jordan peterson does video calling nazis evil, gets rebuked by his fans in comments

[downnola]

It's adorable, apparently you actually believe the racist propaganda that "Uncle Tom" is a racist term, so you think you've got me here. LOL.

Sorry kiddo, it's explicitly a term used to call out racism enablers.

If you wanted to call out racism enablers, you could just say they're racism enablers. Instead you've chosen to use a reactionary euphemism rather than outright calling them a race traitor. How brave it is to use disgusting slurs instead of concrete criticisms.

[Mormolyce]

If you wanted to call out racism enablers, you could just say they're racism enablers. Instead you've chosen to use a reactionary euphemism rather than outright calling them a race traitor. How brave it is to use disgusting slurs instead of concrete criticisms.

Now who's trying to police language?

You're projecting your own racism, white lefty.

How do you know I'm white?

And I'm not a "lefty".

[Noxx79]

I just cannot believe how much shitposting there is on YouTube, I'm seriously clutching my pearls right now! /s

Video has 82% thumbs up, strange.

I don’t know what your point is - (not a slam) but 82% is actually pretty bad on YouTube. People generally don’t go out of their way to watch videos they hate, with a few exceptions.

Same thing with cinema scores - anything in or below the 70s is abhorrent.

[downnola]

Now who's trying to police language?

Who knew you were so anti-PC culture.

[Mormolyce]

Who knew you were so anti-PC culture.

Since when am I "PC"?

Ironically, my position has always been that it's the intent that matters, not the specific words. You guys apparently disagree.

But in this case even that's irrelevant, because "Uncle Tom" is not and never has been a racist slur. It's not even a reference to an ethnic group - it's a term referring to a kind of behaviour. You know, judging a person based on their words and actions as opposed to the colour of their skin...

Otherwise it'd make no sense for me to use it to refer to a Jewish person in my actual post...

[Trenticle]

jordan peterson is what happens when greatminds use the toilet and don't flush. His mental garbage is the crap that is left, seriously, and no there is nothing redeeming about him or ben shapiro or any of the other book sellers saying idiotic unoriginal stupid shit.

Seriously richard spencer could come out tomorrow condemning the kkk and neo nazi, and laying a fat juicy one on a photo of beyonce's ass and it still would fool me into believing he has ever has even a small ounce of credibility in anything. The problem with all these jackass's is that some not most treat their bullshit as fact, and because they get enough attention like 5 car pile up on the expressway while driving home and being directed to drive around. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only thing fucking annoying is just like the kardashians or most of moron hollywood you always have someone announcing latest moronic droppings of these people.

And for the record jordan paterson is a fucking fraud and a moron, it doesn't really much matter that he is a white supremacist, ir sexust piece of shit, despite what he says, if the reaction of his fans to him openly being critical of nazis is what it takes for some to be clued into this shit, then that ought to tell you the perceptions of the people slow enough to care what this dude has to say, that most people have already figured out.

t r i g g e r e d!!!!!

[Ryme]

I don’t know what your point is - (not a slam) but 82% is actually pretty bad on YouTube. People generally don’t go out of their way to watch videos they hate, with a few exceptions.

This is one of them, the video has over double the viewership of the normal videos, it's being clipped and sent in a lot of different places. Some saying it's showing JP as a holocaust denier, some that he's "(((Peterson)))" now, some just to point at the shit posting, which obviously creates more.

It's still relatively well received. My point was, ignore shit posters, they're not representative.

[DarkAmbient]

I've watched this guy being interviewed and watched some of his videos. I don't understand why he draws so much vitriol from some people. He explains his inoffensive views, calmly and rationally, and people go apeshit. What's the deal here?

[lummiuster]

Once again a meaningless statement.



No, Japan had not surrendered.

Surrender isn't some nebulous concept in war, surrender is "the leader of the country/military signs a declaration of surrrender." That did not happen until after both nuclear bombs were dropped.

If you have any shred of evidence to support your claim I suggest you provide it, as it disagrees with all historical accounts on the matter.

My first statement was to explain you the "history is written by the winner". Right now, USA clearly killed much more people than the third Reich. If an Alian (neutral person) would see actions of Nazis and USA (Korea, combodia, germany, ,vietnam, nukes in japan, china heroic addict, somalia, mexico, south america, lybia, iraq, afghanistan, syria, belgrade..), I swear he would claim USA is far more evil. Even after hearing their reasons. "History written by winner" make you think that all these murders were right.

For what happened in Japan, honestly go get a VPN and make a google search. (When searching on google with a VPN that goes to Vietnam for example, you will get pages that are approved by their government and might not be by yours). Do it for any research you want to get a different story. Clearly official information at home is biased on your government's side and information from X country will be biased on their side. Use your brain and make many research.

This whole argument is useless since you dont seem to understand we are not arguing on the same thing. You keep responding with your knowledge of history. But even if you know the book you were given by heart it won't matter because you are stating what X people decided you should learn. I'm arguing that the books you know by heart were not true to begin with.

[Endus]

I've watched this guy being interviewed and watched some of his videos. I don't understand why he draws so much vitriol from some people. He explains his inoffensive views, calmly and rationally, and people go apeshit. What's the deal here?

His pattern of;

A> flat-out lying about facts that don't support the argument he wants to make, as he did with Bill C-16, and
B> only touching on the most superficial surface of most issues while pretending he's making deep and insightful commentary.

[Deleted]

I've watched this guy being interviewed and watched some of his videos. I don't understand why he draws so much vitriol from some people. He explains his inoffensive views, calmly and rationally, and people go apeshit. What's the deal here?

I have an idea that it is not Peterson himself, that the issue stems from. It is the people that follow him (which is quite large), that has found large inspiration in him and take his word as well spoken against current internal leftist/PC/SJW issues which will then be linked and parroted a lot, and that of course pisses of those in opposition to it.

[Endus]

A) Not lying if it actually happened; see: Lindsay Shepherd Controversy:

That's straight-up bullshit, and you should know better.

Shepherd wasn't penalized under Canadian law, but for violating University policy.
She wasn't penalized for anything do with with language around gender identity and expression.
She was penalized incorrectly, the University has apologized, and reversed that decision.

Peterson lied about the contents of Bill C-16. That isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

[oplawlz]

Well, people sitting by whilst a fascist dictator rises to power and corrupts institutions aren't always evil.

Sometimes they are just lazy, or distracted by cat videos and computer games.

It does explain Merkel, yeah. You'd think they'd have learned the last time.

[Endus]

He has said many times in his videos that he posted of why he opposed it, I've watched all of them, and agree:

None of those videos have anything to do with his disinformation regarding Bill C-16. And that's what it was; disinformation. Not just wrong, but so obviously wrong it was clear his intent was to mislead people. There is no manner in which Bill C-16 could be construed as compelling speech.

https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-j...-c-16-correct/

Again, not really a matter of opinion at all. The bill does not say what Peterson claimed it said. It's pretty damned cut-and-dry.

Nor does any of this speak to you bringing up Shepherd, who wasn't penalized under Canadian law at all, and who had the decision against her at the university policy level reversed, because she wasn't in the wrong in the first place, so bringing her up is just a complete nonsequitur.

It feels like you're Gish Galloping, just jumping to make new claims rather than defend or acknowledge the ones you made that were shown to be misleading or false.

[Pendragon]

Since when am I "PC"?

Ironically, my position has always been that it's the intent that matters, not the specific words. You guys apparently disagree.

But in this case even that's irrelevant, because "Uncle Tom" is not and never has been a racist slur. It's not even a reference to an ethnic group - it's a term referring to a kind of behaviour. You know, judging a person based on their words and actions as opposed to the colour of their skin...

Otherwise it'd make no sense for me to use it to refer to a Jewish person in my actual post...

Lefty whitesplaining again. Uncle Tom has always been, and always is, used towards black people who don't fall in line with the left. The origin of the term plays a huge part in the way it's used and why it's only ever aimed at black people. Stop trying to change its meaning.

[Machismo]

Why do people have hero worship for guys like Peterson? He's fairly intelligent, but is prone to saying all manner of idiotic drivel in order to sell something.

[Endus]

Did you watch the first part of the series where he has the wording of the bill and goes through it sentence by sentence?

If not, I have no reason to believe anything you say, because you are just repeating predigested versions of someone else’s view.

I've already linked multiple sources, including the CBA, explaining exactly how Peterson is lying about the bill.

As for the law, lawyers are split on it, so let’s not lie that it’s a settled matter that it won’t do what Peterson fears:

Bill C-16 – What’s the Big Deal?
https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/...-the-big-deal/

Again, the sources I've linked explain, in detail why this guy's arguments do not hold up.

Watch his video and we can discuss, if not, I will ignore your ideological mouth piece regurgitatation.

You're projecting. You're literally citing ideological mouth pieces, like Peterson, and regurgitating their arguments directly, and refusing to accept that they are wrong about something.

Meanwhile, I'm citing groups like the Canadian Bar Association and their official statement on C-16. I'll point to things like Parliament's explanation of the bill;
https://lop.parl.ca/About/Parliament...ce=library_prb

Worse, it's particularly silly because Peterson et al's issues only arose with Bill C-16. Which did not create new law. The measures and principles which could be legislatively acted upon were laid out much earlier. And without the emergence of any of the issues Peterson et al are fearmongering about. Those issues did not emerge and do not legislatively derive from the laws in question, not when the protected class is race, religion, national or ethnic origin, colour, sex, or sexual orientation. That was apparently all fine. This entire argument was solely about adding "gender identity and expression" to that list. Because that's all Bill C-16 does. There's no new avenues of enforcement, no expansion of what constitutes hate speech or hate propaganda beyond the inclusion of a new protected class. And worse, gender identity and expression was already protected at the provincial level, for years, and Peterson et al had no problem with that. They only started to speak out when the federal law started to catch up.

[Machismo]

Better than The Kardashian’s and he talks about things a lot of people are struggling with.

Meaning. He is also reframing religion in ways that make more sense for modern people.

It's really not much different than idolizing them. Some of the things he's spouted are moronic, and yet, people will continue to defend it. "What he meant was..."
"You need to watch more videos..." "He was taken out of context..."

You call it "reframing," I call it being a charlatan trying to sell an agenda. In the end, he's bought into his own bullshit image, and is catering to the masses.

[Dextroden]

It's really not much different than idolizing them. Some of the things he's spouted are moronic, and yet, people will continue to defend it. "What he meant was..."
"You need to watch more videos..." "He was taken out of context..."

You call it "reframing," I call it being a charlatan trying to sell an agenda. In the end, he's bought into his own bullshit image, and is catering to the masses.

Did you have problems with people's idolization of either Clinton, any of the Bushes or Obama?

[Machismo]

That’s fine, you can view him anyway you wish.

I look at outcome, do his ideas work, or not?

If they work, I use them, if not I discard and move on.

Thus far his Jungian interpretation of the OT works for many people that were previously suffering/suicidal, etc.

Looking at outcome seems rather dangerous. The Nazis managed to find the outcome they wanted, and it led to the deaths of quite a few people.

His comments and speeches have become more addled in recent months. His rhetoric is purposefully more caustic and inflammatory. It's like watching certain posters on here who have gone off the deep end, and start espousing some pretty heinous shit.