The Intellectual Wank Dad [ ot ] jordan peterson Jordan Peterson JORDAN PETERSON

[HardcoreRetro]

It's fine, ancient aliens already wrote about it in the Gilgamesh epic. It's justified violence.

[etiolate]

It's that boundary thing y'all don't understand. You got to tell people to fuck off sometimes.

[HardcoreRetro]

People here seem to understand it just fine. They tell you to fuck off all the time.

[Mandark]

This needs to end with Jordan Peterson driving to Temecula to fight that dude.

[agrajag]

He's busy fighting two year olds.

[etiolate]

Because I am threat to their asshole club.


http://quillette.com/2015/11/30/authoritarianism-is-a-matter-of-personality-not-politics/

As with so many breakthroughs in personality research, the person who initiated scientific explorations of this topic was Hans Eysenck. Eysenck’s interest in the personality predictors of political extremism was perhaps forged by his experience of growing up in pre-war Germany2. It was, therefore, a central irony of Eysenck’s life that he fled from Germany to escape fascism in the 1930’s, only to fall foul of communism once in Britain3.

In a convergence of life and science, this irony did not escape Eysenck’s attention and he began researching the personality correlates of political extremism4.The crucial insight stemming from Eysenck’s work is that the specific flavour of extremism that people with highly authoritarian personalities support is immaterial. They merely gravitate towards whatever regime will give them a flag of convenience to act out their oppressive urges.

Neurobiologist who wrote this recently got deplatformed at his own college.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/16/kings-college-london-accused-no-platforming-itsown-lecturer/

[Nola]

There’s also a strong irrational bent:

As emergent properties, moral structures are real. It is on real ground, deeply historical, emergent—even evolutionarily-determined—that our world rests, not on the comparatively shallow ground of rationality (as established in Europe, a mere 400 years ago). What we have in our culture is much more profound and solid and deep than any mere rational construction. We have a form of government, an equilibrated state, which is an emergent consequence of an ancient process. The process undergirding the development of this governmental form stems much farther back even than the Egyptians, even than the Mesopotamians—stems back to behavioral ritual and oral tradition. It is very old, this process, and it produces very reliable results (even if we do not always under stand them; even if they can be variably interpreted).

Lord help me but I actually read this paper cause I wanted to see how he'd argue that "our government" was inevitably determined by something ancient and intrinsic in humanity. Like, how would he explain the much longer history of feudalism?

Most of it is just myth interpretation and then suddenly "by the way natural rights are real" shows up in the conclusion. AFAICT "our government" = "natural rights" and those rights are rooted in an idea of "sovereignty" which used to apply to a divine ruler but was gradually expanded to other classes until Christianity showed everyone that they each have an individual relationship with the divine. So feudalism, absolute monarchy, etc. become evidence in favor of natural rights being "real" which is pretty wild.

lol

Peterson takes motivated reasoning to places I honestly didn't know it could go. And adds fuel to the research that highly intelligent people can be some of the most vulnerable to it.

[jakefromstatefarm]

Most of it is just myth interpretation and then suddenly "by the way natural rights are real" shows up in the conclusion.

the obvious issue to raise here is that it’s just an excerice in reading lockean ‘natural rights’ (or more accurately, what he takes to be lockean ‘natural rights’) into myths/traditions he’s cherry picking from. I have a hunch that any historicist response to this would effortlessly blow it up but I don’t know enough about Locke/17th-18th century property rights to say for sure. One of the fun things about this paper is: if he thinks the ‘rational constructions’ from 400 years ago (which, NB for the dear reader, he never engages with) are inferior to received implicit ancient knowledge, doesn’t that make him unequivocally anti-Enlightenment? Not married to that view, but i do think it’s a funny way to read the text.

AFAICT "our government" = "natural rights" and those rights are rooted in an idea of "sovereignty" which used to apply to a divine ruler but was gradually expanded to other classes until Christianity showed everyone that they each have an individual relationship with the divine. So feudalism, absolute monarchy, etc. become evidence in favor of natural rights being "real" which is pretty wild.

yeah, soverignty is a theological principle for him in that paper, and I think you can draw some affinities to divine command theory. Like neo-Thomism but with less god and more Darwin (but still plenty of god).

I missed his treatment of genesis the first time round but now reading it his privledging of Logos as the category for understanding man’s creation by god is a hellenizing of the creation story, ancient Hebrews wouldn’t have recognized this kind of stoical divine mind/reason. Additionally, man being made in gods image , according to Christianity, isn’t an indication that he is himself divine. His end is in a kind of communion with divinity, and he only gets there because, after he consciously chose to rupture the relationship between himself and divinity, god mended the rupture by uniting human and divine ‘essences’ in one person. (This person also ended up killing himself and that helped affect this salvific potential for man. How exactly that shook out though is an open question.) This end is also, you know, in the next life, not this one. Plenty of Christians managed to argue that man’s equality before god only applies after death, justifying the rescinding of ‘rights’, if this is even the right word, in the here and now.

[curly]

He's busy fighting two year olds.

It's that boundary thing y'all don't understand. You got to tell people to fuck off sometimes.

[Nola]

This tells us there is something special about democracy that prevents extremists gaining power. My guess is that because political extremism appeals to a minority whose personality attributes mean that they enjoy oppressing other people, it doesn’t appeal to the majority, who possess average personality profiles and thus are not especially attracted to oppressive behaviour.

Because democracy reflects the will of the majority, extremists will never win a fair election.

Therefore I suggest that the take home message from the recent atrocities in Paris is that we must do more to encourage the spread of democracy around the world, starving extremists of their authoritarian power base.

This piece may be one of the dumbest hot takes etiolate has pushed out under the guise of his intellectual superiority.

- A large number of dictatorships started under democracies, including the one he uses to justify this argument at the top of the page!

- There is plenty of evidence, including from his own country and the largest democracy in the world, that would contradict the idea that oppression can not happen under democracy or that a large percentage of the population is not complicit or supportive of it. Just look at pre-civil rights America.

- Given it was written in 2015, it clearly isnt aging well considering the rise of extremist parties across the western world. Though had he done even basic research about the period of totalitarian regimes post WWI, he would realize how silly his thesis is.

It is interesting in that you saw similar specious reasoning in neoconservative circles to justify the violence induced regime change in foreign countries, which seems to be the natural endpoint of this guy's thinking. Just reached in an even more faulty way, if that is possible.

[etiolate]

https://soundcloud.com/so-to-speak-the-free-speech-podcast/bret-weinstein-professor-in

Audio interview by FIRE. About 37 minutes in he gets into the manipulative use of labels such as grifter which GQ recently reused. 

[Oblivion]

Peterson's reaction would have been something the hip crowd would have described as being "triggered" had it been said by any leftist. I am curious where this boundary is located where such a reaction is totally justifiable.

And again, this whining is extra hilarious given that this is a goober who can't go for more than 3 words without describing anyone who disagrees with him an authoritarian mass murderer.

[etiolate]

Considering the amount of slander and shit thrown his way, the boundary was passed a long time ago. I think it is the "lock them in and burn them down" chants at Queens University speech that got him on edge, but it seems its the particular lie about celebrating the noble savage in the NYBooks piece that upset him, with it coupled in with a shot at the native tribe he works with. The Current Affairs piece upset him as well. The hit pieces are getting worse and more verbose.

At a certain point you must respond.

It's really telling that this is your point of view about someone who has been relentlessly attacked finally flinging some animosity back.

[Nola]

Considering the amount of slander and shit thrown his way, the boundary was passed a long time ago. I think it is the "lock them in and burn them down" chants at Queens University speech that got him on edge, but it seems its the particular lie about celebrating the noble savage in the NYBooks piece that upset him, with it coupled in with a shot at the native tribe he works with. The Current Affairs piece upset him as well. The hit pieces are getting worse and more verbose.

At a certain point you must respond.

There continues to be an incredible irony in criticizing critics of Peterson for being verbose. 

Pointing out you are a peddler of junk psychology(constantly quoting Jung and building off his ad hoc and questionable methodology is in fact what he does), fallacious, often non-falsifiable and over-wrought vagaries, motivated reasoning, and re-packaging cliches by using your in-context work as supporting evidence isn't a hit-piece. But it was fascinating you managed to come to that conclusion less than 2 minutes after that review was posted yesterday.

[etiolate]

"peddler of junk psychology"

His writings have been cited over 9000 times.



Like I said, this is only a Jordan Peterson thread to some.

[Nola]

"peddler of junk psychology"

His writings have been cited over 9000 times.



Like I said, this is only a Jordan Peterson thread to some.

No one denies he has legitimate work, the things he actually submitted for peer review for instance.

But that is the problem with the populist slice of his work you treat like gospel in this thread, that shit is largely non-falsifiable meanderings that often don't even accurately reflect the base science, history, or people he is poaching to advance his philosophy. Like Jake has spent days trying to point out for you using very specific examples to drive home the point. It is also why pyschologists like Jung are largely disregarded in modern cognitive science. I have a minor in psychology(thanks to wasting three semesters thinking little past it being fascinating), which is not to pull some credentialism, I honestly would not feel comfortable stating I have any sort of expertise knowing how much I don't know, except to point out that after you get past introductory courses, which are more like an overview of the history of the profession, Jung and Freud are largely disregarded for good reasons. It's still a shaky soft science field, but it has advanced because it has moved away from the 19th and 20th century personalities that popularized the field but  took an unorthodox and flawed approach to understanding human psychology. Methods that led to such brilliant insights like how Jews lack the unconscious potential that the Aryan people possess or their eye rolling dream interpretations that look kind of ridiculous with what we know now about how little actual discernible meaning in the images in our dreams there is.

There are nuggets of good things with people like Jung, obviously, and have been expanded on by legitimate research over the years since, but Peterson seems to play in some of the more obscure and less credible corners of his work.

[etiolate]

Nola: maybe just maybe it's probably not junk psych if he's interested in it. Perhaps entertain the idea that you don't get it. Jake, too.


Stro: Weinstein and Peterson are in line in various ways. They have different speaking habits. That Peterson is the lightning rod is because of the shit you read and the broken parts of your mind. There's not a really nice way to say that.

I think Peterson is tougher to take down which is why he generates all this extra anger from people. You should realize Bret is talking about the conditioned behavior and social control in that interview you're playing out.

[naff]

My mother is really into Jungian analysis. She is also a practicing astrologist, and believes in homeopathy Great woman, nary a scientific bone in her body though. Jung seems like more of a philosopher focused on discussion of the psyche through anecdotal observation of individuals and society, than what i'd call a psychologist in the modern sense at least. I also really dislike the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, and understand it's barely used in formal personality assessment these days next to MMPI and Big Five/OCEAN assessment.

Outside of his work on defining personality types, inspiring a lot of fictional work, and igniting the popular imagination i'm not really familiar with how Jung has really influenced the modern field. Regarding Freuds influence on society, this is one of my favourite docs.

[Rufus]

I think Peterson is tougher to take down which is why he generates all this extra anger from people.

In the same way a pudding is difficult to nail to a wall.

Also, it's funny (read: intellectually dishonest) you dismiss Jake's input like that, considering he's thrown the most intellectual dank wad (perhaps even too dank) of anyone here. But hey, maybe he just doesn't get it like you do.

[etiolate]

I was exchanging with jake until he revealed that his intent was not honest.

[Rufus]

Oh, how convenient.

[Nola]

I was exchanging with jake until he revealed that his intent was not honest.

Reminds me of when a certain poster on GAF decided to counter my points, not by refuting my evidence, but by declaring my intentions to likely be racist and using that as her get-out-free card to not address any ongoing or additional points being made.

[Mandark]

"peddler of junk psychology"

His writings have been cited over 9000 times.

His articles that get cited (mostly on the Big Five, latent inhibition, and alcoholism) have very, very little to do with his stuff for public consumption or his current popularity.

Between Facets and Domains: 10 Aspects of the Big Five 543 citations

Sources of Openness/Intellect: Cognitive and Neuropsychological Correlates of the Fifth Factor of Personality 227 citations

Decreased Latent Inhibition Is Associated With Increased Creative Achievement in High-Functioning Individuals. 351 citations

Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity 258 citations



Now that piece on the origins of "sovereignty" jake and I were posting about?

Religion, sovereignty, natural rights, and the constituent elements of experience

Four citations, and three of those are by Peterson himself.

[etiolate]

The big five has a lot to do with his recent speaking appearances. It's a large part of the Newman interview in fact.

[Nola]

Nola: maybe just maybe it's probably not junk psych if he's interested in it. Perhaps entertain the idea that you don't get it. Jake, too.


Stro: Weinstein and Peterson are in line in various ways. They have different speaking habits. That Peterson is the lightning rod is because of the shit you read and the broken parts of your mind. There's not a really nice way to say that.

I think Peterson is tougher to take down which is why he generates all this extra anger from people. You should realize Bret is talking about the conditioned behavior and social control in that interview you're playing out.

The assumption here being that Peterson is a relatively perfect arbiter of what is and is not factually reputable. So defer to his judgement. To counter I may point you to his reactive peddling of a Sandusky truther article(I mentioned last night ), or his struggles to understand basic statistical findings about the gender breakdown of physicians then use that to buffer his arguments, his fondness for Google conspiracies, or his complete misunderstanding of the very bill that brought him some of his fame and notoriety.

As for Jung, it's junk psych when evidence supports that it is junk science. Which is why so much of Jung is largely disregarded in modern psychology as I understand it.  Take again dream analysis, something huge in Jungian psychology. There is not a whole lot of supporting evidence that our dream state is some universal or relatively universal set of artistic expressions that give a window into our unconscious desires or personalities. Being chased by a murderer is not evidence you want to kill people as Jung once theorized. Anxiety filled dreams like that may indicate we were particularly anxious before bed and recently watched some content about a killer stalking someone, but the evidence points us pretty far away from some of the neat universal metaphorical theories that speak deeply about our unconscious Jung and Freud asserted. In fact a lot of the underlying assumptions they built those theories on that involved things like Jung's archetypes are in conflict to one degree or another with most of what we have researched evidence of today. For instance it is why the Myers-Briggs test is largely viewed as a particularly poor personality test by today's standards. Which was built around Jungs 4 principal psychological functions.

But Jung is very convenient framework to adapt and work from if you want to find a path to avoid falsifiable statements, something Peterson has mastered, since Jung, earlier on, but definitely when he was theorized to have become schizophrenic, basically disavowed scientific reasoning because it didn't make room for magic and mysticism to fill in the gaps he wanted to be filled in.

[agrajag]

I was exchanging with jake until he revealed that his intent was not honest.

 
Jake warned for using disingenuous arguments in bad faith! 

[etiolate]

He didn't misunderstand the bill. Two lawyers even signed off on his explanation and gave testimony of how the bill would work. I have no idea what you mean by Sandusky truther article. The "google conspiracy" was stuff outed by google employees, unless you mean the google bikini results which is just hitpicking.

Have you considered that your obsession with Peterson is a bit much? Do you realize that when people call those that enjoy his talks words such as "loyal followers" or "disciples" or whatever that they're purposefully poisoning the well? Have you considered how much bullshit you have passively consumed in regards to Peterson?

Have you considered the odd amount of digging done to try tear him down? As though he is saying anything dangerous?

Hell, have you actually said anything worth responding to? I don't think so. Peterson is influenced by Jung. He uses Jung's ideas in ways that are relevant to what he's discussing.  I do believe that he's said that Jung and Freud are both due more respect for what they found.

Outside of the little circle of the bore, the way you all behave is off the charts. You're freaks. You are lucky that anyone of any sanity level interacts with you. So I suggest to stop being cunts over Peterson, because it screams jealousy no matter how hard you try to hide it. If you don't have an interest in the discussion then just go. SO many fucking twats complained about the topic in other threads, so I make a different thread and those same twats come here.

You expect way more patience from people than you're worth.

[Nola]

Have you considered that your obsession with Peterson is a bit much?

Have you?   

Well two lawyers signed off on his misunderstanding of the lack of a criminal statute of the law, I guess that settles that. Time to close up shop. But before I go, care to point to the exact line that proves that?

 Do you realize that when people call those that enjoy his talks words such as "loyal followers" or "disciples" or whatever that they're purposefully poisoning the well? Have you considered how much bullshit you have passively consumed in regards to Peterson?

Have you considered the odd amount of digging done to try tear him down? As though he is saying anything dangerous?

Hell, have you actually said anything worth responding to? I don't think so. Peterson is influenced by Jung. He uses Jung's ideas in ways that are relevant to what he's discussing.  I do believe that he's said that Jung and Freud are both due more respect for what they found.

Outside of the little circle of the bore, the way you all behave is off the charts. You're freaks. You are lucky that anyone of any sanity level interacts with you. So I suggest to stop being cunts over Peterson, because it screams jealousy no matter how hard you try to hide it. If you don't have an interest in the discussion then just go. SO many fucking twats complained about the topic in other threads, so I make a different thread and those same twats come here.

You expect way more patience from people than you're worth.

You seem to be projecting quite a lot onto me and the board at large TBH, which as a student of Jung(or at least a fan of someone that likes to heavily source and lean on him), you must be familiar that he taught that such behavior is really a reflection of one's self. That what you hate in others is really just what you hate in yourself   

spoiler (click to show/hide)

He didn't misunderstand the bill. Two lawyers even signed off on his explanation and gave testimony of how the bill would work. I have no idea what you mean by Sandusky truther article. The "google conspiracy" was stuff outed by google employees, unless you mean the google bikini results which is just hitpicking.

Oh, well two lawyers signed off on it, I guess that settles it. Time to wrap it up, but before you go, can you point me to the exact line that unequivocally codifies that mispronouncing a pronoun is subject to criminal prosecution under hate-crime laws?

PS, very likely if you are going to argue by way of unsubstantiated insult and deeming yourself intellectually superior any time your opinions are heavily challenged, you are going to continue getting trolled.

[close]

[naff]

I don't think Peterson misunderstood C-16, but he definitely mis-characterized the level of enforcement e.g. he could potentially be fined for misgendering someone intentionally, say while lecturing at the University of Toronto which falls under the OHRCs protected grounds, after they have gone through due process to inform the institution and Peterson of their preference, but it is not a criminal act. He could not be jailed.

[etiolate]

I don't think Peterson misunderstood C-16, but he definitely mis-characterized the level of enforcement e.g. he could potentially be fined for misgendering someone intentionally, say while lecturing at the University of Toronto which falls under the OHRCs protected grounds, after they have gone through due process to inform the institution and Peterson of their preference, but it is not a criminal act. He could not be jailed.

His statement was that he would not pay the fine because he found the law unjust and this refusal to pay the fine would lead to jail time.

[jakefromstatefarm]

Nola: maybe just maybe it's probably not junk psych if he's interested in it. Perhaps entertain the idea that you don't get it. Jake, too.

fwiw, I have no dog in the fight of determining either the scientific validity of (certain branches of) psychology or Peterson’s competence as a clinical psychologist. I don’t know dick about either. But, in Peterson’s project  to construct a theory of everything, his work does impinge on some topics I do know dick about, like philosophy of science, philosophy of the social sciences, history of philosophy, and religious history. As mandarks pointed out, his claims/arguments/premises and especially his normative prescriptions -the whole reason why anyone is talking about him- can’t all be reduced to simple psychological work or a handful of psychological mechanisms/taxonomies, the big five or otherwise. What I’ve been trying to show, carefully and at length to you and anyone else who might care, are the metaphysical and epistemological commitments that Peterson depends on in order to arrive at truth claims like “conservatism insulates society in times of crisis” and “these particular protestors ought not to be protesting” and whether or not they can be reconciled with each other as Peterson’s explained them.

I was exchanging with jake until he revealed that his intent was not honest.

ive stated from the first that  I think Peterson’s project is riddled with inconsistencies, incoherences, and falsehoods to the point where it’s essentially bankrupt. This follows from the particular points I’ve brought up, mostly quotes/passages from his own hand, that are inconsistent, incoherent, or false. If you disagree with my take on these particulars, great, demonstrate that I’m wrong on them and we both benefit. If you don’t want to, that’s cool too, but you haven’t provided a reason beyond “he might be right” for me to reconsider my position.

As a show of good faith, I’ll restate the questions i posted earlier that started this whole excursion:

Granted the true and the good are determined by their being transmitted across generations through a natural selection process, doesn’t this mean man’s goal is mere  self-perpetuation? If so, how’s is this any different from a naked will to power where might more or less makes right? And how does this help solve the anxiety caused by modernity?

What is his view, at bottom, of social reality and how does this inform how he derives his normative prescriptions?

How do we determine which stories/traditions are relevant for our own moral purposes and how do we mine them for moral content in a way that isn’t ad hoc?

[Nola]

I don't think Peterson misunderstood C-16, but he definitely mis-characterized the level of enforcement e.g. he could potentially be fined for misgendering someone intentionally, say while lecturing at the University of Toronto which falls under the OHRCs protected grounds, after they have gone through due process to inform the institution and Peterson of their preference, but it is not a criminal act. He could not be jailed.

Seems like he sort of has.

https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/

[curly]

[Tasty]

You guys really make an ass of yourself for all to see.

Translation: "You guys are being meanie heads "

[Oblivion]

Etoilet has argued that Peterson critics, both in and out of this thread are:

- arguing in bath faith
- being needlessly insulting
- verbose
- not actually addressing the substance of one's arguments

You don't see this kind of projection even at IMAX.

And he even argues like a goddamned five year old.


Everyone: Hey dude, your boy Peterson's kind of a hack.
etoilet: WHAT WAS THAT? WHY YES HE IS INDEED THE SMARTEST AND BESTEST GUY ON EARTH TIMES INFINITY!

If he was any more immature, Peterson would throw him thirty feet across a park.

I don't think Peterson misunderstood C-16, but he definitely mis-characterized the level of enforcement e.g. he could potentially be fined for misgendering someone intentionally, say while lecturing at the University of Toronto which falls under the OHRCs protected grounds, after they have gone through due process to inform the institution and Peterson of their preference, but it is not a criminal act. He could not be jailed.

His statement was that he would not pay the fine because he found the law unjust and this refusal to pay the fine would lead to jail time.

As was mentioned the last time both you and him brought up this moronic fear: by this logic, illegal parking and jaywalking are also imprisonable offenses.

But Jordan's fears are even stupider than that, because any penalty he receives that he refuses to pay would just be garnished from his wages. He wouldn't even be able to accomplish his faux martyrdom.

[Oblivion]

But I guess what's most puzzling is the whole attacking Jake thing. You could argue the rest of us have been snarky and have shown disdain and contempt for Peterson, but as far as I can tell, Jake was the only one in this thread that decided to remain civil the entire time. Unless I missed something.

[Mandark]

jake obviously knows his shit. The first time he dropped "teleological" I knew et wouldn't want those problems.

And to be fair neither would I. The moment jake roasts me on philosophy I'm ghosting that discussion and treating it as non-canon.

[seagrams hotsauce]

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/975580116905443328

Literally so much for the tolerant left

He could, y'know, google it, since Chompsky ate Harris alive a few years back. Chompsky immediately calls him out saying he suspects Harris is only contacting him so he can post the exchange on his blog, which, lo and behold, he did

[agrajag]

Jake still gets this work when the topic is metal, being a filthy Pantera stan doesn't help.

Damn you have bad taste in metal

[agrajag]

 

Dimebag > your favorite guitarist

[agrajag]

That's your (very wrong) opinion.

[Momo]

Has anyone actually been fined or arrested in Canada for whatever it was Peterson made his big stand on that normal people would just roll their eyes and continue with life as normal?

As far as I understand it the argument so far is that the university Peterson works for told him to knock it off under the advice of lawyers who told them he might be breaking the law. That's all I think. 

[Momo]

Has anyone actually been fined or arrested in Canada for whatever it was Peterson made his big stand on that normal people would just roll their eyes and continue with life as normal?

As far as I understand it the argument so far is that the university Peterson works for told him to knock it off under the advice of lawyers who told them he might be breaking the law. That's all I think. 

Were there complaints from students or was it him being vocal to the public about it

No one complained, the university thought he was putting them at risk of litigation/being in violation of the law if he continued. I'm not a JP expert but this is how I remember it when I listened to Jordan Peterson talk with Joe Rogan. Also keep in mind this comes from JP so he may be inferring some stuff about the university's intent.

[Momo]

But the university only knew about it because he made it a point to make sure everyone knew he wasn't going to follow that law right

It occurs to me I cant actually remember how this whole JP thing started, but he did go on TV and say he would never follow the law. Not sure how deep in the timeline this is but probably relatively early, yet after whatever sparked his popularity since he was on TV already.

[etiolate]

The university had their lawyers look it over and told Peterson he should probably back off because it could come down on them.

The way these laws work is on multiple levels and they largely work via threat. You can look at how Title IX was abused in the states for an example of something similar playing out over the years.

The real possibility of trouble will lead to departments creating their own version of the rules in order to avoid any run-in with the OHRC. That's how the Lindsey Shepherd thing happened. It was a college department taking the guidelines into their own hands.

[etiolate]

I believe they wanted him to back off discussing the law itself and his objections to it because the objections themselves could get them in trouble.

I don't believe he ever directly states what the note from his college said. It was basically a step in the procedure. Warn, warn twice and then they can look into dismissing him.

[naff]

I don't think Peterson misunderstood C-16, but he definitely mis-characterized the level of enforcement e.g. he could potentially be fined for misgendering someone intentionally, say while lecturing at the University of Toronto which falls under the OHRCs protected grounds, after they have gone through due process to inform the institution and Peterson of their preference, but it is not a criminal act. He could not be jailed.

His statement was that he would not pay the fine because he found the law unjust and this refusal to pay the fine would lead to jail time.

It was a long time ago, maybe I'm getting the timeline wrong but I remember him characterizing it as a criminal act and relating it to holocaust denial then getting called out on that in the TVO interview and changing his tune a little to be more in line with the reality of the law change. I have a fair amount of sympathy for this argument anyway. I really hate zie, zim, zur etc, and think these laws should be a little clearer as to what pronouns are to be used rather than pick your own pronoun. That is simply too confusing to be functional.

Going back and watching that TVO interview is pretty interesting. Straight off the bat from Nicholas Matte -

https://tvo.org/transcript/2396103/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/genders-rights-and-freedom-of-speech

]
Nicholas says
BASICALLY
IT'S NOT CORRECT THAT THERE IS
SUCH A THING AS BIOLOGICAL SEX.

 

I didn't even think our neo-marxist leader Judith Butler went that far. I thought we were happy with the distinction between gender being performative and biological sex Is he referencing intersex chromosonal abnormalities to justify this. I dont even.

Where JP is called out:

Jordan says THEY'RE
NOT MINOR.
THEY PUT IT INTO THE HATE SPEECH
CATEGORY.
THEY'RE NOT MINOR AT ALL.
THAT'S A MISSTATEMENT.
DON'T TELL ME THEY'RE MINOR.
THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

Kyle says SO SECTION...
PARDON ME.
SO SECTION 318 SETS OUT A SERIES
OF IDENTIFIABLE GROUPS, AND
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CLEAREST
OF CASES.
THE CASES OF ADVOCATING
GENOCIDE.
WE HAVE A SERIES OF GROUPS THAT
ARE ALREADY IDENTIFIED IN THE
CODE, AND ALL THIS DOES IS ADD
GENDER IDENTITY AND GENDER
EXPRESSION TO THE CATEGORIES
THAT ARE ALREADY IDENTIFIED.
AND SO I THINK WE REALLY HAVE TO
ADD SOME REASONABLENESS TO THIS
DISCUSSION.
ACTUALLY CLEARLY ARTICULATE WHAT
THE PROVISION DOES.

Steve says LET ME BE A LITTLE
CLEARER ABOUT WHAT SOME OF THE
PROBLEMS... WHAT YOU MIGHT BE
ASKING FOR IF YOU WANT TO DO
THIS.
FOR EXAMPLE, AND, SHELDON,
BOTTOM OF PAGE 3 HERE.
LET'S PUT THIS GRAPHIC UP.

Another quote appears on screen, under the title "No jail!" The quote reads "Pronoun misuse may become actionable, through the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them."
Quoted from Brenda Crossman, sds.utoronto.ca, October 2016.

Steve says JORDAN, YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO GO TO JAIL IF YOU KEEP
THIS UP.
DO YOU FIND THAT REASSURING?

Jordan says WHAT IF I
DON'T PAY THE FINE?

Steve says THEN WHAT?

jpinjail.gif

[Momo]

I really hate zie, zim, zur etc, and think these laws should be a little clearer as to what pronouns are to be used rather than pick your own pronoun.

Honestly don't think this should be in law at all. Would be better to have something like crimen injuria.

[benjipwns]

But in the end he brought it all on himself by acting like a 13 year old getting told to take out the trash

You're freaks. You are lucky that anyone of any sanity level interacts with you.

[benjipwns]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/yes-jordan-peterson-really-is-that-smart

Yes, Jordan Peterson Really Is That Smart
The New York Review of Books sneered at him, but he’s for real. To have David Brooks and the Trumpists in his corner, he has to be.

So would he have voted for Donald Trump? You might think this question would have elicited a slam dunk “Yes!” coming from a man who has become something of a regular guest on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight.

“Jesus,” says Peterson, “that’s a hard question.”

“I think what I would have done was walk into the voting booth with the intention of voting for Clinton, and then, at the last minute, gone, ‘To hell with it. I’m not doing it,’ and voted for Trump,” he said.

Like many on the right, this is a question he struggles with.

“For the entire election, virtually, I thought, well, Clinton has the experience necessary to at least keep the status quo in motion. So, in some sense, she was a conservative choice,” he continued. “Because she’d been in politics so long.”

Ultimately, though, Peterson became concerned about Clinton’s ideological direction. Likewise, he believes that Americans concluded they liked “the unscripted, impulsive lies of Trump better than the conniving, scripted lies of Clinton.”

“I think I would have impulsively voted for Trump at the last moment,” Peterson concedes. “But it wouldn’t have been with a sense of delight—I can tell you that.”

This was an academic exercise for a Canadian, but the fact that he reasoned through this hypothetical question, and answered with a sort of intellectual honesty is why Jordan Peterson matters

[Oblivion]

"He voted for Trump, but wasn't happy about it, therefore...."

 

Oh, and it was written by Matt Lewis. Nevermind. That makes all the sense in the world now.

[benjipwns]

I don't see any of you postmodernist marxist pieces of shit reasoning through hypotheticals. It screams jealousy no matter how hard you try to hide it.

Go gargle with battery acid and broken glass until you understand the discussion being had past you and prove you're worth being responded to.

[benjipwns]

You freaks can't even muster up "a sort of intellectual honesty" let alone an actual intellectual honesty. That's why you don't matter.

[Momo]

I don't see any of you postmodernist marxist pieces of shit reasoning through hypotheticals. It screams jealousy no matter how hard you try to hide it.

Go gargle with battery acid and broken glass until you understand the discussion being had past you and prove you're worth being responded to.

How did reverse Jack Remington get your password benji?

[Rufus]

That article reads like a backhanded compliment at points, but I guess this guy is being genuine.

[seagrams hotsauce]

Dimebag was awful dawg. He was a pretty mediocre guitarist technically speaking, but his tone was just unbearable. Pantera isn't even Phils best band

[HardcoreRetro]

Reverse Jack Remington

This isn't the kink thread.

[etiolate]

dailybeast icnluding a link to the whole interview because they knew the Q was coming

[benjipwns]

jealous postmodernist losers making fools of themselves trying to critique Peterson's new book* as if they were on his level





*which is destroying theirs in the best sellers list

[agrajag]

Dimebag was awful dawg. He was a pretty mediocre guitarist technically speaking, but his tone was just unbearable. Pantera isn't even Phils best band

this is your worst post ever.