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

[downnola]

All the bill did was add gender identity and gender expression to the legal protections that other demographics have. Jordan Peterson claimed it would be government enforced speech if passed. What the bill was really about was making sure businesses and shit cant be dicks to trans and non-binary people, and I quote a person that actually deals in law



Then he goes on with



Full thing can be found here

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-1...ronoun-misuse/

It was about protecting gender identity, which is the term that generally covers trans people(even if I hate the phrase) and nonbinary people from being treated like shit by businesses etc for that single reason.

Peterson mis-characterized this law by a large margin and his rise to internet fame is off bullshit to put it lightly.

Yeah, no. It's absurd that this nonsense keeps coming up.

His argument has never been that Bill C-16 by itself would implement compelled speech. The Ontario Human Rights Commission guidelines (that the Canadian Department of Justice claim they will use to define key terms and examples, because the Bill itself does not do so) are what introduce the troublesome language that could be used against someone, like Peterson, if they refuse to use the never ending list of "non-binary gender" pronouns.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-a...y-and-pronouns

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

So no, he wasn't lying. If anyone is lying it's the people who routinely misrepresent his argument (which is consistently pointed out in every Peterson two minute hate thread that pops up), despite how many times he's explained his opposition to the bill in clear, concise language in print, on video, and at the Senate hearing for the bill.

[Toppy]

Such as? And what does he say that is incorrect? I mean, anyone can talk about an area that they don't have a degree in. Most people do.

He likes to step in on child related cases despite having no experience in said field. He has done this in an official capacity which has gotten him in trouble with both courts and the scientific community. He has on many occasions presented himself as an expert witness in the courts on cases that are not related at all to his field of study.

Such as?

He's a climate change denier, which at this point is considered its own pseudo-science since it has no basis in fact. His thoughts on quantam mechanics are all not based in reality (and is an example of him going outside his field while acting like he's not), he believes people have magic perceptional abilities that allowed us to know of our DNA structure millennia ago. There is a lot of entirely unsubstantiated bullshit he spouts.

He has been in a lot of trouble with his peers, which is why he's had trouble getting funding support and has been formally reprimanded.

The faults of Peterson are very well documented. Its not hard to find it out.

[tehealadin]

He won the debate with Stephen Fry. Converted 6% of the audience that attended. That's a pretty massive win. I wouldn't call Dyson a lightweight. Would you?

And Cathy Newman is by no means a lightweight. I was actually disappointed with her, I often watch C4 news, and considered her really good at her job. She was just terrible in this debate, and a huge reason for this was the dishonesty in her approach. She was attacking a very biased, widely shared view of Peterson that wasn't accurate, and got made to look stupid (she clearly isn't) as a result.

- - - Updated - - -

He likes to step in on child related cases despite having no experience in said field. He has done this in an official capacity which has gotten him in trouble with both courts and the scientific community. He has on many occasions presented himself as an expert witness in the courts on cases that are not related at all to his field of study.


He's a climate change denier, which at this point is considered its own pseudo-science since it has no basis in fact. His thoughts on quantam mechanics are all not based in reality (and is an example of him going outside his field while acting like he's not), he believes people have magic perceptional abilities that allowed us to know of our DNA structure millennia ago. There is a lot of entirely unsubstantiated bullshit he spouts.

He has been in a lot of trouble with his peers, which is why he's had trouble getting funding support and has been formally reprimanded.

The faults of Peterson are very well documented. Its not hard to find it out.

I will get back to you when I find these examples. Also, the well documented faults of him are all too often very biased hit pieces.

[Quaade]

Discounting nazis is quite easy. I'll believe it if he comes out and flat outs denies the alt right and his mysogenistic followers. That has meaning as it might aliante a large portion of his audience.

[SpellCleave]

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.

Um hello? Back then they didn't have cat videos and computer ga- OH WAIT A MINUTE.

[Toppy]

I will get back to you when I find these examples. Also, the well documented faults of him are all too often very biased hit pieces.

"Any criticism is just bias"

Yes, I'm sure your looking into this will go well.

[tehealadin]

"Any criticism is just bias"

Yes, I'm sure your looking into this will go well.

I didn't say that. I said there is an abundance of biased his pieces. Which there are.

[petej0]

He likes to step in on child related cases despite having no experience in said field. He has done this in an official capacity which has gotten him in trouble with both courts and the scientific community. He has on many occasions presented himself as an expert witness in the courts on cases that are not related at all to his field of study.


He's a climate change denier, which at this point is considered its own pseudo-science since it has no basis in fact. His thoughts on quantam mechanics are all not based in reality (and is an example of him going outside his field while acting like he's not), he believes people have magic perceptional abilities that allowed us to know of our DNA structure millennia ago. There is a lot of entirely unsubstantiated bullshit he spouts.

He has been in a lot of trouble with his peers, which is why he's had trouble getting funding support and has been formally reprimanded.

The faults of Peterson are very well documented. Its not hard to find it out.

Well duh...I wouldnt take what a pro sports player who majored in communication as gospel when it comes to Astrology either. How is Jordan Peterson in his field of study, and if he is terrible what does that say about the college that employed him until recently.

[Moralgy]

Yeah, no. It's absurd that this nonsense keeps coming up.

His argument has never been that Bill C-16 by itself would implement compelled speech. The Ontario Human Rights Commission guidelines (that the Canadian Department of Justice claim they will use to define key terms and examples, because the Bill itself does not do so) are what introduce the troublesome language that could be used against someone, like Peterson, if they refuse to use the never ending list of "non-binary gender" pronouns.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-a...y-and-pronouns

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

So no, he wasn't lying. If anyone is lying it's the people who routinely misrepresent his argument (which is consistently pointed out in every Peterson two minute hate thread that pops up), despite how many times he's explained his opposition to the bill in clear, concise language in print, on video, and at the Senate hearing for the bill.

You left out what is the Code in

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

Ontario added explicit protection for gender identity and gender expression to the Code in 2012. The Code prohibits discrimination and harassment against trans people in employment, services (including education, policing, health care, restaurants, shopping malls, etc.), housing, contracts and membership in vocational associations. The Code does not specify the use of any particular pronoun or other terminology.

Bit different than how you characterized it with your quote there.

As to your bit on

His argument has never been that Bill C-16 by itself would implement compelled speech. The Ontario Human Rights Commission guidelines (that the Canadian Department of Justice claim they will use to define key terms and examples, because the Bill itself does not do so) are what introduce the troublesome language that could be used against someone, like Peterson, if they refuse to use the never ending list of "non-binary gender" pronouns.

Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

From the link you provided.

I'm against the list of silly extra pronouns, but this law isn't what the fearmongers are making it out to be.

[Moralgy]

He won the debate with Stephen Fry. Converted 6% of the audience that attended. That's a pretty massive win. I wouldn't call Dyson a lightweight. Would you?

I have never heard of this Dyson person before, but Stephen fry is a commedian is he not? I found the debate you are talking about, I will watch it after work.

[Dug]

Weekly Kermit the Frog thread? Oh boy

[Travis B]

Are people really promoting Jordan Peterson's denouncement of Nazis as some grand virtue of his? Shouldn't any half-decent person be expected to hold the same beliefs toward Nazis? Is the bar really that low these days?

[Toppy]

I didn't say that. I said there is an abundance of biased his pieces. Which there are.

Just because there is a lot of criticism aimed at him does not mean that the criticism is biased, it could mean that he's full of shit and called on it.

[JackOnPar]

Shhh. You'll be banned again soon.

Ha. The irony!

- - - Updated - - -

Are people really promoting Jordan Peterson's denouncement of Nazis as some grand virtue of his? Shouldn't any half-decent person be expected to hold the same beliefs toward Nazis? Is the bar really that low these days?

"You need to demonstrate your support for us to recognize you as a decent human being, you shitlord!"

*demonstrates support*

"Ha! You think you're something special because you demonstrated your support? Crawl back into your hole, shitlord!"


Yep, that's one hell of an incentive to support causes these days.

[urasim]

Just because there is a lot of criticism aimed at him does not mean that the criticism is biased, it could mean that he's full of shit and called on it.

It is biased when the claims made in the articles are demonstrably false. That's why they're called hit pieces.

[Travis B]

"You need to demonstrate your support for us to recognize you as a decent human being, you shitlord!"

*demonstrates support*

"Ha! You think you're something special because you demonstrated your support? Crawl back into your hole, shitlord!"


Yep, that's one hell of an incentive to support causes these days.

Most people denounce Nazis because it's the right and decent thing to do. In your mind it seems the only reason to do it is to not be seen as a shitlord, which tells us all we need to know about you.

[JackOnPar]

Most people denounce Nazis because it's the right and decent thing to do. In your mind it seems the only reason to do it is to not be seen as a shitlord, which tells us all we need to know about you.

How about you ask me what I meant instead of reframing it to suit your narrative?

[crewskater]

All in all a lot of projection and transference going on, it's pretty cool.

Sadly this is the current state of politics on both sides.

[Toppy]

Most people denounce Nazis because it's the right and decent thing to do. In your mind it seems the only reason to do it is to not be seen as a shitlord, which tells us all we need to know about you.

Not to mention it ignores that simply denouncing something doesnt have any meaning if you turn around and continue validating the actions of those you denounce. Its blatantly dishonest.

[JackOnPar]

Not to mention it ignores that simply denouncing something doesnt have any meaning if you turn around and continue validating the actions of those you denounce. Its blatantly dishonest.

Define "turn around and continue validating the actions of those you denounce" in this context, please.