professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
Let me clarify: I would have preferred Bernie if I was an American, but Hillary since I am not (she promised more stability and a continuation of current policies).
I think both are miles better candidates than Trump on all important metrics, as do I think every single previous candidate in my life time would have been a better pick than Trump.
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
No, I don't. What does it violate? Why, if you can show a link between a militant religious ideology would you not want to have some handle on who those people are, especially newly arrived ones or those with links to other, radical individuals. How do you track that without some form of registry?
It would likely violate the 1st and 5th amendment, see for instance the UCLAs thoughts on the matter. The idea of creating and maintaining a database of citizens because of their religious views (or other ideas) is fundamentally unsound, but very likely also unconstitutional.
To me, the "sum" of the debates is her attacking him for being silly and unsuitable, and him making claims about what he's going to do. His claims were far more memorable, she always came across as contrived and an insincere act
Most of trumps proposals were memorable exactly because they were either likely unconstitutional or impractical. here is a genuine question: Who of the two
here is a genuine question: Who of the two attacked the other the most and the most viciously? Trump, for instance, systematically labeled Hillary "Crooked Hillary".
Because no one reads the news, they watch the TV who occasionally read the news but typically chase sensationalism. The electorate chose to weaken the 4th estate and so get trump. Everyone who pushes for instant issues and YouTube videos of confrontation instead of proper reasoned debate contributes to this.
BLM promote shouting at people, and so who could shout the loudest became the standard for success.
Trump won.
I agree. First Poland more or less succumbed to right-wing nationalists who are now weakening their democratic institutions and free press (something very rarely mentioned), then brexit (again, a decision made on very widely promulgated lies which were known to be lies), then Trump. Perhaps Le Pen next and then something really awful in Germany; if that happens I am really going to fear for the next decade.
Too complicated (tiered tax breaks), to abstract or talk of "middle class" as a segment instead of talking to real working people.
Perhaps. But that is then her fault for making feasible solutions that could be funded rather than just saying she will fix everything and throw out the mexicans.
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
A national database of foreign nationals, some of whom may be looking to conduct terrorism is not necessarily crazy and not necessarily in violation of the 1st and 5th amendment.
Okay but now you are just changing what I said. There is already a database with people entering the US and that's perfectly legal. What I referred to was a database of American citizens based on their religious affiliation. THAT is what many civil rights groups are questioning. So do you think THAT is crazy?
The fact is that some muslims are a threat. The left's claim that none are and there is no threat
I am part of "the left" and I make no such claim. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone on the left (even the crazy left, but let us leave those aside) who claim that no Muslims are a threat, and there is no threat from Muslims. Can you see how that sentence is both factually false and perpetuate a false dichotomy?
but it's really the sum of her position. In the same way that we judge Trump not just by what he says but those around him.
I raise you troll extraordinaire Steve Bannon!. I have tried to re-evaluate my thoughts about Hillary after the election and I have many times found that I too fell back on negative generalizations about her (like, I too knew she was somewhat involved in the PC business). I am struggling to find concrete reasons for those beliefs now in what she actually said and did and I am thinking that I too was trolled.
Yes, as part of her compaign she advocated LBGT rights and equal pay. So what? I also believe in those things, and without someone who keeps reminding me that she must also accept every blue-haired talking point it is actually difficult to see that as something to hold against her ( but enter breitbart...).
Meanwhile, Donald trumps wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Comparing the two, one is saying something I obviously think is a step backwards, the other is advocating things that, if I don't read things into it, I happen to agree are good things.
No, she had the chance to stay on message but again and again she simply focused on how unsuitable Trump was - all the time just talking about him and repeating the mistakes that other republicans had made in the primaries without telling people what SHE was going to do for THEM.
Well, that is not my impression from watching the presidential debates. She kept mentioning things she would do, etc. etc., and Trump kept making (often quite plainly false) statements about her with very little content. Should we go over their exchange of coal mining as an example?
We got to agree on a metric for how we compare their statements.
Do you claim that Trump spoke more or less about specific policy steps than Clinton? Do you think that Trump mentioned Clintons unsuitability more or less often than she spoke about his? (The phrase "crooked Hillary" comes to mind, as does his call to put her in jail on public television).
She failed to prosecute the case against him despite his pitifully weak intellect. She didn't dismantle his arguments, just labelled them ugly and his supporters too.
Trumps lies were documented by all major newspapers through the race. That did not seem to have any effect at all. It is very hard to see what she could actually have done when the truth does not appear to matter.
He was going to clamp down on immigration, especially muslims coming into the country, and jobs being exported overseas. To many voters, these were the most important issues in their life, a threat to their way of life and possibly their life itself.
His promises were memorable because they were tangible. They could be visualized - yes, many times because they were outlandish, but that made them memorable.
What exactly did Hillary promise, other than to be the first female president? More pandering to the loonies?
No college tuition at public colleges for families making less than 125'000, maintain affordable health care, no tax increase on the middle class, limit on super PAC spendings, ...
I agree Trumps message was simpler: To make America great. Hillary Clintons goals were dull because she was bounded by what was feasible when she wrote them out...
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
That's a good example. The crazy left is obviously crazy. But the problem we have now is that the crazy right actually isn't.
Do you not think it is crazy to call for a national database of all Muslims in violation of the 1st and 5th amendment?
The right-wing propaganda mill on e.g. facebook associate all on the left with the extreme left. That is what I call *crazy right* behavior, and what I think is both unfair and dangerous. For instance, I got called a "regressive leftish" the other day, presumably because my dislike for Trump automatically put me in the same camp as those who believe Islam can do nothing wrong and therefore there is no reason to make a distinction.
So the populace, presented with a poor choice chose the one where they are not the bad guys, because most are not.
That is the dichotomy that the alt-right is doing it's very best to push (a vote for Hillary is a vote for <example of crazy-left behaviour>), however, I think it at least deserves some scrutiny. Hillary did play on her being the first woman candidate at times but it was quite subtle. It is difficult to see how Hillary Clinton in her own words actually demonized workers or white men, however, there was (and remains) a huge cottage industry who tries (with very considerable success) to interpret Hillary and associate her with the crazy left.
The left is failing to put forward a believable and acceptable vision because of an obsession with extreme liberalism and idealism which actually puts at risk the already-won freedoms.
Hillary Clinton was not a good salesman but her campaign DID have vision. For instance, she had proposals for 10 billion dollars to help create new industries in the areas affected by the loss of coal mining. That is a positive message that could actually be implemented and which would have benefitted the "poor white men". However, that message was drowned out by a sea of propaganda where she was only interested in lobbyists and left-wing crybabies.
Trump brought absolutely nothing to the table (oh yes, he will open the mines, presumably by tweeting the owners of the mines...). That is why I don't think that her "elitism" and "distance" had anything to do with reality because she is running against the epitome of someone who don't give a fuck about a working class person unless they are in his way for a building project.
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
Simon: Catlin Jenner might not even know someone called him / her a he or a she but you can bet some SJW will be only too willing to fight about it as though they were he or she.
But so what? insofar as my experience tells me, these SJWs are mostly found in videos about crazy SJWs, often in a setting where some form of monetary benefit is involved for the person who made the video..
That does not make their opinions less fringe or crazy, but I think it is a problem that is being blown out of context.
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
I disagree. The left isn't trying to sell moderates anything other than that they too are all part of the extreme right - simply (usually) by being a white male, they are supposedly racist, homophobic, oppressive, privileged, misogynistic rapists-to-be.
I think it is possible to find many on the left who does not condone that behaviour at all. Here is what I mean:
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
scotsman: nope, never met one, and I have been in university environments for several years now which are supposedly shock full of them...
I don't doubt they could be found, but quite frankly why not take the good old "don't feed the trolls" approach (if they appear to not be genuine) and get on with life?
Universities, being full of young people who are seeking a single answer to anything, has always housed extreme opinions. I think this is a very, very minor issue to get upset compared to other events.
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
So many important battles to fight right now, and some idiots want to fight this. This is why the left loses so often - the right attacks the extreme left first that doesn't have general support and then work toward the center until they meet resistance. The left attacks the center and those only slightly to their right while ignoring the extreme right to their peril.
Okay that resonates a lot with me. The way I see it there is the "crazy blue-haired left" and the "crazy right". Both are trying their hardest to sell moderates as their worst parody of the other side. However, I think the right-wing has been far, far more effective in selling (and spreading) the picture of the "crazy left". This can be seen by how the fake news writers have found the right-wing stories to sell better and Trump might just have won an election based on fake news stories largely parroting crazy-right propaganda.
Furthermore, the white house strategist is professional alt-right troll Steve Bannon. This has a large impact on the world stage whereas I think the worst the crazy left has managed so far is to ban the occasional Halloween. If I actually meet a student one day who will be called Xir I will call him or whatever Xir and mentally put him on ignore: Problem solved.
I will go so far as to say there might be an ethical (not legal) issue in Jordan Peterson posting videos of students who might not be well in their heads who go off on this Xir and Zip stuff and making money off it.
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
Simon:
Except that completely mischaracterizes the issue. The real issue with the legislation is, as he highlights, that the conversation could go:
"Yes, the lady in the back".
"OMG, you called me 'lady' instead of 'fingfangfooey', the word we just invented yesterday, you are guilty of a HATE CRIME!!!"
(Black helicopters swoop in and Jordan Peterson is taken to room 101).
Much more sinister.
But is that actually what the law is about?
I have taken anti discrimination/harassment courses in this stuff in a university environment (I won't say which but I can PM it) and the behaviour they try to limit is nothing like this (also, university policy is far more restrictive than that in outside society as it is in most workplaces).
If his student wished to be called 'fingfangfooey', Jordan's subsequent actions would need to meet the bar for actual harassment for that to be a problem. That bar is quite high in other circumstances and does not usually pose a problem.
The problem of students wanted to be called 'fingfangfooey' should be seen in relations to how often that occurs (according to Cofty, less than 0.3% of the people are transexuals, and presumably the fingfangfooes are a subset of those so you are unlikely to encounter one in several years), and what harm will come to Jordan for saying "Sorry, 'fingfangfooey'", and get on with the class. Not getting upset by the occasional stupid stuff said in class is part of maintaining your professional distance.
Of course there are trolls who will try to abuse that system, and that trolling is reported very wide and far, but I think that when Jordan manage to find trolls or genuinely confused students then perhaps another course of action is to recognize he is dealing with a confused person and take it like a man and say Xir?
Simon, do you also see C 16 as a great threat to free speech in canada as Jordan claims?
professor jordan peterson of the university of toronto will be streaming a live debate on his youtube channel on the topic of free speech and "bill c-16".. if you haven't heard (where have you been?
) peterson has been making waves by opposing the demands of pc "social justice warriors" at the u of t to use their chosen gender neutral pronouns.
in his judgement proposed "bill-c16" will make his non-compliance illegal - an egregious threat to free speech.. professor peterson is an intelligent and thoughtful academic who has found himself at the focus of attacks from the neo-marxists that are dominating the conversation at elite universities.
I already said that transgender people "should be treated with dignity and respect". However I can understand why, for example an employer might not want to hire a man with gender dysphoria for certain jobs within their business.A biological man in a dress at a reception desk might not be the image a company wants.
Do you understand how you totally misrepresented Peterson's position?
Then please explain his position to me, in particular where the actual harm is in C 16. This is supposedly a major threat to free speech, something radically new which is why he speaks out with no regard to his job, career or freedom (according to himself), so it should be fairly easy.
As to your example, yes, I too can also understand why you don't want a man in some jobs (for instance, cleaning the women's shower in the swimming pool), or you don't want a 69-year-old as a bouncer in a club, or a person who refuse to handle pork on religious grounds in a restaurant. These too are protected characteristics (gender, age, religion) but these examples do not present insurmountable obstacles to the courts or civil society.
The kind of example which is in mind for these laws is that where your local firefighter is fired because the boss decides he is no longer a "real man" now that he likes to dress up as a woman in the weekend. Is that in your opinion discrimination that should be legal?
BTW. the standards for "harassment" (which I think is what Jordan is getting at with the legal business and not using pronouns) is quite high when it comes to the other protected characteristics. At best, he might get in troubles with his university, but that remains to be seen and is (as you noted) a place where it is reasonable to let the employer use some discernment in terms of who should represent the university.
The alt-right keeps banging on with these slippery-slope arguments when it comes to transsexuals without understanding that these obstacles are already successfully navigated for N-1 other similar characteristics and their associated potential problems.
