Jordan Peterson launches anti-censorship site Thinkspot

[Shalcker]

Except that wasn't the "central point".

1> It was a principal, harassing and discriminating against a student. Which is important context.
2> They were willfully misgendering the student. It would be the same issue if the principal insisted on mocking a male student by calling him "Susie" and using female pronouns; that the student was transgender doesn't matter to this point.
3> They used a slur ("fucking tranny") as the student and her parent were leaving.
4> They banned the student from the school grounds over making a complaint about another student's bullying.

It was all about parent, not a student.

Parent who, supposedly, never risen the fuss about very same pronouns in previous interactions.

[DocSavageFan]

There's always reading.

Providing a link to some random (and incredibly biased) guy on the internet is your idea of providing a citation? Surely you're joking.

[Elegiac]

It was all about parent, not a student.

Parent who, supposedly, never risen the fuss about very same pronouns in previous interactions.

Irrelevant; the student is the injured party in this case. Stop trying to make excuses for bigots.

[Shalcker]

Neither idiots nor nazis are protected classes.

But clearly Peterson thinks that is mis-identification, shouldn't his opinion about it be more important using same principle?

- - - Updated - - -

Irrelevant; the student is the injured party in this case. Stop trying to make excuses for bigots.

No, the parent is. Not a student.

Entire complaint is about misgendering parent of a student.

[Elegiac]

But clearly Peterson thinks that is mis-identification, shouldn't his opinion about it be more important using same principle?

No.

Again, idiots and nazis are not protected classes.

Y'all are really having trouble with basic concepts, aren't you? These are some really lazy ass gotchas.

[rda]

And as I already pointed out, by making this argument, you can only mean one of two things;

1> If the deliberate misgendering were some other kind of verbal harassment, the case would go away. This is false.

2> If we just eliminate the deliberate misgendering, there's less evidence of said harassment, which makes the case more difficult to try. Which is nominally true, but it has fuck-all to do with pronoun use; you're just saying that with less evidence, cases become more difficult to try, which applies to basically all legal cases. If this is your argument, you're not engaging honestly, because you're trying to make it about the type of evidence, when your argument is actually just about the amount of evidence.

It doesn't really matter which of the two it is; it's an attempt to change the facts because the facts don't line up with your worldview.

ROFL

This is what happens in all my exchanges with you.

Every time we follow the same damn scheme:

You: <say something dumb, like 2+2=5>
Me: 2+2=4
You then spend twenty posts mucking around world cancer, the problems of monkeys in Africa, etc.
You then finally post something like: yes, technically 2+2=4, but <a ton of other irrelevant blabber>
I remark that it would have been simpler if you didn't waste everyone's time, and I close the exchange
You post a couple more things to which I don't reply

This message of yours is the logical end of this particular exchange of ours.

Yes, Endus, dear, I mean 2. I mean that if we take away the pronouns, then the case loses its legs. Maybe by some miracle it will still proceed and conclude in some way, but it will have to proceed on hearsay which people frequently just make up.

This was my point when I said that we have this case because of the pronouns. If there was no amend to C-16 which opened the door to dragging the use of the "wrong" pronouns into cases, this case would quite likely not have existed.

Thanks for finally seeing the point. See you in the next exchange which will proceed in the exact same way with you writing tons of irrelevant nonsense until you finally get it.

[Shalcker]

No.

Again, idiots and nazis are not protected classes.

Y'all are really having trouble with basic concepts, aren't you? These are some really lazy ass gotchas.

Their opinion becomes important the moment they are declared protected and not a moment sooner?

[Machismo]

Providing a link to some random (and incredibly biased) guy on the internet is your idea of providing a citation? Surely you're joking.

It was a link to Peterson lecturing a class...

You're not even trying any more.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It was a link to Peterson lecturing a class...

You're not even trying any more.

Did he ever? He's always taken a .5 second peek at links and then just dismissed them when he knows he's wrong. Wait, I doubt he ever "knows" he's wrong. He's constructed a world where he's always right all the time I'm sure.

[Elegiac]

Their opinion becomes important the moment they are declared protected and not a moment sooner?

It's not a function of "their opinion" - I know it's easier for you to paint counterfactual arguments as valid if it were simply a matter of opinion, but it isn't.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I don't see how your quote makes my quote have less of an effect.

Are we talking about misgendering a person becoming reason to fine people? Yes. The piece says yes.

Are we talking about this getting to be deemed a "discriminatory practice"? Sure. That's what the bill is about.

QED, the amend to the bill is "a pathway for criminally charging someone who called a biological male a male". Peterson is right, etc.

My quote lays out how the law works and clearly show’s how it’s not a pathway to criminally. You can try and ignore the facts but that won’t make you right, the law doesn’t do what Peterson has said it does it any way shape or form.

[rda]

My quote lays out how the law works and clearly show’s how it’s not a pathway to criminally. You can try and ignore the facts but that won’t make you right, the law doesn’t do what Peterson has said it does it any way shape or form.

No, no, no, your quote merely does not contain how the amend allows to charge people for calling males males (and females females). That your quote does not contain this does not resolve the question whether the amend allows or disallows that, there might be other quotes relevant to that. My quote happens to be just such a quote and it shows that the writers *agree* that the amend allows to charge people for calling males males, etc.

What you are doing above is just stating your conclusion based on the quote you like and ignoring the quote you don't like. This does not work.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

No, no, no, your quote merely does not contain how the amend allows to charge people for calling males males (and females females). That your quote does not contain this does not resolve the question whether the amend allows or disallows that, there might be other quotes relevant to that. My quote happens to be just such a quote and it shows that the writers *agree* that the amend allows to charge people for calling males males, etc.

What you are doing above is just stating your conclusion based on the quote you like and ignoring the quote you don't like. This does not work.

Hate speech laws in Canada have only been used- and only can be used – against extreme forms of speech – explicitly and extreme forms of homophobic, anti-Semitic or racist speech. Moreover, prosecution needs the approval of the Attorney General

I’m not sure how it could be any clearer.

[Edge-]

Providing a link to some random (and incredibly biased) guy on the internet is your idea of providing a citation? Surely you're joking.

So you didn't click on the link and watch the clip of Peterson literally saying that, then. You never fail to deliver with your dishonest discussion. You could at least pretend you're here to discuss things rather than just whinge endlessly because you don't want to look up links that people provide you.

[rda]

I’m not sure how it could be any clearer.

You are putting all weight into "this alone wouldn't be enough to qualify for hate speech", but (a) "hate speech" is not all there is, and (b) parts to make it "enough" aren't hard to obtain.

I repeat, the authors of the piece *agree* that the amend opens the door to charging people for using the "wrong" pronouns. They just insist that Peterson is wrong because it's "just" fines and not jail.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

You are putting all weight into "this alone wouldn't be enough to qualify for hate speech", but (a) "hate speech" is not all there is, and (b) parts to make it "enough" aren't hard to obtain.

I repeat, the authors of the piece *agree* that the amend opens the door to charging people for using the "wrong" pronouns. They just insist that Peterson is wrong because it's "just" fines and not jail.

And then they lay out how the law actually works. Just like with the other case you are ignoring facts for your own made up what ifs.

[niztheundead87]

oh god , jordan peterson detected , npc triggering warning iminent

[DocSavageFan]

So you didn't click on the link and watch the clip of Peterson literally saying that, then. You never fail to deliver with your dishonest discussion. You could at least pretend you're here to discuss things rather than just whinge endlessly because you don't want to look up links that people provide you.

Previously, I clicked the link and read several posts but did not watch the video. My bad.

The video shows Peterson dissecting Hitler's rationale (of rather lack thereof) for killing so many Jews at the end of the war. Context is everything...he wasn't saying "the Nazi's could have just won World War II if they'd enslaved the jews rather than killed them". He was saying it would have been more rational for Hitler to keep them alive rather than exterminate them. The video was snipped in mid-explanation, why is that? Because his subsequent comments would have made the context incredibly obvious?

Question, why do progressives want to demonize Peterson so badly? What does he represent to you that is so evil in your eyes? The dishonesty and lies it takes to rationalize such a twisted world view is mind-boggling. Why would anyone chose such hatred rather than the truth?

This whole narrative that Peterson and the vast majority of his supporters are somehow tied to neo-nazis and KKK is patently false. Yet liberals swallow this shit like its candy. This kind of low resolution mentality is destroying our culture. You're smarter than this...walk away.

[Endus]

ROFL

This is what happens in all my exchanges with you.

Every time we follow the same damn scheme:

You: <say something dumb, like 2+2=5>
Me: 2+2=4
You then spend twenty posts mucking around world cancer, the problems of monkeys in Africa, etc.
You then finally post something like: yes, technically 2+2=4, but <a ton of other irrelevant blabber>
I remark that it would have been simpler if you didn't waste everyone's time, and I close the exchange
You post a couple more things to which I don't reply

This message of yours is the logical end of this particular exchange of ours.

This is bait. Nothing more. It's lazy gaslighting.

You've continually misrepresented the facts of your own sources, in this thread.

Yes, Endus, dear, I mean 2. I mean that if we take away the pronouns, then the case loses its legs. Maybe by some miracle it will still proceed and conclude in some way, but it will have to proceed on hearsay which people frequently just make up.

Then you're approaching the issue dishonestly from the beginning. Yes, harassment based on willful misuse of pronouns is a factor. That's still not a case based on any misuse of pronouns, which is what you started this side-project to try and justify. Because that's what Peterson claimed. That calling a girl "he" would get you charged with a crime. He lied about that. And here, you're lying, to back up his lie.

This was my point when I said that we have this case because of the pronouns. If there was no amend to C-16 which opened the door to dragging the use of the "wrong" pronouns into cases, this case would quite likely not have existed.

There would have been slightly less evidence. There's still plenty in that case file to file a complaint over, which you're deliberately ignoring.

Thanks for finally seeing the point. See you in the next exchange which will proceed in the exact same way with you writing tons of irrelevant nonsense until you finally get it.

What "point"? You lied about the facts of the case. You tried to defend Peterson's lie. You tried to blame me for responding to your posts because your posts brought in something you deemed irrelevant.

You aren't making a case. You're just demonstrating repeated bad faith.

[Machismo]

Previously, I clicked the link and read several posts but did not watch the video. My bad.

The video shows Peterson dissecting Hitler's rationale (of rather lack thereof) for killing so many Jews at the end of the war. Context is everything...he wasn't saying "the Nazi's could have just won World War II if they'd enslaved the jews rather than killed them". He was saying it would have been more rational for Hitler to keep them alive rather than exterminate them. The video was snipped in mid-explanation, why is that? Because his subsequent comments would have made the context incredibly obvious? You're grasping at straws here.

Question, why do progressives want to demonize Peterson so badly? What does he represent to you that is so evil in your eyes? The dishonesty and lies it takes to rationalize such a twisted world view is mind-boggling. Why would anyone chose such hatred for the truth?

This whole narrative that Peterson and his supporters are somehow tied to neo-nazis and KKK is patently false. Yet liberals swallow this shit like its candy. This kind of low resolution mentality is destroying our culture. You're smarter than this...walk away.

Well, I'm not a progressive, but I think he's a pathetic charlatan and demagogue. Combine that with his blatant hypocrisy on the issue of free speech, and it's clear why I don't like him. the real question is, why do people idolize him so damn much?

I don't tend to respect people who lie, and act as hypocrites for fame.

- - - Updated - - -

oh god , jordan peterson detected , npc triggering warning iminent

Are you just mad that people like to mock your hero for being a blatant hypocrite? Oops, I hope he doesn't sue me for saying that.