thought were actually quite accurate. Some old school elements of masculinity like stoicism leads to men being less likely to seek medical help for example. So that’s an unhelpful aspect of old school masculinity. Toxic isn’t my word so I wouldn’t use it. But once I said that, posters went baloobas and some said they never heard stoicism was ever considered an element of masculinity. The sane people completely fail to define masculinity and they certainly didn't agree on large parts of masculinity.

So for that reason this time I didn’t comment on the toxic masculinity. I said I’m fine with opposing bigotry which is all that’s necessary for the discussion on societal improvement vs self improvement.

But it’s not separate really. It’s easy to say for example that I’m against bigotry once you have the Jesuitical flexibility as to what that means. Against bigotry but don’t consider racism to actually be bigotry- see any utility in that?

Equally it’s easy to introduce little nuances- ooh I’m against Islamaphobia. Have to profile them though, blame those terrorists. Black people, so oppressed. All that crime they do though...

All that’s very easy to internalize and leave someone feeling like a fine upstanding citizen while engaging in bigotry. So, I ask you again do you consider the activities I previously mentioned to be bigotry

markodaly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe so. Peterson and trump aren’t shy about profiting from people who want to believe they’re hated and oppressed.

The Democrats have been doing this for 40 years in fairness as well.

johnp001

tritium wrote: »

Well, given they’ve seen so many groups do that for the last three or four decades why should they be. We’ve been offering this stuff as a liberal arts career option for some time now so why is it a problem if someone else makes hay in the same manner?

Not saying that’s their motivation btw. One of your two names is already very rich and the other seems to have taken a lot of flak he could have avoided for something that is far less lucrative that supporting the more influentials social movements. But hell if that is their reason they’re following well established precedent

To get rich by providing something to people that they value enough to voluntarily pay for is by definition contributing positively to society. Where doing so necessitates risk-taking and the possibility of jeopardising their existing wealth and livelihood it is also very admirable.

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Why do you persist in debating this stuff?

Anyway, you have yet to answer my old question about your wilful lies.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106886751&postcount=1847

Ignore point made.
Call person a liar.
Sounds like a peterson debate technique.

Also:

20Cent

johnp001 wrote: »

Just finished listening to a very interesting podcast that came out this week on broadly this subject.
Ep. 1159 Did "Racists" and “White Supremacists” Get Trump Elected?

Answering the questions no one asked.
This is similar to peteron's arguments.
The point has been made which I would say is indisputable that trumps win has emboldened the far right racist elements in the US. On his inauguration day Richard Spencer was saying hail trump and doing nazi salutes in Washington DC.
Instead of discussing this it is reframed as a claim that white supremacists got trump elected and arguments made against that. This is not the point being made, it was a factor but not a defining one.
When i went to that page a pop up invited me to listen to another episode called "the intellectual arguments as to why gun control people have a low IQ". This is the kind of nonsense peterson is encouraging, fake "intellectuals". I call them what stupid people think smart people sound like. It is notable that all these fake intellectuals who are clearly grifters target right wing people.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

Ignore point made.
Call person a liar.
Sounds like a peterson debate technique.

What was your 'point' again? That Google and Facebook 'worked hard' to get Trump elected? :P

20Cent

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Busted link.

Anyway refusing to pay a fine does lead to incarceration in most jurisdictions.

link is to .pdf.
Works for me in chrome.
Maybe it downloads for you.
Anyway the Canadian Bar Association say peterson is misinterpreting the legislation. He would not get into any trouble a fine or anything else for using pronouns.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

clearly grifters target right wig people.

People like this?



:p:p

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

What was your 'point' again? That Google and Facebook 'worked hard' to get Trump elected? :P

And I posted a video of the head of trumps social media strategy saying just that.
You seem to want to discuss weather the people embedded in the trump campaign worked hard or not.

The big social media companies had employees embedded with the trump campaign and worked to get him elected this is a fact and facts don't care about your feelings.

tritium

johnp001 wrote: »

To get rich by providing something to people that they value enough to voluntarily pay for is by definition contributing positively to society. Where doing so necessitates risk-taking and the possibility of jeopardising their existing wealth and livelihood it is also very admirable.

Well, only partially true. For example drug dealing to crack addicts would fall under this but is far from positive. It’s also the wider issue I have with victim culture since it’s about dating a craving. Interestingly similar neurological responses come into play between addressing an addiction and affirmation issues

Its all alt right

20Cent wrote: »

This is the kind of nonsense peterson is encouraging, fake "intellectuals". I call them what stupid people think smart people sound like. It is notable that all these fake intellectuals who are clearly grifters target right wig people.

Feck the right wing and the older generation even...he is encouraging young people who have been bullied into silence by leftists for too many years now to take a stand. The tide has turned. He is equiping these people with the power of logical thinking and reasoning in these matters which trumps (triggered) the emotive and feel good guff which to date has swung way too far in the wrong direction.

20Cent

Its all alt right wrote: »

Feck the right wing and the older generation even...he is encouraging young people who have been bullied into silence by leftists for too many years now to take a stand. The tide has turned. He is equiping these people with the power of logical thinking and reasoning in these matters which trumps (triggered) the emotive and feel good guff which to date has swung way too far in the wrong direction.

Tell me who has been bullied into silence by the "left"?

Funny how the ones who call others snowflake are the first to cry censorship or silencing when anyone challenges them.

Its all alt right

20Cent wrote: »

Tell me who has been bullied into silence by the "left"?

Kids in college campuses

20Cent

Its all alt right wrote: »

Kids in college campuses

You'll have to be a bit more specific there chief.

Its all alt right

20Cent wrote: »

You'll have to be a bit more specific there chief.

You want students names?

_Kaiser_

markodaly wrote: »

A good debate held a few nights ago on the topic of Political Correctness. Jordan Peterson and Stephan Fry make a formidable team, who the other side unable to counter the arguments intellectually resort to make it personal, especially about Peterson. Michael Dyson in particular lets himself down with a racial slur.

Thanks for the link, watching it now..

One thing that strikes me so far is how Dyson relies very much on his showmanship to sway his audience, rather than rational arguments.

Also at around 58 minutes in, it really strikes me during Michelle Goldberg's speaking that in fact, her and Dyson's fundamental issue is with how America has dealt with these questions rather than the larger Western societal scope that is actually the topic at hand - indeed, she's dismissive of the idea of group responsibility because of her view of the American context, which seems to be all either of them can speak to.

Seems to me the real issue is with America, but in a globally connected world, with the ability to instantly share an idea with potentially the entire planet, these issues are being projected onto other cultures and societies where they may in fact have no relevance, basis or place.

johnp001

20Cent wrote: »

Answering the questions no one asked.
This is similar to peteron's arguments.
The point has been made which I would say is indisputable that trumps win has emboldened the far right racist elements in the US. On his inauguration day Richard Spencer was saying hail trump and doing nazi salutes in Washington DC.
Instead of discussing this it is reframed as a claim that white supremacists got trump elected and arguments made against that. This is not the point being made, it was a factor but not a defining one.
When i went to that page a pop up invited me to listen to another episode called "the intellectual arguments as to why gun control people have a low IQ". This is the kind of nonsense peterson is encouraging, fake "intellectuals". I call them what stupid people think smart people sound like. It is notable that all these fake intellectuals who are clearly grifters target right wing people.

I don't see why it is not valid for Al-Gharbi to address the specific question that he does or why he should be criticised for not addressing a different one.
What you consider to be defining factors is not going to be the limit of what the wider world considers useful topics to investigate and debate.