Post Rehab Jordan Peterson, Pushes 12 Moar Rules

[Milchshake]

Jorden Peterson is attempting to return to public life after recovering from addiction to exotic barbiturates, by publishing a list of 12 new rules.

• Is he really in the best position to be shilling a self help book? When you need to travel the globe for professional help for your own problems.
• Does this invalidate all the previous rules?
• Does the promise of even more sequels just invalidate these new rules?

Penguin Random House Staff Confront Publisher About New Jordan Peterson Book
During a tense town hall, staff cried and expressed dismay with the publishing giant's decision to publish 'Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life.'

On Monday, Penguin Random House Canada, Canada’s largest book publisher and a subsidiary of Penguin Random House, announced it will be publishing Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life by Peterson, to be released in March 2021. The book will be published by Portfolio in the U.S. and Penguin Press in the U.K., both part of the Penguin Random House empire.
Four Penguin Random House Canada employees, who did not want to be named due to concerns over their employment, said the company held a town hall about the book Monday, during which executives defended the decision to publish Peterson while employees cited their concerns about platforming someone who is popular in far-right circles.

“He is an icon of hate speech and transphobia and the fact that he’s an icon of white supremacy, regardless of the content of his book, I’m not proud to work for a company that publishes him,” ...


Benzo addiction is no joke, and should absolutely be treated with the help of a professional. Yet Peterson has sets a dangerous example for his legions of young, male followers if they develop this problem in the future.
A real neat trick of the modern era where you can write a mostly unobjectionable book of tv dinner self-help advice. Then save all of the clickbait and corrosive shit for youtube and patreon. Then have your legions of fans to claim that everyone's crying over a mild little book.


Seems like Random House very *clearly* knew this was going to be a problem with their staff, because the article mentions that the publisher went out of their way to hide it from the employees, which might have had a little something to do with why they're upset.

[PC2]

• Is he really in the best position to be shilling a self help book? When you need to travel the globe for professional help for your own problems.
• Does this invalidate all the previous rules?
• Does the promise of even more sequels just invalidate these new rules?

The correctness of a general rule is independent of any one individual so it doesn't make any sense that an individual can invalidate a rule, especially by doing something that doesn't relate to the general rule. For example if one of the rules Peterson lives by is "don't murder" then that doesn't mean the general rule is invalid just because he personally did something wrong.

I haven't read his book but based on a summary of his rules I would say rule #9 applies to himself; set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world. It's a bit hypocritical... As far as rules I like I would choose #4; compare your current self to your past self instead of comparing yourself with others. That's a pretty good one because you always want to make sure you have improved over the past and people who judge themselves relative to other people often times become jealous and envious, which is unhealthy. Rule #5 is by far the worst rule; do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them. This rule is insanely intolerant and anti-liberty. As long as children aren't doing anything harmful then there's no reason for why you shouldn't let them explore their own ideas and behaviors regardless of whether they diverge from your own.

[Howel]

Rule #5 is by far the worst rule; do not let children do anything that makes you dislike them. This rule is insanely intolerant and anti-liberty. As long as children aren't doing anything harmful then there's no reason for why you shouldn't let them explore their own ideas and behaviors regardless of whether they diverge from your own.

Jesus... So basically, do not let your children do anything that you as a person don't like, AKA, raise them as mini copies of yourself.

[Grimbold21]

Remembers folks, it wasn't the Peterson fans, advocates, defenders that brought him up again

[crewskater]

“He is an icon of hate speech and transphobia and the fact that he’s an icon of white supremacy, regardless of the content of his book, I’m not proud to work for a company that publishes him,”

I've seen enough of his videos to know this statement isn't true. Criticizing religion is considered hate speech so they should be a little bit more specific. Not calling someone by their pronouns isn't transphobic either. Just because a certain group holds a non-affiliated person in high regards, doesn't mean anything. If a black supremist group holds Obama in high regards, does that make Obama a bad person? No.

[Endus]

I've seen enough of his videos to know this statement isn't true. Criticizing religion is considered hate speech so they should be a little bit more specific. Not calling someone by their pronouns isn't transphobic either. Just because a certain group holds a non-affiliated person in high regards, doesn't mean anything. If a black supremist group holds Obama in high regards, does that make Obama a bad person? No.

He manufactured a whole suite of lies to attack the Canadian government for adding gender identity and expression to the list of protected classes, under federal law. That's where he first got a lot of press and coverage; his lies about Bill C-16.

The only reason to take that approach against Bill C-16 was transphobia.

If someone opposed including race as a protected class, it'd be because they're racist. Same thing.

Your only other real possible argument is that Peterson is so colossally stupid and functionally illiterate that he didn't understand Bill C-16. And it's like a page long; it's not complex at all. Literally all it does is insert "gender identity and expression" into the four passages in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code where the protected classes are listed. Here's the full bill; https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e.../first-reading

I'm pretty sure he's not an idiot illiterate. The only alternative is that he's a transphobic bigot.

[Milchshake]

I've seen enough of his videos to know this statement isn't true. Criticizing religion is considered hate speech so they should be a little bit more specific. Not calling someone by their pronouns isn't transphobic either. Just because a certain group holds a non-affiliated person in high regards, doesn't mean anything. If a black supremist group holds Obama in high regards, does that make Obama a bad person? No.

Did you see the video where he blames "Cultural Marxism" for the spread of marriage equality.

Yikes, Cultural Marxism is basically a repacking of Nazi style antisemitism.

He's basically digs into all of the food groups for hate speech. Ironic for a meat only eater.

[tehealadin]

He manufactured a whole suite of lies to attack the Canadian government for adding gender identity and expression to the list of protected classes, under federal law. That's where he first got a lot of press and coverage; his lies about Bill C-16.

The only reason to take that approach against Bill C-16 was transphobia.

If someone opposed including race as a protected class, it'd be because they're racist. Same thing.

Your only other real possible argument is that Peterson is so colossally stupid and functionally illiterate that he didn't understand Bill C-16. And it's like a page long; it's not complex at all. Literally all it does is insert "gender identity and expression" into the four passages in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code where the protected classes are listed. Here's the full bill; https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e.../first-reading

I'm pretty sure he's not an idiot illiterate. The only alternative is that he's a transphobic bigot.

Race and gender identity are two very different things. Your conclusion is extremely flawed. If someone asserts that I identify as X, therefore you must refer to me as Y, and you don't agree, that doesn't necessitate hate, it doesn't require hate, only a zealot thinks that way.

And from what I could tell, and if I missed this, please let me know (being genuine here, I will roll back part of what I say next if I have missed something), I can't claim to have listened to all of his speeches, but in the ones that I have where he discusses this, his gripe appeared to be from people identifying as the "made up" genders, and by that I mean there is no consensus outside of queer theorists as to them being actual things (to be clear, I don't mind people identifying however they want to, no one should be stopped from being a xe/xir or whatever) in the same idea as race, disability etc and the other things on that list, and that he didn't want to be compelled to call someone by whatever genders they wanted. He didn't appear, at least from what I saw, to be wanting to tell someone transitioning to male/female that the weren't male/female or no not refer to them as such, it was the other ones. If I missed where he said otherwise, which is possible, please let me know and I will take that back and apologise.

Some of the assertions surrounding gender identity are made with the certainty of someone proclaiming that water is wet, there is plenty of reason to be skeptical about some of these claims and it isn't bigotry to be so. The weaponisation of bigotry to prevent this is dishonest.

[Doctor Amadeus]

This moron is a lunatic anyone taking anything he says seriously deserves to buy his book.

- - - Updated - - -

Race and gender identity are two very different things. Your conclusion is extremely flawed. If someone asserts that I identify as X, therefore you must refer to me as Y, and you don't agree, that doesn't necessitate hate, it doesn't require hate, only a zealot thinks that way.

And from what I could tell, and if I missed this, please let me know (being genuine here, I will roll back part of what I say next if I have missed something), I can't claim to have listened to all of his speeches, but in the ones that I have where he discusses this, his gripe appeared to be from people identifying as the "made up" genders, and by that I mean there is no consensus outside of queer theorists as to them being actual things (to be clear, I don't mind people identifying however they want to, no one should be stopped from being a xe/xir or whatever) in the same idea as race, disability etc and the other things on that list, and that he didn't want to be compelled to call someone by whatever genders they wanted. He didn't appear, at least from what I saw, to be wanting to tell someone transitioning to male/female that the weren't male/female or no not refer to them as such, it was the other ones. If I missed where he said otherwise, which is possible, please let me know and I will take that back and apologise.

Some of the assertions surrounding gender identity are made with the certainty of someone proclaiming that water is wet, there is plenty of reason to be skeptical about some of these claims and it isn't bigotry to be so. The weaponisation of bigotry to prevent this is dishonest.

Nope not going into forbidden topics. But being biracial and studying race for years. I’m almost to the point based on all of the logical and reasonable arguments that race is almost an entirely made up concept.

As for gender is really has nothing to do with what people prefer to be called. Just as nuance exists in race so to is Gender.

Peterson is full of shit and everyone of his theories has almost completely been destroyed by his dishonesty.

Science is pretty clear on our differences but his arguments are empty rhetoric.

[Endus]

Race and gender identity are two very different things. Your conclusion is extremely flawed. If someone asserts that I identify as X, therefore you must refer to me as Y, and you don't agree, that doesn't necessitate hate, it doesn't require hate, only a zealot thinks that way.

Race and gender identity are two different things. That's why they're both listed as protected classes. Just like how age and disability aren't like either or each other, but are also on the list.

I'll ignore the latter bit, because it's nonsense. I assume you're a guy? Would you feel comfortable if your boss chose to refer to you as "miss" and used female pronouns for you constantly? That's abuse regarding your gender identity.

And from what I could tell, and if I missed this, please let me know (being genuine here, I will roll back part of what I say next if I have missed something), I can't claim to have listened to all of his speeches, but in the ones that I have where he discusses this, his gripe appeared to be from people identifying as the "made up" genders, and by that I mean there is no consensus outside of queer theorists as to them being actual things (to be clear, I don't mind people identifying however they want to, no one should be stopped from being a xe/xir or whatever) in the same idea as race, disability etc and the other things on that list, and that he didn't want to be compelled to call someone by whatever genders they wanted. He didn't appear, at least from what I saw, to be wanting to tell someone transitioning to male/female that the weren't male/female or no not refer to them as such, it was the other ones. If I missed where he said otherwise, which is possible, please let me know and I will take that back and apologise.

That's what he said, yes.

It's all a lie. Every single godsdamned bit.

Nothing in Bill C-16 mandates anyone use any particular pronoun. Literally nothing; Peterson made that up, based on his own transphobia and nothing else.
Nothing in Bill C-16 mandates you approve of transgender people. Nothing in Canadian law requires that you not be racist, to make another example. The Human Rights Act mandates you not be discriminated against for membership in those protected classes, but that's not the same thing.

Peterson's free to think transgender people are confused or whatever transphobic shit he believes. The law and Bill C-16 specifically doesn't affect that at all. Just against deliberate discriminatory abuses, like it does with all protected classes.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I've seen enough of his videos to know this statement isn't true. Criticizing religion is considered hate speech so they should be a little bit more specific. Not calling someone by their pronouns isn't transphobic either. Just because a certain group holds a non-affiliated person in high regards, doesn't mean anything. If a black supremist group holds Obama in high regards, does that make Obama a bad person? No.

I mean he made a name for him self lying about a law that had already been put in place where he lived years before so he could milk money out of certain bigoted groups on the internet.

Even if you want to claim he’s not bigoted him self he lies and panders to bigots so he can make money off them, at worse he’s an opportunist feeding off bigotry at worse he’s a bigot him self.

And again this isn’t something he actually cared deeply about what was in C16 was already in effect where he lived for a few years the bill was just making it country wide.

[Endus]

Did you see the video where he blames "Cultural Marxism" for the spread of marriage equality.

Yikes, Cultural Marxism is basically a repacking of Nazi style antisemitism.

He's basically digs into all of the food groups for hate speech. Ironic for a meat only eater.

No "basically". "Cultural Marxism" in the way that Peterson (and others) use it is derived directly and intentionally from a specific Nazi propaganda campaign against Jewish philosophers and thinkers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism

Anyone pushing that horseshit is, spiritually if not explicitly, a Nazi.

[Saltysquidoon]

Is rule 13 to not become addicted to exotic barbituates, because if it's not it should be.

[Egomaniac]

Remembers folks, it wasn't the Peterson fans, advocates, defenders that brought him up again

Ok. Thanks for that very necessary reminder...I guess?

[tehealadin]

Race and gender identity are two different things. That's why they're both listed as protected classes. Just like how age and disability aren't like either or each other, but are also on the list.

I know this is an aside, but those are still different. I can't identify as a 16 year old, well I can but it isn't discriminatory to tell me I am not and not treat me as such, just as if I just decide I am disabled despite not actually having a disability, people can tell me no. Same with race. And to be clear, on gender identity, I am not talking about, and to the best of my knowledge neither was he, talking about miss/mr/he/she etc, it was the 5 million other ones. It is clearly in another conceptual category altogether.

I'll ignore the latter bit, because it's nonsense. I assume you're a guy? Would you feel comfortable if your boss chose to refer to you as "miss" and used female pronouns for you constantly? That's abuse regarding your gender identity.

I don't dispute that, and to the best of my knowledge neither did he. It was someone saying "Call me Xe". We are then talking about something very different. The idea of he/she exists in all cultures across all times. Ze/Xe etc exist only within a specific set within an element of the far left, and he seemed to, and I agree with him, that just giving this the same status as he/she in terms of legal protections is not a good move. Which, and I assume you agree, me not calling you Ze (if you asked me to) would be an act of gender discrimination, on the same level as me calling you miss instead of mr. I am arguing that these are very different things.

[crewskater]

He manufactured a whole suite of lies to attack the Canadian government for adding gender identity and expression to the list of protected classes, under federal law. That's where he first got a lot of press and coverage; his lies about Bill C-16.

The only reason to take that approach against Bill C-16 was transphobia.

If someone opposed including race as a protected class, it'd be because they're racist. Same thing.

Your only other real possible argument is that Peterson is so colossally stupid and functionally illiterate that he didn't understand Bill C-16. And it's like a page long; it's not complex at all. Literally all it does is insert "gender identity and expression" into the four passages in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code where the protected classes are listed. Here's the full bill; https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/e.../first-reading

I'm pretty sure he's not an idiot illiterate. The only alternative is that he's a transphobic bigot.

I thought he was arguing about how you can't force someone to call them by their preferred pronoun? Isn't that the point of the entire bill? He is a teacher after all so this would certainly impact him if a student got upset for not using the correct pronoun.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I know this is an aside, but those are still different. I can't identify as a 16 year old, well I can but it isn't discriminatory to tell me I am not and not treat me as such, just as if I just decide I am disabled despite not actually having a disability, people can tell me no. Same with race. And to be clear, on gender identity, I am not talking about, and to the best of my knowledge neither was he, talking about miss/mr/he/she etc, it was the 5 million other ones. It is clearly in another conceptual category altogether.


I don't dispute that, and to the best of my knowledge neither did he. It was someone saying "Call me Xe". We are then talking about something very different. The idea of he/she exists in all cultures across all times. Ze/Xe etc exist only within a specific set within an element of the far left, and he seemed to, and I agree with him, that just giving this the same status as he/she in terms of legal protections is not a good move. Which, and I assume you agree, me not calling you Ze (if you asked me to) would be an act of gender discrimination, on the same level as me calling you miss instead of mr. I am arguing that these are very different things.

I get that people don’t read laws as it’s easier to just parrot what people say online but C16 has literally nothing to do with ze/xe or what ever other nonsense it literally just covers gender identity like endus laid out the fact that you think it has any thing to do with Ze/XE and not miss/mr is you just eating up his bull.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I thought he was arguing about how you can't force someone to call them by their preferred pronoun? Isn't that the point of the entire bill? He is a teacher after all so this would certainly impact him if a student got upset for not using the correct pronoun.

The bill doesn’t do that in any way shape or form all it does it add gender identity to protected classes so you can’t say harass an employee because of how they identify just like you can’t call your gay employee fags or queers or not hire them because there gay. The bill was already in effect where he lived/worked any way C16 was just making it country wide.

Go read the bill what it does is like two sentences long, don’t trust Charlottes on the internet.

[Endus]

I know this is an aside, but those are still different. I can't identify as a 16 year old, well I can but it isn't discriminatory to tell me I am not and not treat me as such, just as if I just decide I am disabled despite not actually having a disability, people can tell me no. Same with race. And to be clear, on gender identity, I am not talking about, and to the best of my knowledge neither was he, talking about miss/mr/he/she etc, it was the 5 million other ones. It is clearly in another conceptual category altogether.

Bill C-16 has nothing to do with pronoun use. Trying to defend Peterson's lies just deflects from the fact that he was lying to bring up pronouns at all.

I thought he was arguing about how you can't force someone to call them by their preferred pronoun? Isn't that the point of the entire bill? He is a teacher after all so this would certainly impact him if a student got upset for not using the correct pronoun.

See above.

It's also pretty easy to just call people by their names if you're unsure of their preferred pronouns. Nor would anything under the law be triggered with an accidental misgendering. It would only come into play if there was a concerted pattern of deliberate harassment on the grounds of someone's gender identity.

Like tehealadin, you're trying to defend Peterson's lies just to avoid acknowledging that he was lying to even bring it up in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

I get that people don’t read laws as it’s easier to just parrot what people say online but C16 has literally nothing to do with ze/xe or what ever other nonsense it literally just covers gender identity like endus laid out the fact that you think it has any thing to do with Ze/XE and not miss/mr is you just eating up his bull.

I mean, I literally linked the entire bill in full and emphasized that it's really only like a page long, knowing this stuff was going to happen. Anyone who bothered to check would see that there's nothing about pronoun use in there.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Remembers folks, it wasn't the Peterson fans, advocates, defenders that brought him up again

Yeah going to have to agree here. Sometimes people post this kind of bullshit and I don’t mean the OP. Post what you want within the rules but I agree with where this statement is coming from.

To the OP defense this is relevant since said individual is in the news for writing this new garbage book.

But otherwise yeah. This is a gaming forum. This guys core issues are with a forbidden topic and worse he’s not here in his own words to argue any of his own points to be made. Otherwise it’s just seems like spamming and advertising