l33tshoe is mocking you, Bear. Read its other comments here. It thinks it has the moral high ground. It thinks it can speak the Bayah or Annus Fidei and not be a hypocrite. l33tshoe, will you profess your sins and accept Jesus into your life as your savior? Will you attest that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger? No, perhaps you won't. And if you won't, it is because you know a silly and dangerous ideology when you see one. What Peterson says about his refusal to speak the SocJus creed of faith is just the same as yours or mine refusal to pledge allegiance to Christianity or Islam (or any number of other faiths, including Sociology and SocJus).
"THAT'S NOT WHAT WE THINK." Why is the moderator attempting to debate Prof. Peterson? I haven't seen this kind of bias from a moderator since the US presidential debates.
Her condescending tone and the "We had someone say what the law ACTUALLY says" (referring to the SJW lawyer) proved her completely unfit/incapable as a moderator
You're giving the moderator too much credit. She wasn't trying to debate him, she was shouting him down. At least the other debaters didn't interrupt him. Also I swear she let the other debaters run way over time constantly. The one debater even said she was over time and continued to drone on about absolutely nothing without being cut off. Absolutely terrible moderator
And at the end of the debate the weasel "reminds" us that bill c-16 was put in place to prevent murder. WTF? The whole point of the debate was to debate said bill's validity....
Right. She was the sleeper agent. The problem was CrazyWordSalad and RuspectMuhAuthoratah made so little sense that she couldn't back them up much until she slipped in that junk right at the end.
Glad to see others caught this as well. It was a 3 v 1 on Peterson and she really didn't set the playing field as equal when she sets the ending tone on that note. "Oh well fuck Petersons point of view, let's focus on the killing of trans people while disregarding everything he has said as a nice closing thought."
They call themselves social justice Warriors. A warrior is someone who dominates others against their will, and that with the use of violence. Who is next pleading for more friendlyness, towards their organisation and ideology? ISIS?
Jordon's argument basically comes down to "Look what's happening to me.". This is a pretty hard argument to refute. In fact this whole event supports his argument.
Peterson is one badass standing up against these insane developments in Canada. The fact he got denounced alone is proof of how hurtful this shit is. The other two people debating did not have a single rational reasonable argument while Peterson made his case precisely and with passion. How can anyone approve of a law that dictates your language/behavior? 1st step to fascism. The man is a hero!
Back against the wall and odds With the strength of a will and a cause Your pursuits are called outstanding You're emotionally complex Against the grain of dystopic claims Not the thoughts your actions entertain And you have proved to be A real human being and a real hero Real human being and a real hero Real human being and a real hero Real human being and a real hero Real human being
You can certainly hear the disdain in their voices. Which is also why they can't debate for shit because its not about the case for them but about the one individual that dares speaking out and not moving in line. We all need to show our support online. is there already a petition? If not lets make one!
I thought it was bad in the U.S. can not even fathom how far gone these people are, arguing essentially for the same classless society the Soviet Union had
Such stark contrast between the two sides. One side was driven by passion, earnest conviction, and deep knowledge from a broad range of subjects. The other side by arrogance, condescension, and obfuscation through lawyer-speak, emotional appeals and moral posturing that could only be rivaled by the religious right.
Indeed it was rather telling to see both sides operate. It almost seemed like the people who were trying to appeal to "Feelz" were unable to handle Peterson. Almost like a career based on Feelz gets crushed by real world logic.
SJWs are absolutely the new religious right, this is so similar to debates I attended a decade ago over marriage equality. The anti-gay side was all "muh feels", and "think of the children", and "look at all this 'research' we have (even though it's horse shit, it just has a facade of science overlaid on top to give it a false appearance of credibility)".
And that's why they take all your money when you exercise your free speech against them. If you can't beat them in argument, don't allow them argue. as long as the human rights tribunals exist with the abilities and will they are currently displaying we live in an authoritarian nation. The biggest thing I learned from this debate is that the "most extreme speech" is code word for whatever they fucking well please.
+Gabe Enss It's doublespeak at its finest. Restricted speech is free speech. I found it particularly disconcerting how forthcoming she was while explaining the arbitrary nature of our Charter rights. She basically presented the fact that Canadians have conditional rights as something we need to accept and get over, and then once we did that, we'd come to understand the correctness of her position. They're being completely candid in their opposition to true free speech. One thing I'm certain of now is that the American constitution is far superior to ours, and that is unacceptable. This is a perfect opportunity to continue our greatest tradition of one-upping our American cousins.
I'd add these times stamps (on-going): 24:25 Peterson Round 1 (natural gender differences, the purpose of free speech and the risks associated with losing it) 35:20 Speaker #2 Round 1 (details of C-16 and related clauses in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) 46:35 Peterson Round 2 (letters from a grad student and three lawyers, backlash from the University administration, dangers of over-compassion like the overbearing mother) 57:15 Speaker #3 Round 1 (denouncing deliberate cultural production of ignorance, lack of peer-reviewed study of Peterson to back up claims, transcripts from Peterson's lectures, dynamics of gender) *1:08:50** Moderator questions & clarifications:* - 1:09:24 to Peterson: "does the outlining of the laws regarding the issue give you any comfort?" Answer: the dangers of legal doctrine, "The Gulag Archipelago" on this issue (won a Nobel Prize), on recognizing that gender identity, sexual orientation, and biological sex do not vary independently - 1:14:25 to Speaker #2: "thoughts on Peterson's opposition to the regulation of language?" Answer: on the purpose of the law being to regulate social constructs, such as owning land and futures, and assets being seized instead of jail time for opposition - 1:18:30 to Peterson: "how does the research on gender identity and its complications affect your views?" Answer: rebuttal to previous answer and that C-16 would build in a social constructionist doctrine, and not regulate social constructs as regular law does, and identity having some solidity and not being completely fluid in subjection, natural differences between men and women manifesting in gender-equal Scandinavian countries - 1:23:15 to Speaker #3: "what are the objective realities of the research?" Answer: on educating oneself with proper scientific research and not non-peer reviewed science (sex being linked and produced with gender, which cannot be separated from sexism and misogyny), and on getting trans people protected under the law *1:26:45** Questions from the audience:* - to Peterson: "Does your opposition to the clauses proposed in Bill C-16, based on the prohibition of freedom of expression, extend to racist terminology and other speech that would be classified as inciting hatred? If not, why?" - 1:30:45 to Speakers #2&3: "If there is government restriction against thoughtful discussion, would it skew discussion to one side?" - 1:35:10 to Peterson: "As a clinical psychologist, are you refusing to acknowledge the damage associated with rejecting your identity?" - 1:38:55 to Speaker #2: "How is the idea of a free and democratic society formed, and who is part of that discussion?" - 1:42:10 to Peterson: "Why do you think someone's gender identity and expression infringes on your freedom of speech? Does this extend to racial slurs?" (Savage ending) - 1:45:30 to Speaker #3: "What can universities do to move things forward in a helpful and inclusive way for LGBTQ communities?" 1:48:50 Conclusion by Moderator
The odds were stacked against him in this debate. It's two against one and moderated by a biased person who is on the same team as the people he is debating. On top of that, every question Dr. Peterson got was tough and against his position, whereas the other two were asked easy questions that were in support of their point of view. Dr. Peterson did well given the circumstances and it is shameful that U of T would set up the debate in a way to try and discredit him!
Just finished the entire debate and the amount of arrogance with which his opponents speak frustrates me greatly. You can very clearly see the condescension and patronization directed toward Professor Peterson. This comes from his opponents and even the moderator. Really? Even the moderator? I don't see any reasonable excuse for this; he seems to make a valid argument and they should at least appear to take him seriously. This was a poorly organized and biased debate forum. My frustration here isn't specific to the argument, but is mostly due to the quality of the discussion and to the morally conceited people who were involved in it. The final words from the moderator made up the last nail in the coffin for me.
The woman from Vancouver talks about how Peterson doesn't use science in his arguments against the bill. Then she goes on to state that gender and sex are mutually exclusive. Yeah science doesn't show that men and women clearly have differences biologically and in how their brains work based on their sex which is how we often classify gender. Okay... I'm listening...
these people claim that open debate is important but will silence people that disagree any chance they get, even people who are basically on their own side but disagree with one thing or another. They destroy them in days because their views aren't alt-left enough anymore.
Thanks Siggy, whoever you are, for mirroring the debate this morning. I had a great time watching it live, as I'm sure many did. Chat was great and no doubt plenty of keks were had by all. Shadilay!
Beginning at roughly 1:34:00 the speaker states, "Simplifying the world for functional purposes is not what I recognize to be academic practice; this is not how we relate to knowledge." They could not possibly be more mistaken. Simplifying the world for functional purposes is the ONLY way we relate to knowledge. Our minds have very limited capacity for finding solutions to multi-variable problems, so we make simpler models and test the predictions of those models against observations of the real world. I suspect this form of ignorance is the seed from which the social justice movement has grown. The weeds of political correctness, Marxism and victim culture threaten to smother our garden of liberty.
I contend that it would be more correct to say "there is mathematical knowledge that has no functional purpose yet discovered." Even in the field of mathematics we begin with the simplest of theorems and build towards theorems of greater depth and complexity. In general, the process of knowledge generation is iterative and always in the direction of simple -> complex.
Sadly the trans-community is just a token pawn in this game. They're not even being benefited in any real way with this bill, they're just being cited as the rationale. Its intolerable to me.
Adding trans people to a non-discrimination bill that includes other minorities makes sense. It sounds like the bill needs to be much more explicit about insuring that freedom of speech is not trampled on
But that can't happen when the people backing it have abandoned reason, and embraced postmodern neo-Marxist political nonsense. This ideology teaches that there is no objective reality, only narratives. It seeks to deconstruct all systems and categorical organizations. In short, it's nuts. You can't write about anything in a clear and concise manner if you're coming from this irrational foundation.
Cossman says, “Professor Peterson has not been denounced”. Bryson says, “His claims must be denounced this is not science”. “What kind of claims can you make in amateurish videos”? “We must denounce the deliberate cultural production of ignorance”. She then uses the David Suzuki quote, “He is either grossly ignorant or deliberately mischievous. Either way what is required is action by scientists and academics. His claims must be denounced. This is not science”. Definition as per dictionary.com: to condemn or censure openly or publicly. Sounds like a denouncement to me!
"Forced expression has been used and has been in the law for a long time, so don't worry about it!" Just because a law has been there for a long time, doesn't make it good, fucking hell... If these are the people that will be running our society, we truly are doomed.
"Yes the government will take everything you own if you don't pay up, but you wont go to jail! Seriously, it's no big deal guys!" Such is the state of our legal society. We've been doomed for a while.
Right from the get go, with implication of homophobia by mentioning Wynne and the worst part of dismissing him as a quack that doesn't deserve an acknowledgement. They pretty much confirmed that yes, you can be taken to court and have your possessions taken away and life ruined BUUUUUUT you won't go to jail. That's comforting alright. For two legal experts, it's astounding that they missed his point entirely (or chose to ignore it). It's about mandating speech.
So, that was basically a titan of intellect devouring the anxiety of two children. I'd like to sue that neurotic lawyer for 'perceived damages' to my intellect. "What the law is TODAY!' sounds like something the Comintern or the Politburo would say. "Look, Stalin may or may not have been wrong to make this law, BUT IT IS THE LAW TODAY!" Mohawk lady, while attending a debate, declares that the subject matter is 'not up for debate' and then almost immediately falls back on 9th grade ad-homs. Despicable. Truly, a pathetic savage of intelligence and integrity. ISIS cuts off heads and pats itself on the back for it in the physical world. This it/thing does the same in the intellectual world. Intellectual barbarism. What in the hell is 'biosocial'? Is the sodium-potassium pump a social construct now? Did the Patriarchy invent action potentials? Did Christopher Columbus impose the concept of biochemical gradients on a hapless and perfect noble native population? She/it/whatever is terribly ignorant of biology. She thinks gender is determined by either opinion, chromosomes, or hormones. Can she define what a gamete is? Does she/it even know the word? Can she link gamete morphology to organism behavior in any meaningful way? Can she tell any of us why female cones tend to reside more on the upper branches of conifer trees and the male ones on the lower branches? Did they agree on that arrangement in a Conifer Party Meeting? This person literally, and I do mean literally, does not know what constitutes the biological concept of male and female, let alone it's objective impact on nature. She seems to believe in something called the 'biosocial'. I wonder, does she believe in the 'physiosocial'? Does she think the relationship between the proton and the electron is on some spectrum arrived at by a social committee of fundamental particles that predate the first star? 'Discover magazine' is also 'armchair science' according to Smug Mohawk. She encourages us to 'keep reading' a litany of feminist polemics and writers in order to discover what true science is. Orwell has a name for what she is doing. This person is an absolute assassin of the intellect. Full of sociological drivel drawn upon absolutely no objectivism and yet all possible subjectivism. What a complete and utter joke she is. There are no biologically coherent SJWs. None. Biology was the rock upon which Darwin broke the Abraham Cult. It is also how the Marx Cult can, and will, be broken. Titan should ask both Anxious Lawyer and Smug Mohawk how we know which part of a flower is male and which part is female. I absolutely guarantee that neither of them know the answer to that. I'd bet all the money I have that they could not answer that question off the top of their heads, or even come close to it. It is unbelievable to me that these anxious mental midgets are given actual legal authority. This looks like a race to the bottom of the barrel to me. The game these two (three, moderator) (four, Dean) are playing is all about decreasing knowledge whilst increasing existential angst. 'Decrease the Reals in order to increase the Feels'. If you follow Peterson at all, or at least his line of thought (as I sort-of have been in my own way until I found him a few months ago), you will find yourself increasing knowledge whilst decreasing existential angst. 'Increase the Reals in order to decrease the Feels'. This was Tyson vs three Glass Joes.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed the ad homs. From the very start when she brought up "ethics" I saw the ad hom preparation starting. She never addressed any argument professor Peterson had, merely attacked him for making TH-cam videos. The funny thing about youtube, it is far more public than academia and thus far more accessible for peer review than academia. If she wants to debate about peer review, she can make a response video or watch any made.
I firmly believe that no person deserves my respect. A person deserves dignity only insofar it means that the person deserves human rights. We should only respect rights, not persons. And also, please don't respect me, just respect my rights. People come in all kinds of varieties and to say that all persons deserve respect is just idiotic.
Sorry, how is this a fair platform when there are two people present opposing Professor Jordan, and they both started their speech with not wanting to be here and debating this with "this man".
Because according to SJWs, women and minorities are feeble and worth less than a man. It's called white supre- I mean white privilege. So they need two pathetic females or whatever that one is, just to equal the one guy.
Knowing what I know now about SJWs, it probably is. Actually how they get footholds, most people are decent, so they want to think the best of everyone. And usually, worrying about the worst case scenario is paranoia. But not in this case, SJWs exploit this exact thing. Everyone else is like "nooo... they would never do something that awful, that's crazy, mustn't think like that." Then they do the awful thing. Every damn time.
" So they need two pathetic females or whatever that one is, just to equal the one guy." That sounds familiar. Can anyone help me out here? There's some ideology or some body of law somewhere that says something similar, two women equal one man. It's on the tip of my tongue but I just cant quite say it.
Did that second woman start her speech by asserting the topic was not up for debate, and then move on to discus how importing subjecting ideas to intense scrutiny? Around the 59 minute mark
Yes it happened, you didn't imagine it. This whole debate was so full of Orwellian double standards and hypocrisy from those two, it was almost unbearable.
Ryan Long 'd swear the second lady was demonstrating the first ladies dismissals to be false. It's like everything the first woman said wouldn't happen, the second lady was demonstrating that SJWs are, at the very least, trying to make happen.
It's clear that the only person who could think on their feet was professor Peterson. The moderator needs to be replaced as she was clearly biased in favour of the other two lawyers.
I believe the claim she made repeatedly was that Professor Peterson was engaged in "post-truth" style speech. This appeared to be purely a criticism, though it seems dubious whether it is consistently upheld by these people that putting facts aside in favour of emotionalism is a bad thing. There are obviously various pernicious ways that presented facts can be invalidly criticized or dismissed, but that is certainly not some new phenomenon of our modern decaying culture. As long as there have been facts there have been men who will invalidly critique them. Of course facts are something which, in order to be understood, need to be observed and studied by individuals, and there will always be disagreements among individuals about what they've independently observed or studied. The idea that questioning what other people present as facts is dishonest in itself is also intellectually destructive. I think that is the intent of this "post-truth" phrase. It is to create a shorthand for the idea that you can automatically dismiss anyone who tries to critique your understanding of the facts.
21:56 She actually starts by saying she supports the boycott of the debate itself. Unbelievable. I am so grateful that Dr Peterson has the strength and integrity to stand alone against the lunacy of these people.
the speaker from Vancouver just drips with righteous indignation...demanding an apology, and framing it with incidents that are not even remotely similar to , to what is happening here
Well, I certainly didn't expect the debate to be introduced with an expression of white guilt... :/ And then he frames the discussion as being about gender, whilst my impression was that Dr Peterson's concerns was in regards to Bill C-16's consequences to freedom of expression. 35:35 Well, I hope that those who decided to boycott the event will actually watch it at a later point. I can certainly respect their freedom to choose to remain deaf to dissenting opinion, but I cannot respect the choice itself. It seems intellectually bankrupt. 39:00 By that definition it seems that there are plenty of SJWs whose words should potentially qualify as hate speech. 1:00:20 "Amateurish videos?" Is a dig on production video quality supposed to be an argument? The videos are not presented as academic papers or even as expositions upon academic papers, but as a reaction to the state of affairs and a call for discussion rather than silence acceptance. 1:02:20 "... and I can't help but think it's because our current premier is a lesbian." First off, that's a paraphrase of what Dr Peterson said and not a quote. The actual quote is: "... and I can't help but manifest the suspicion that that's partly because our current premier is lesbian in her sexual orientation." He isn't blaming it wholeheartedly on Premier Wynne and her sexual orientation, as implied by the paraphrase, but he does believe her to be a factor. Furthermore, not included is the statement that immediately follows the quote: "... and that in of itself doesn't bother me one way or another..." It seems likely that the intent was to paint Dr Peterson as homophobic, but that is clearly not the case. 1:04:19 Okay, now tell us what Dr Peterson says is an example of the nefarious activity. By leaving it hanging that like, you imply that he is simply being paranoid and irrational. What he in fact says is that gender identity is being used as yet another basis for the claim that one was unfairly discriminated against when the outcome of a situation isn't as they desired. I agree that there may be a scientific basis for gender identity as separate from biological sex, but I am not well read on the subject. The furthest I've investigated as of yet is a Google search that yielded research about transgendered brains as being different from male or female brains. 1:06:00 I'm a little unfamiliar with the terminology here. I think that "right to recognition" is the "right to recognition as a person before the law." However, I don't understand what "right to communicability of presence" means.
He is definately in "enemy territory", but times are changing, many dont remember the wave of political correctness in the 90s, not as dangarous as today but was pretty bad and was eventually pushed back into the shadows.
Thank god for the republican party in the US. I disagree with them on many many issues, but at least they apply brakes to the "progress" of the left. True progress is a winding road, and the left seems unable to to give anything less than full throttle, even to the point of driving off the cliff as they seem to be doing in Canada, Germany, Sweden, etc.
It isn't exactly Trump or the Republican Party who applied the brakes to the left's growing fascism. It was the left itself, which grew near to implosion in the past few years with their regressive shame tactics and shutting down of reasonable free speech by denouncing any degree of opposition as evil, similar to how religious institutions of the past would denounce thinkers with challenging ideas, such as the persecution of Galileo. Trump, being on the other side of the two-party system, was a change from the left's infringement on open discussion, while Hillary was the same old corporate-owned mouthpiece who rigged the "Democratic" primaries against the *_only_* progressive candidate with any chance of uniting both sides of the political spectrum.
It doesn't really matter if two gays would like to become financially intertwined. A civil union is an aspect of marriage. It IS a problem if they are able to adopt children, b/c even though the child may have a nice resources around them - food, shelter, clothing etc .. they are not being subjected to a an environment that is reflective of the normality and the healthy progress of our species; their developed is already stunted.
This was such a squandered opportunity. It would be great if Peterson could get a longer debate against one person where both have the time to respond to each other. This was little more than a show where everyone talked past one another.
chaosmos24 seriously! It seemed & gave the sense that they never really seemed to be able to refute his points, more like they went on tangents. Or just seemed so blind to the fact that he's arguing a whole different issue. Scary thing is to see how far this is gonna go before it stops complicating lives
they and she (correct me if i wrong, lol) were not screaming and white noising him, so its a great progress. Nobody expect he will be opposed in any way except ad hominem.
58:15 _"[the philosophy of the policy guidelines behind bill C-16] instantiates social constructivism [a social constructivist doctrine] into our legal system."_ This is the most succinct expression that I've heard put forward. More specifically, the problem with accepting this philosophy is a built-in special pleading that can only lead to general injustice, social or otherwise, along with more social unrest and discord. It is the perfect counter to the base presupposition of impartiality, the very principle that one relies upon to make claims of fairness and justice. One can either choose perfect impartiality under law, or any degree of partiality; the two are incompatible.
28:47 -- "You know what you call people you can't talk talk to? ENEMIES. And if we want to divide our society into armed camps of enmity, all we have to do is keep doing what we're doing."
Jordan Peterson won this one. Not only was it two to one but the second opponent used ad hominem against Peterson. Also where is the supposed research that states that gender and sex are separated? So far i found sociology books and they are crap.
Topp Catt Considering most of these people are in a circle jerk im sure no one debated their ideas. No wonder they don't want people to question their ideology
Topp Catt, all of your comments here point to you being just as much of a problem as the worst SJW, just on the other side of the spectrum. If it was people like you in positions of influence there would still be a need for a person like Peterson to stand up and provide a firm backhand.
@54:55 "We must do better, not because it is prescribed by the law, but because we have an ethical commitment to contribute to the advancement of knowledge in a democratic society." Doesn't that prove Peterson's point? He argued we don't need law to regulate what we must say and that we can hash out people's identities between one another. She was supposed to argue that we NEED law to regulate pronoun usage. This quote contradicts her stance. Looks like she agrees with Peterson.
They say one thing they use SJTribunals to enforce something totally different. We need a supreme court case challenge about making the accused pay for the legal costs of their own trial.
It's explained a bit in the rubin report interview on youtube recorded a few days ago, they rigged the debate, and limited the scope, but he decided to do it anyways to not give his critics room to claim he had avoided a discussion.
Churble Furbles I actually didn't find a room number or a link to buying tickets no matter where I looked. There were about ten places I looked, until one article in the Varsity said that the tickets were sold out. Huh.
saltburner2 It's because there are precious few professors who give him vocal support. Reflects real life. Gad Saad and Janice Fiamengo are two other brave Canadian professors who support him.
If JP loses this tenure and is banished from UT, David Cameron to retain any honour at all should promptly resign in solidarity as a kindred spirit to truth. This is sick!!
43:15 'Is this the first time the law has decided what we must say, rather than what we cannot say, no, not at all, not even close.' She then proceeds to list bilingual food packaging, health warnings on cigarette packs and taking an oath to the queen at citizenship ceremonis as if that's relevant and somehow proof that forced expression is a good thing. These lawyers are out of touch with reality.
oh man what a relief you dont go to jail for not calling people what they demand you call them - you just lose all your money and stuff - you just become homeless! wow.
Frightening! Bone chilling! This debate could have come straight out of a George Orwell novel. Jordan Peterson is a true hero and needs our support.D'Oh Canada
The discussion of Zucker came up during this debate where Peterson defended him. I thought he was performing bad practice and abusing children (that's at least what the news told me), but oh boy was I wrong. I can't recommend this article enough, it set me straight: nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-fired.html
If you want to read about something even more deplorable, and a case study that pretty much debunks the entire field of gender studies (as it's taught), look up David Reimer.
MrFreeGman Agreed. I also can recommend the documentary series Brainwash (search Hjernevask, the wikipedia article gives links to all the episodes). The Nature vs. Nuture episode (last episode) goes through another case similar to the Reimer one (though not as severe IMO), the Viktor/Viktoria case.
The terms 'Kafkaesque' and 'Orwellian' are often misused but Professor Peterson is a brave man in an absolutely Kafkaesque/Orwellian society. I stand with him and wish there was more I could to to support him
It seems to me that trying to make people "respectful" via legislation is a ham-fisted approach. In the end, legislation will only create a facade of acceptance and equality while creating more resentment. Perhaps we should let these things unfold more naturally instead of demanding respect through legislation.
We didn't have to legislate the N word in the United States. That's a really offensive word, and society decided that it was wrong to say. No laws were required. Now, you can still say the N word due to freedom of speech, but its not without SOCIAL consequences and ostracization. If gender neutral pronouns cannot naturally become a useful part of the language, then they should be abandoned. We shouldn't force their acceptance.
Far from an ' academic discussion ' this was a scripted attempt to discredit not the idea, not the actual subject [free speech] , but rather, Professor Peterson the person. While I initially found it interesting that he was to debate two opponents, if fact he faced four [three onstage and U of T behind the curtain]...and still won the day.
There are times when I think that JP has somehow got it wrong. That he has spent so much time looking at the terrors of Marxism (which I think is not the same as the writings of Marx, let me know how I'm wrong please) and how the horrors can creep in, that he has succumbed to some cognitive bias/pareidolia and seen patterns where there are none (I dont see C16's actual wording being a problem as outlined by his first opponent early in the debate and my own quick appraisal of it). ... But then an opponent says: don't worry we won't imprison you we'll just take your property... and I start to worry again.
The framing of the debate implied that the audience is comprised of fragile infants, i.e. there was "support outside" in case they needed a fainting couch. Good job college. Way to prepare our future Starbucks baristas on how to deal with the world.
someone correct me if I'm wrong... If a complaint is made against me as a violation of human rights, a human rights tribunal represents the complainant but I have to pay for my defense all the way to financial ruin. Does that properly frame the situation one might find oneself in?
Dr peterson was in trouble here because he is debating two people...both saying he should shut up as he doesn't know anything.. this whole debate is unfair...the coordinator of the debate is bias...in away proving professor. Peterson point
Peterson has clearly stated all the problem with bill C-16 and in my opinion neither the lawyers nor the LGBT activist have dismissed one of his claims. But everything resolves at the end of the debate: 1:32:00 The speakers talks about an apology regarding all the suffering and damages that the LGBTQ+ community has suffered. But who determines and estimates these damages? The Human Right Tribunal. Under which provision? Bill C-16 that's exactly Peterson's point. Debate over. The only thing that I did not like from Peterson was when he cited the layers' opinion about his situation without naming them. It makes no sense. If they do not want to say in public, or to be explicitly cited, about what they think on the matter, with regards to Peterson's situation, this is already an indication that they feel an undue pressure to shut up. IF LAWYERS cannot speak their mind publicly on the possible results of the introduction of a new law, it is clear that the Peterson's concerns against Bill C-16 are founded in reality.
"Your assets may be seized and your income may be garnished, but you don't get to go to jail." So instead of going to jail and being denied the opportunity to make money, they actively take your property and money from you instead? I think I'd rather go to jail for a year instead of being left destitute and bereft of things I worked 20+ years to earn. What exactly does Dr. Bryson mean when she says that we "can't manipulate the chromosomal environment?" I would have appreciated a biologist or biochemist to ask her about that and clarify. If Bryson wants to call out Dr. Peterson's field and/or the research he brought up as "bogus," perhaps she should follow her own advice and bring up something peer-reviewed or publish a review herself. Whatever Dr. Zucker did or didn't do doesn't taint the entire field of psychology. Dr. Peterson really should have had a biologist/medical professional up there with him. I don't know why U of T let this be a 2 vs 1 thing, but it's already been made abundantly clear where the administration stands on this entire issue, so maybe it's not a mystery after all.
*Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert McNamara* - Empathize with your enemy - Rationality will not save us - There's something beyond one's self - Maximize efficiency - Proportionality should be a guideline in war - Get the data - Belief and seeing are both often wrong - Be prepared to re-examine your reasoning - In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil - Never say never - You can't change human nature
Funny to look back on this, this is the first debate/discussion type video made with Peterson and it is the first time he made a group of people look like idiots. Now days we laugh and see it as common practice, but basically anyone who has tried to go toe to toe with him has ended up looking absolutely horrible. I guarantee all these people STRONGLY regret doing this debate at all, they look like such fascists that it isn't even funny
***** Now you ask further questions. Maybe you are even a intellectuel? Double Gulag! Triple Gulag! Ten time Gulag for you, Mister, "I'm a smart capitalist with many questions"!!! Davai!
I don't know about you, but I have been addicted to this conversation. Damn, this is good. Jordan Peterson is a modern day hero because he has reminded us -- really reminded us -- of what we are all capable of. Look into that abyss people. Wow! JP, you have not been "denounced" in my eyes - not by a long shot. I reckon you're probably the most important person of the 21st century. Hopefully time will not tell ;)
Rousing applause for Peterson, scattered applause for the social underminers. Wonder how much it pays to offer one's services as a professional applauder.
First off Mr. Peterson I would like to say thank you for your work, your effort and your stance on the matter and the fact that you are still standing despite all of it taking a tremendous toll on you - which can be visibly observed. I hope others will be inspired stepping up by your courage, your scientific and historian approach, while using logic and reason to defend your arguments. It takes 3 people to try to fight 1 honest and educated scholar, and they still resort to denounciation, hatred, lies, strawman- and other fallacies nonstop and lose miserable intellectually. Those people don't have a shred of decency, integrity or academic solidity behind them. I am close to an MA in education myself, but I can recognize or I even have to, that an astounding amount of social science and educational sciences is fairly abstract in a way, which makes a validation of proof near impossible in the objective world. The problem with that is, that some claims are essentially a gamble - on one's life, on other people's life or even society - and that those claims can even be conflated with obtuse ideological claims from a certain group. So what I am saying is that some SJW's and others can state "scientific" facts within social sciences which either have grounds in completely different settings and have not been subjected to the malicious intent at work here, or worse, can mirror from established social science theories that have more or less been proven but are subject to an entirely different set of circumstances, which can be conveniently set aside, depending on the nature of the debate and topic. What Prof. Peterson understands is, that you have to stop movements which restrict or thwarten a liberal society at the very beginning, as soon as you can get a grip on things. Because if you don't, your capacity to respond and revoke it gets more and more limited, to a point where every possible option puts a large number of people on the losing side. And by losing I don't mean losing a debate like those three women. I find it alarming that the law professor basically said "you don't understand the laws" and "fear not, because we won't do what you fear we do", either because she honestly doesn't believe it because she is oblivious to the truth of human behaviour and oblivious to the very nature of laws and codebooks that come along with it. Her input was basically the request of trust into the body of government and the people to make the right judgement call when push comes to shove. This is inherently dangerous and ignorant. Also losing property (and she didn't state to what degree or effect) and wages to pay for possible accidental insinuated insults, which you cannot prove that you didn't intented it but since it doesn't even require an accuser for you to be prosecuted, the system can charge you on what are basically arbitrary grounds. And since it appears to be bound to the choice of a government employee, it basically ends up being a political choice.
If your verbal comprehension isn't on point, good luck understanding what they're talking about. Respect if you understand this with English as a second language. Conversations like these are the cornerstones of history.
1:22:02 'let's go to the question though' the moderator says.... totally bullshit moderation right there. If you were listening to the debate you'd see that was important for him to say. Also at 1:24:50 'I think we might be straying a little away from the question' the moderator says.. and I am so happy Peterson spoke up and said he was not straying. This moderator is displaying EXACTLY the type of attitude that loves to control other people's speech.... passing things off as irrelevant.. and asking vindictive questions to demonize a beautiful man. It is so easy to see... not only does peterson win the arguments but he wins by presenting in purity... you can tell by the way the other people craft their language that they have a vindictive agenda. They skip around responding directly to the arguments made and create so many straw man arguments and vomit out emotional appeals left right and center. Also, peterson gets asked many misleading questions that are designed to demean his character... where as the others were asked questions about what they think as an 'expert'! This is disgusting... it's in plain view... the very debate is organized in such a way that it favors this indoctrinating cult. It's VERY manipulative. There need be no debate about it, you can SEE it right in the video.
Reckless Abandon i'ma thinking it will be a study that is reviewed by peers that all operate within the same specialist area she does. The thing about Peterson is he has the humility to look outside his own discipline to understand how the specialised knowledge of respected academics fits into the bigger picture. My question is - Are there sex and gender studies (with peer review) that are performed by a multi academic field and also peer reviewed by a multi academic peers. Multi academic meaning, gender, anthro, socio, biol, psycho, neuro et-fucking-cetera. I'm sure their is all sorts of pollitucking (misspelled on purpose) that makes this kind of research difficult to orchestrate but it seems abundantly clear that there is a distinct problem with inter-disciplinary communication.
Good lord that was an epic smack down. Peterson is brave and well informed on the causes of 20th century totalitarian regimes. I wish he'd been able to engage in colloquy with his opponents.
After browsing through Brysons papers, I find it rather .. weird .. that she/he/something tries to beat down Peterson with rigor of peer-reviewed research. I have no idea what her/his/zerself/whatevers/ research papers have to do with scientific rigor. Fuck. Even the difficulty to write this comment in a .. correct .. way presents a difficulty. Perhaps I should google his/her/zerself/their preferred pronoun before commenting?
I think you have to interpret her use of the term 'peer-reviewed research' to mean 'echo-chamber vomit of at-best pseudo-science' which is where things have been going in academia for at least 30 years with these types. They think that now they've (almost) cleansed 'Academia' they can start using terms like 'peer-reviewed research' (from their ideological side) without sane individuals simultaneously giggling and vomiting a little in their mouth.
I think her definition of "peer review" means spell-check and if it reads OK, as opposed to what ACTUAL peer review in Science means is "is it correct? is it novel? does it extend the present knowledge on a subject?" I found her to be incredibly dishonest and precisely why young academics and people with any sense of common sense should be very concerned about the kinds of misinformation coming out of these institutions.
She/He/Ze - whatever, uses too much weird terminology and gobbledegook, I cant follow what her point is except, I know better than him, I challenge his academic acumen and call his professionalism into question and by the way read all this obscure research that I SAY refutes his arguments.
It's the usurpation of credible authority. It's why we're at the point we are with trying to fight absurd authoritarian legislation being passed. These ideologues have already completed step 1 of getting their bullshit cloaked in the veneer of academic and scientific rigor. But you find if you really dig into their papers is a labyrinthine warren of circular citations and interpretations of interpretations of flawed data.
"Social justice warriors construct fictional worlds then try to bring real world consequences upon those who refuse to live within them." - Anthony Furey
Jordan Peterson was outstanding despite an almost cringe worthy amount of bias, that is so unreflective that the moderator and other speakers don't see their absurdity.
I like how she explained that it was possessed by at least 3 different tribes prior. Guess they were all just "sharing" it, definitely not killing each other for it. Hahah.
Nailed it Jennifer, this is the patronizing racism of the SJWs. They don't see minorities as people, they see them as pets. This is what Peterson is saying when he says leftist authoritarians primarily differ from rightwing ones in their higher "compassion" trait - whereas rightwing bigots are blunt and hateful about it, leftwing bigots are like overbearing mothers infantilizing minorities. The indigenous people were PEOPLE. Like all people, they were complex. Good and bad qualities. SJWs view them like an innocent virginal child-race living in a Garden of Eden until the evil white men came and corrupted them. How condescending and dehumanizing.
1:10:58 "And since we can't remove sexism and misogyny from the production of gender, we can't actually reach conclusions about what we take to be gender differences." Feminist circular logic. They insist that patriarchy/sexism/misogyny runs rampant and prevents women from equaling men, then when you challenge their claim with scientific evidence of sex differences, they say we can't actually know what 'real' sex differences exist because there's too much sexism and misogyny in the world so you can't do an unbiased study. By that logic, we also can't know if sexism and misogyny have any effect at all. Yet she assumes they have major effects. To top it off, she's incredibly condescending about it.
«I'm not going to be a mouthpiece for language that I DETEST!!!» So true. Prof Jordan Peterson is a hero
l33tshoe is mocking you, Bear. Read its other comments here. It thinks it has the moral high ground. It thinks it can speak the Bayah or Annus Fidei and not be a hypocrite.
l33tshoe, will you profess your sins and accept Jesus into your life as your savior? Will you attest that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger?
No, perhaps you won't. And if you won't, it is because you know a silly and dangerous ideology when you see one. What Peterson says about his refusal to speak the SocJus creed of faith is just the same as yours or mine refusal to pledge allegiance to Christianity or Islam (or any number of other faiths, including Sociology and SocJus).
"THAT'S NOT WHAT WE THINK."
Why is the moderator attempting to debate Prof. Peterson? I haven't seen this kind of bias from a moderator since the US presidential debates.
Her condescending tone and the "We had someone say what the law ACTUALLY says" (referring to the SJW lawyer) proved her completely unfit/incapable as a moderator
You're giving the moderator too much credit. She wasn't trying to debate him, she was shouting him down. At least the other debaters didn't interrupt him. Also I swear she let the other debaters run way over time constantly. The one debater even said she was over time and continued to drone on about absolutely nothing without being cut off. Absolutely terrible moderator
Because it's a cult.
And at the end of the debate the weasel "reminds" us that bill c-16 was put in place to prevent murder. WTF? The whole point of the debate was to debate said bill's validity....
LOL. good one!
The moderator stating at the end that Bill C16 was to prevent murders was highly inappropriate for the capacity in which she was serving.
There is an agenda to push which goes beyond just this, Professor Peterson was alone on that stage against three people.
No, they would still be tried for murder.
Right. She was the sleeper agent. The problem was CrazyWordSalad and RuspectMuhAuthoratah made so little sense that she couldn't back them up much until she slipped in that junk right at the end.
Froggy McFroggerson
Ha! Perfect characterization of the other 2 debaters.
Glad to see others caught this as well. It was a 3 v 1 on Peterson and she really didn't set the playing field as equal when she sets the ending tone on that note. "Oh well fuck Petersons point of view, let's focus on the killing of trans people while disregarding everything he has said as a nice closing thought."
The SJWs talk about being nice to people; however, you can hear the contempt and hatred in their voices.
"I'm happy to be here... but I'm not." what a confusing and sad world this woman lives in.
JesusFriedChrist Oh....
Did you fry for our sins?
They call themselves social justice Warriors. A warrior is someone who dominates others against their will, and that with the use of violence.
Who is next pleading for more friendlyness, towards their organisation and ideology? ISIS?
I call them Social Justice Terrorists. I think that's a more apt term than "warrior".
i think i will start using that too, good point
ro pro
Jordon's argument basically comes down to "Look what's happening to me.". This is a pretty hard argument to refute. In fact this whole event supports his argument.
I agree. The implications of the law weigh heavily on what is happening. It's undeniable.
It is Kafkaesque like "The Trial"
*laughing audience*
Tourette's Aspie Aphorisms he has been accused of hate speech, threatened with loss of tenure and the seizure of his assets.
The University
Peterson is one badass standing up against these insane developments in Canada. The fact he got denounced alone is proof of how hurtful this shit is. The other two people debating did not have a single rational reasonable argument while Peterson made his case precisely and with passion.
How can anyone approve of a law that dictates your language/behavior? 1st step to fascism. The man is a hero!
Back against the wall and odds
With the strength of a will and a cause
Your pursuits are called outstanding
You're emotionally complex
Against the grain of dystopic claims
Not the thoughts your actions entertain
And you have proved to be
A real human being and a real hero
Real human being and a real hero
Real human being and a real hero
Real human being and a real hero
Real human being
You can certainly hear the disdain in their voices. Which is also why they can't debate for shit because its not about the case for them but about the one individual that dares speaking out and not moving in line.
We all need to show our support online. is there already a petition? If not lets make one!
not fascism, marxism-leninism
Steve Fenton are you serious? or you just being hypothetical?
I thought it was bad in the U.S. can not even fathom how far gone these people are, arguing essentially for the same classless society the Soviet Union had
Such stark contrast between the two sides. One side was driven by passion, earnest conviction, and deep knowledge from a broad range of subjects. The other side by arrogance, condescension, and obfuscation through lawyer-speak, emotional appeals and moral posturing that could only be rivaled by the religious right.
Indeed it was rather telling to see both sides operate. It almost seemed like the people who were trying to appeal to "Feelz" were unable to handle Peterson. Almost like a career based on Feelz gets crushed by real world logic.
+Bestoftherest222 Identity politics can't stand up to logic. The narrative crumbles upon the slightest exposure to facts and reason.
SJWs are absolutely the new religious right, this is so similar to debates I attended a decade ago over marriage equality. The anti-gay side was all "muh feels", and "think of the children", and "look at all this 'research' we have (even though it's horse shit, it just has a facade of science overlaid on top to give it a false appearance of credibility)".
And that's why they take all your money when you exercise your free speech against them. If you can't beat them in argument, don't allow them argue. as long as the human rights tribunals exist with the abilities and will they are currently displaying we live in an authoritarian nation.
The biggest thing I learned from this debate is that the "most extreme speech" is code word for whatever they fucking well please.
+Gabe Enss It's doublespeak at its finest. Restricted speech is free speech. I found it particularly disconcerting how forthcoming she was while explaining the arbitrary nature of our Charter rights. She basically presented the fact that Canadians have conditional rights as something we need to accept and get over, and then once we did that, we'd come to understand the correctness of her position. They're being completely candid in their opposition to true free speech.
One thing I'm certain of now is that the American constitution is far superior to ours, and that is unacceptable. This is a perfect opportunity to continue our greatest tradition of one-upping our American cousins.
- Moderator enters at 6:24
- Actual debate starts at 8:42
thanks for this
You're doing the Lord's work :).
I'd add these times stamps (on-going):
24:25 Peterson Round 1 (natural gender differences, the purpose of free speech and the risks associated with losing it)
35:20 Speaker #2 Round 1 (details of C-16 and related clauses in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
46:35 Peterson Round 2 (letters from a grad student and three lawyers, backlash from the University administration, dangers of over-compassion like the overbearing mother)
57:15 Speaker #3 Round 1 (denouncing deliberate cultural production of ignorance, lack of peer-reviewed study of Peterson to back up claims, transcripts from Peterson's lectures, dynamics of gender)
*1:08:50** Moderator questions & clarifications:*
- 1:09:24 to Peterson: "does the outlining of the laws regarding the issue give you any comfort?" Answer: the dangers of legal doctrine, "The Gulag Archipelago" on this issue (won a Nobel Prize), on recognizing that gender identity, sexual orientation, and biological sex do not vary independently
- 1:14:25 to Speaker #2: "thoughts on Peterson's opposition to the regulation of language?" Answer: on the purpose of the law being to regulate social constructs, such as owning land and futures, and assets being seized instead of jail time for opposition
- 1:18:30 to Peterson: "how does the research on gender identity and its complications affect your views?" Answer: rebuttal to previous answer and that C-16 would build in a social constructionist doctrine, and not regulate social constructs as regular law does, and identity having some solidity and not being completely fluid in subjection, natural differences between men and women manifesting in gender-equal Scandinavian countries
- 1:23:15 to Speaker #3: "what are the objective realities of the research?" Answer: on educating oneself with proper scientific research and not non-peer reviewed science (sex being linked and produced with gender, which cannot be separated from sexism and misogyny), and on getting trans people protected under the law
*1:26:45** Questions from the audience:*
- to Peterson: "Does your opposition to the clauses proposed in Bill C-16, based on the prohibition of freedom of expression, extend to racist terminology and other speech that would be classified as inciting hatred? If not, why?"
- 1:30:45 to Speakers #2&3: "If there is government restriction against thoughtful discussion, would it skew discussion to one side?"
- 1:35:10 to Peterson: "As a clinical psychologist, are you refusing to acknowledge the damage associated with rejecting your identity?"
- 1:38:55 to Speaker #2: "How is the idea of a free and democratic society formed, and who is part of that discussion?"
- 1:42:10 to Peterson: "Why do you think someone's gender identity and expression infringes on your freedom of speech? Does this extend to racial slurs?" (Savage ending)
- 1:45:30 to Speaker #3: "What can universities do to move things forward in a helpful and inclusive way for LGBTQ communities?"
1:48:50 Conclusion by Moderator
If Akseli is doing the Lord's work, then this must be the work of the Lord himself. └[ º ▾ º ]┘
Siggy edited the original video so I edited new time stamps in original post.
The odds were stacked against him in this debate. It's two against one and moderated by a biased person who is on the same team as the people he is debating. On top of that, every question Dr. Peterson got was tough and against his position, whereas the other two were asked easy questions that were in support of their point of view. Dr. Peterson did well given the circumstances and it is shameful that U of T would set up the debate in a way to try and discredit him!
Just finished the entire debate and the amount of arrogance with which his opponents speak frustrates me greatly. You can very clearly see the condescension and patronization directed toward Professor Peterson. This comes from his opponents and even the moderator. Really? Even the moderator? I don't see any reasonable excuse for this; he seems to make a valid argument and they should at least appear to take him seriously. This was a poorly organized and biased debate forum. My frustration here isn't specific to the argument, but is mostly due to the quality of the discussion and to the morally conceited people who were involved in it. The final words from the moderator made up the last nail in the coffin for me.
The woman from Vancouver talks about how Peterson doesn't use science in his arguments against the bill. Then she goes on to state that gender and sex are mutually exclusive. Yeah science doesn't show that men and women clearly have differences biologically and in how their brains work based on their sex which is how we often classify gender. Okay... I'm listening...
these people claim that open debate is important but will silence people that disagree any chance they get, even people who are basically on their own side but disagree with one thing or another. They destroy them in days because their views aren't alt-left enough anymore.
Why was the moderator intervening with commentary...
Like JBP said, "I just couldn't help it"
Because they know more about the subject matter than a bunch of laypeople watching the debate online.
Thanks Siggy, whoever you are, for mirroring the debate this morning. I had a great time watching it live, as I'm sure many did. Chat was great and no doubt plenty of keks were had by all. Shadilay!
Beginning at roughly 1:34:00 the speaker states, "Simplifying the world for functional purposes is not what I recognize to be academic practice; this is not how we relate to knowledge." They could not possibly be more mistaken. Simplifying the world for functional purposes is the ONLY way we relate to knowledge. Our minds have very limited capacity for finding solutions to multi-variable problems, so we make simpler models and test the predictions of those models against observations of the real world.
I suspect this form of ignorance is the seed from which the social justice movement has grown. The weeds of political correctness, Marxism and victim culture threaten to smother our garden of liberty.
I contend that it would be more correct to say "there is mathematical knowledge that has no functional purpose yet discovered." Even in the field of mathematics we begin with the simplest of theorems and build towards theorems of greater depth and complexity. In general, the process of knowledge generation is iterative and always in the direction of simple -> complex.
Sadly the trans-community is just a token pawn in this game. They're not even being benefited in any real way with this bill, they're just being cited as the rationale. Its intolerable to me.
More people need to realize this.
Adding trans people to a non-discrimination bill that includes other minorities makes sense. It sounds like the bill needs to be much more explicit about insuring that freedom of speech is not trampled on
Nailed it, social justice is like a cult, the minorities involved are parasitized by it.
But that can't happen when the people backing it have abandoned reason, and embraced postmodern neo-Marxist political nonsense. This ideology teaches that there is no objective reality, only narratives. It seeks to deconstruct all systems and categorical organizations. In short, it's nuts. You can't write about anything in a clear and concise manner if you're coming from this irrational foundation.
That's exactly it. Any sensible person, who so happens to be gay and trans knows it too.
Cossman says, “Professor Peterson has not been denounced”.
Bryson says, “His claims must be denounced this is not science”. “What kind of claims can you make in amateurish videos”? “We must denounce the deliberate cultural production of ignorance”. She then uses the David Suzuki quote, “He is either grossly ignorant or deliberately mischievous. Either way what is required is action by scientists and academics. His claims must be denounced. This is not science”.
Definition as per dictionary.com: to condemn or censure openly or publicly.
Sounds like a denouncement to me!
"Forced expression has been used and has been in the law for a long time, so don't worry about it!"
Just because a law has been there for a long time, doesn't make it good, fucking hell... If these are the people that will be running our society, we truly are doomed.
"Yes the government will take everything you own if you don't pay up, but you wont go to jail! Seriously, it's no big deal guys!"
Such is the state of our legal society. We've been doomed for a while.
literally wrongthink :/
god's away, on business. "Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves, and lawyers." Tom Waits
Post truth, post gender, post sanity.
hehe
No Me I need some post individuality.
Going into this debate neutral, you cannot come out of it without being on the side of the professor. Astoundingly brilliant.
the speaker from Vancouver has lost decorum by attacking him directly.. this person has no idea what a formal debate is...
Right from the get go, with implication of homophobia by mentioning Wynne and the worst part of dismissing him as a quack that doesn't deserve an acknowledgement.
They pretty much confirmed that yes, you can be taken to court and have your possessions taken away and life ruined BUUUUUUT you won't go to jail. That's comforting alright. For two legal experts, it's astounding that they missed his point entirely (or chose to ignore it). It's about mandating speech.
absolutely!!
None of them apart from Peterson have. I couldn't make much sense of what the "weird" person was saying especially.
So, that was basically a titan of intellect devouring the anxiety of two children.
I'd like to sue that neurotic lawyer for 'perceived damages' to my intellect. "What the law is TODAY!' sounds like something the Comintern or the Politburo would say. "Look, Stalin may or may not have been wrong to make this law, BUT IT IS THE LAW TODAY!"
Mohawk lady, while attending a debate, declares that the subject matter is 'not up for debate' and then almost immediately falls back on 9th grade ad-homs. Despicable. Truly, a pathetic savage of intelligence and integrity. ISIS cuts off heads and pats itself on the back for it in the physical world. This it/thing does the same in the intellectual world. Intellectual barbarism.
What in the hell is 'biosocial'? Is the sodium-potassium pump a social construct now? Did the Patriarchy invent action potentials? Did Christopher Columbus impose the concept of biochemical gradients on a hapless and perfect noble native population?
She/it/whatever is terribly ignorant of biology. She thinks gender is determined by either opinion, chromosomes, or hormones. Can she define what a gamete is? Does she/it even know the word? Can she link gamete morphology to organism behavior in any meaningful way? Can she tell any of us why female cones tend to reside more on the upper branches of conifer trees and the male ones on the lower branches? Did they agree on that arrangement in a Conifer Party Meeting?
This person literally, and I do mean literally, does not know what constitutes the biological concept of male and female, let alone it's objective impact on nature. She seems to believe in something called the 'biosocial'. I wonder, does she believe in the 'physiosocial'? Does she think the relationship between the proton and the electron is on some spectrum arrived at by a social committee of fundamental particles that predate the first star?
'Discover magazine' is also 'armchair science' according to Smug Mohawk. She encourages us to 'keep reading' a litany of feminist polemics and writers in order to discover what true science is. Orwell has a name for what she is doing. This person is an absolute assassin of the intellect. Full of sociological drivel drawn upon absolutely no objectivism and yet all possible subjectivism. What a complete and utter joke she is.
There are no biologically coherent SJWs. None. Biology was the rock upon which Darwin broke the Abraham Cult. It is also how the Marx Cult can, and will, be broken.
Titan should ask both Anxious Lawyer and Smug Mohawk how we know which part of a flower is male and which part is female. I absolutely guarantee that neither of them know the answer to that. I'd bet all the money I have that they could not answer that question off the top of their heads, or even come close to it.
It is unbelievable to me that these anxious mental midgets are given actual legal authority.
This looks like a race to the bottom of the barrel to me. The game these two (three, moderator) (four, Dean) are playing is all about decreasing knowledge whilst increasing existential angst. 'Decrease the Reals in order to increase the Feels'.
If you follow Peterson at all, or at least his line of thought (as I sort-of have been in my own way until I found him a few months ago), you will find yourself increasing knowledge whilst decreasing existential angst. 'Increase the Reals in order to decrease the Feels'.
This was Tyson vs three Glass Joes.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed the ad homs. From the very start when she brought up "ethics" I saw the ad hom preparation starting. She never addressed any argument professor Peterson had, merely attacked him for making TH-cam videos. The funny thing about youtube, it is far more public than academia and thus far more accessible for peer review than academia. If she wants to debate about peer review, she can make a response video or watch any made.
I firmly believe that no person deserves my respect. A person deserves dignity only insofar it means that the person deserves human rights. We should only respect rights, not persons. And also, please don't respect me, just respect my rights.
People come in all kinds of varieties and to say that all persons deserve respect is just idiotic.
Sorry, how is this a fair platform when there are two people present opposing Professor Jordan, and they both started their speech with not wanting to be here and debating this with "this man".
I suppose, but my point was more the 2 on 1 nature of the debate rather than time to respond to them.
Because according to SJWs, women and minorities are feeble and worth less than a man. It's called white supre- I mean white privilege. So they need two pathetic females or whatever that one is, just to equal the one guy.
Knowing what I know now about SJWs, it probably is. Actually how they get footholds, most people are decent, so they want to think the best of everyone. And usually, worrying about the worst case scenario is paranoia. But not in this case, SJWs exploit this exact thing. Everyone else is like "nooo... they would never do something that awful, that's crazy, mustn't think like that." Then they do the awful thing. Every damn time.
" So they need two pathetic females or whatever that one is, just to equal the one guy."
That sounds familiar. Can anyone help me out here? There's some ideology or some body of law somewhere that says something similar, two women equal one man. It's on the tip of my tongue but I just cant quite say it.
Did that second woman start her speech by asserting the topic was not up for debate, and then move on to discus how importing subjecting ideas to intense scrutiny? Around the 59 minute mark
Yes it happened, you didn't imagine it. This whole debate was so full of Orwellian double standards and hypocrisy from those two, it was almost unbearable.
Ryan Long 'd swear the second lady was demonstrating the first ladies dismissals to be false. It's like everything the first woman said wouldn't happen, the second lady was demonstrating that SJWs are, at the very least, trying to make happen.
Moderator says: "That's not what we think" interrupting Dr. Peterson. What a farce.
Grand summary of the opposition's arguments:
-Your arguments are stupid
-Peer-reviewed research proves my dogma
-I'm a victim
It's clear that the only person who could think on their feet was professor Peterson. The moderator needs to be replaced as she was clearly biased in favour of the other two lawyers.
I cannot believe I just heard this word "post-truth." Not good.
Just always remember, 2+2 = 5
There are 5 lights
Yes, that made me shudder. Watching this from New Zealand and i'm both terrified and dumbfounded to see what's happening in Canada & U.S.
what the bleep is "after truth" / post truth????!?!?!?!?!?
I believe the claim she made repeatedly was that Professor Peterson was engaged in "post-truth" style speech. This appeared to be purely a criticism, though it seems dubious whether it is consistently upheld by these people that putting facts aside in favour of emotionalism is a bad thing.
There are obviously various pernicious ways that presented facts can be invalidly criticized or dismissed, but that is certainly not some new phenomenon of our modern decaying culture. As long as there have been facts there have been men who will invalidly critique them. Of course facts are something which, in order to be understood, need to be observed and studied by individuals, and there will always be disagreements among individuals about what they've independently observed or studied. The idea that questioning what other people present as facts is dishonest in itself is also intellectually destructive. I think that is the intent of this "post-truth" phrase. It is to create a shorthand for the idea that you can automatically dismiss anyone who tries to critique your understanding of the facts.
21:56 She actually starts by saying she supports the boycott of the debate itself. Unbelievable. I am so grateful that Dr Peterson has the strength and integrity to stand alone against the lunacy of these people.
the speaker from Vancouver just drips with righteous indignation...demanding an apology, and framing it with incidents that are not even remotely similar to , to what is happening here
Well, I certainly didn't expect the debate to be introduced with an expression of white guilt... :/ And then he frames the discussion as being about gender, whilst my impression was that Dr Peterson's concerns was in regards to Bill C-16's consequences to freedom of expression.
35:35 Well, I hope that those who decided to boycott the event will actually watch it at a later point. I can certainly respect their freedom to choose to remain deaf to dissenting opinion, but I cannot respect the choice itself. It seems intellectually bankrupt.
39:00 By that definition it seems that there are plenty of SJWs whose words should potentially qualify as hate speech.
1:00:20 "Amateurish videos?" Is a dig on production video quality supposed to be an argument? The videos are not presented as academic papers or even as expositions upon academic papers, but as a reaction to the state of affairs and a call for discussion rather than silence acceptance.
1:02:20 "... and I can't help but think it's because our current premier is a lesbian." First off, that's a paraphrase of what Dr Peterson said and not a quote. The actual quote is: "... and I can't help but manifest the suspicion that that's partly because our current premier is lesbian in her sexual orientation." He isn't blaming it wholeheartedly on Premier Wynne and her sexual orientation, as implied by the paraphrase, but he does believe her to be a factor. Furthermore, not included is the statement that immediately follows the quote: "... and that in of itself doesn't bother me one way or another..." It seems likely that the intent was to paint Dr Peterson as homophobic, but that is clearly not the case.
1:04:19 Okay, now tell us what Dr Peterson says is an example of the nefarious activity. By leaving it hanging that like, you imply that he is simply being paranoid and irrational. What he in fact says is that gender identity is being used as yet another basis for the claim that one was unfairly discriminated against when the outcome of a situation isn't as they desired.
I agree that there may be a scientific basis for gender identity as separate from biological sex, but I am not well read on the subject. The furthest I've investigated as of yet is a Google search that yielded research about transgendered brains as being different from male or female brains.
1:06:00 I'm a little unfamiliar with the terminology here. I think that "right to recognition" is the "right to recognition as a person before the law." However, I don't understand what "right to communicability of presence" means.
Poor moderation at the end. It was already 2-on-1, and became 3-on-1.
it almost made it fair for
them.
He is used to it and he can handle it. He is the perfect person to take them on.
It was everyone for themselves. And peterson was demolished - sorry that it upsets you.
SSU Producer Demolished how exactly?
glad I'm here in America - she defends limits to free speech by defending the requirement to give an oath to the Queen!
I hope you're not in New York City: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/18/de-blasio-fine-businesses-wrong-gender-pronouns/
This moderator is clearly biased towards one side of the argument...
He is definately in "enemy territory", but times are changing, many dont remember the wave of political correctness in the 90s, not as dangarous as today but was pretty bad and was eventually pushed back into the shadows.
jsgdk Hopefully we can manage that again. I am optimistic lol
Daniel Pugh Optimism is the way forward. Pessimism and nihilism has no utility.
Thank god for the republican party in the US. I disagree with them on many many issues, but at least they apply brakes to the "progress" of the left. True progress is a winding road, and the left seems unable to to give anything less than full throttle, even to the point of driving off the cliff as they seem to be doing in Canada, Germany, Sweden, etc.
It isn't exactly Trump or the Republican Party who applied the brakes to the left's growing fascism. It was the left itself, which grew near to implosion in the past few years with their regressive shame tactics and shutting down of reasonable free speech by denouncing any degree of opposition as evil, similar to how religious institutions of the past would denounce thinkers with challenging ideas, such as the persecution of Galileo. Trump, being on the other side of the two-party system, was a change from the left's infringement on open discussion, while Hillary was the same old corporate-owned mouthpiece who rigged the "Democratic" primaries against the *_only_* progressive candidate with any chance of uniting both sides of the political spectrum.
100% correct you are. :)
It doesn't really matter if two gays would like to become financially intertwined. A civil union is an aspect of marriage. It IS a problem if they are able to adopt children, b/c even though the child may have a nice resources around them - food, shelter, clothing etc .. they are not being subjected to a an environment that is reflective of the normality and the healthy progress of our species; their developed is already stunted.
This was such a squandered opportunity. It would be great if Peterson could get a longer debate against one person where both have the time to respond to each other. This was little more than a show where everyone talked past one another.
I agree, but also suspect that they wouldn't have made any real progress no matter how many hours you gave them.
It may not be possible to have a genuine exchange with a PC authoritarian. Could be possible with a PC egalitarian though.
chaosmos24 seriously! It seemed & gave the sense that they never really seemed to be able to refute his points, more like they went on tangents. Or just seemed so blind to the fact that he's arguing a whole different issue. Scary thing is to see how far this is gonna go before it stops complicating lives
they and she (correct me if i wrong, lol) were not screaming and white noising him, so its a great progress. Nobody expect he will be opposed in any way except ad hominem.
Fun fact: When Pol Pot's minions were put on trial they insisted that they were fighting for social-justice.
jsgdk , tragic fact: all big attrocities (genocides, cleansings) are commited by SJWs, ....
58:15 _"[the philosophy of the policy guidelines behind bill C-16] instantiates social constructivism [a social constructivist doctrine] into our legal system."_
This is the most succinct expression that I've heard put forward. More specifically, the problem with accepting this philosophy is a built-in special pleading that can only lead to general injustice, social or otherwise, along with more social unrest and discord. It is the perfect counter to the base presupposition of impartiality, the very principle that one relies upon to make claims of fairness and justice. One can either choose perfect impartiality under law, or any degree of partiality; the two are incompatible.
It accepts as law hypothesis that are already disproven. The problem is there is no requirements that laws be based on logic, truth, facts, or reason.
28:47 -- "You know what you call people you can't talk talk to? ENEMIES. And if we want to divide our society into armed camps of enmity, all we have to do is keep doing what we're doing."
Honestly Jordon is a goldmine for powerful and inspiring quotes.
Human Smith totally... That one stood out to me from this particular debate though. Sums up a core issue very succinctly and powerfully.
Jordan Peterson won this one. Not only was it two to one but the second opponent used ad hominem against Peterson. Also where is the supposed research that states that gender and sex are separated? So far i found sociology books and they are crap.
But at least they are PEER-REVIEWED crap.
Topp Catt Considering most of these people are in a circle jerk im sure no one debated their ideas. No wonder they don't want people to question their ideology
Topp Catt, all of your comments here point to you being just as much of a problem as the worst SJW, just on the other side of the spectrum. If it was people like you in positions of influence there would still be a need for a person like Peterson to stand up and provide a firm backhand.
Just a pro tip: don't show up to a debate and then claim solidarity with those who oppose the debate taking place at all.
That kind of contradiction is just par for the course.
Jordan Peterson is a champion. We need more people in our society who stand up for what's right and noble.
This is literally her argument: well the constitution is weak enough to let us infringe your section 2 rights, so no problem, right?
Unbelievable.
President Sunday yeah, and Jordans aguments were full of appeals to fear and consequence. A poor debate overall.
@54:55 "We must do better, not because it is prescribed by the law, but because we have an ethical commitment to contribute to the advancement of knowledge in a democratic society."
Doesn't that prove Peterson's point? He argued we don't need law to regulate what we must say and that we can hash out people's identities between one another. She was supposed to argue that we NEED law to regulate pronoun usage.
This quote contradicts her stance. Looks like she agrees with Peterson.
They say one thing they use SJTribunals to enforce something totally different.
We need a supreme court case challenge about making the accused pay for the legal costs of their own trial.
1:08:52 What an unbiased moderator. Astounding.
How was this a fair debate when it was two [or three] against one?
The dice were heavily weighted against Peterson.
Yet he still kicked ass.
It's fair for the obstructionists.
It's explained a bit in the rubin report interview on youtube recorded a few days ago, they rigged the debate, and limited the scope, but he decided to do it anyways to not give his critics room to claim he had avoided a discussion.
Churble Furbles
I actually didn't find a room number or a link to buying tickets no matter where I looked. There were about ten places I looked, until one article in the Varsity said that the tickets were sold out. Huh.
saltburner2 It's because there are precious few professors who give him vocal support. Reflects real life. Gad Saad and Janice Fiamengo are two other brave Canadian professors who support him.
If JP loses this tenure and is banished from UT, David Cameron to retain any honour at all should promptly resign in solidarity as a kindred spirit to truth. This is sick!!
But property laws don't have any proposed links to biology, do they?! Nice job deflecting there, honey.
43:15 'Is this the first time the law has decided what we must say, rather than what we cannot say, no, not at all, not even close.' She then proceeds to list bilingual food packaging, health warnings on cigarette packs and taking an oath to the queen at citizenship ceremonis as if that's relevant and somehow proof that forced expression is a good thing.
These lawyers are out of touch with reality.
They have showed their true self. They got nothing, just calling ignorant to the oder side.
oh man what a relief you dont go to jail for not calling people what they demand you call them - you just lose all your money and stuff - you just become homeless! wow.
Yeah.... it's just seizure of your assets.....garnishing your wage... and trashing your reputation...... what's the fuss.
You have nothing to worry about as long as you can answer my question correctly. Now tell me, what is 2 + 2?
MrFreeGman Paterachy?
MeinLuciFuhrer But I identify as a calculator so I know the answer. :D
Deconverted Man Jordan said IF he goes to the tribunal, he would be fined. IF. It's an appeal to consequence.
These are our nieces and nephews.... uh... doesn't that mean there male or female. Or you gonna change that too.
Is it just me but when Dr Peterson talks everything said is clear and understandable, but the SJW Professor language is pure gobbledygook.
Photoplay Games yeah, marxism & feminism tend to work on the power to confuse, intimidate and misdirect.
Roaaaaaaaaaasted! Well done, Jordan.
This man gives me so much hope, can't wait to take his class next year
There's a really high-pitched noise... It's comes up frequently and really hurts my ears.
I think is the sound of your brain cells dying from all the straw men those 2 are putting up. I hear it also.
draft a Bill
I think that was Professor Mary Bryson
Frightening! Bone chilling! This debate could have come straight out of a George Orwell novel. Jordan Peterson is a true hero and needs our support.D'Oh Canada
The discussion of Zucker came up during this debate where Peterson defended him. I thought he was performing bad practice and abusing children (that's at least what the news told me), but oh boy was I wrong. I can't recommend this article enough, it set me straight: nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-fired.html
Very in depth coverage in that article.
If you want to read about something even more deplorable, and a case study that pretty much debunks the entire field of gender studies (as it's taught), look up David Reimer.
MrFreeGman Agreed. I also can recommend the documentary series Brainwash (search Hjernevask, the wikipedia article gives links to all the episodes). The Nature vs. Nuture episode (last episode) goes through another case similar to the Reimer one (though not as severe IMO), the Viktor/Viktoria case.
Thank for uploading, it was really hard to find the complete video with enabled comments
What a shame it wasn’t actually a debate
Jordan is a hero of thought and logic
The terms 'Kafkaesque' and 'Orwellian' are often misused but Professor Peterson is a brave man in an absolutely Kafkaesque/Orwellian society. I stand with him and wish there was more I could to to support him
Hey +Siggy, thanks so much for mirroring this dude!
It seems to me that trying to make people "respectful" via legislation is a ham-fisted approach. In the end, legislation will only create a facade of acceptance and equality while creating more resentment. Perhaps we should let these things unfold more naturally instead of demanding respect through legislation.
Chad Czerny , respect can only be earned, never demanded.
We didn't have to legislate the N word in the United States. That's a really offensive word, and society decided that it was wrong to say. No laws were required. Now, you can still say the N word due to freedom of speech, but its not without SOCIAL consequences and ostracization. If gender neutral pronouns cannot naturally become a useful part of the language, then they should be abandoned. We shouldn't force their acceptance.
"LGBQ Canadians"
HA! Even she can't do it right!
She left out the fucking T, THAT'S THE ONE YOUR SUPPOSED TO BE DEFENDING DUMMY! what an over rehearsed puppet.
Far from an ' academic discussion ' this was a scripted attempt to discredit not the idea, not the actual subject [free speech] , but rather, Professor Peterson the person.
While I initially found it interesting that he was to debate two opponents, if fact he faced four [three onstage and U of T behind the curtain]...and still won the day.
Jordan Peterson: passionate and brilliantly thought out. Opponents : mundane, accusatory, and straw manning
Moderator was extremely biased
the man is brilliant... and just look at how society cannibalizes its own potential
Here's a headline - "U of T bans debate about free speech" - yes you read that right!
There are times when I think that JP has somehow got it wrong. That he has spent so much time looking at the terrors of Marxism (which I think is not the same as the writings of Marx, let me know how I'm wrong please) and how the horrors can creep in, that he has succumbed to some cognitive bias/pareidolia and seen patterns where there are none (I dont see C16's actual wording being a problem as outlined by his first opponent early in the debate and my own quick appraisal of it). ... But then an opponent says: don't worry we won't imprison you we'll just take your property... and I start to worry again.
The framing of the debate implied that the audience is comprised of fragile infants, i.e. there was "support outside" in case they needed a fainting couch. Good job college. Way to prepare our future Starbucks baristas on how to deal with the world.
someone correct me if I'm wrong... If a complaint is made against me as a violation of human rights, a human rights tribunal represents the complainant but I have to pay for my defense all the way to financial ruin.
Does that properly frame the situation one might find oneself in?
Peterson - 11:15-21:49 - 10:34min before being cut off.
Cossman - 22:10-33:20 - (minus 10 seconds for mic readjustment) 11:00min
Peterson - 33:50-43:52 - 10:02min
Bryson - 44:20-55:30 - 11:10min
Bless Peterson, fighting the good fight.
Dr peterson was in trouble here because he is debating two people...both saying he should shut up as he doesn't know anything.. this whole debate is unfair...the coordinator of the debate is bias...in away proving professor. Peterson point
Peterson has clearly stated all the problem with bill C-16 and in my opinion neither the lawyers nor the LGBT activist have dismissed one of his claims. But everything resolves at the end of the debate:
1:32:00 The speakers talks about an apology regarding all the suffering and damages that the LGBTQ+ community has suffered. But who determines and estimates these damages? The Human Right Tribunal. Under which provision? Bill C-16 that's exactly Peterson's point. Debate over.
The only thing that I did not like from Peterson was when he cited the layers' opinion about his situation without naming them. It makes no sense. If they do not want to say in public, or to be explicitly cited, about what they think on the matter, with regards to Peterson's situation, this is already an indication that they feel an undue pressure to shut up. IF LAWYERS cannot speak their mind publicly on the possible results of the introduction of a new law, it is clear that the Peterson's concerns against Bill C-16 are founded in reality.
"Your assets may be seized and your income may be garnished, but you don't get to go to jail." So instead of going to jail and being denied the opportunity to make money, they actively take your property and money from you instead? I think I'd rather go to jail for a year instead of being left destitute and bereft of things I worked 20+ years to earn.
What exactly does Dr. Bryson mean when she says that we "can't manipulate the chromosomal environment?" I would have appreciated a biologist or biochemist to ask her about that and clarify.
If Bryson wants to call out Dr. Peterson's field and/or the research he brought up as "bogus," perhaps she should follow her own advice and bring up something peer-reviewed or publish a review herself. Whatever Dr. Zucker did or didn't do doesn't taint the entire field of psychology.
Dr. Peterson really should have had a biologist/medical professional up there with him. I don't know why U of T let this be a 2 vs 1 thing, but it's already been made abundantly clear where the administration stands on this entire issue, so maybe it's not a mystery after all.
*Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert McNamara*
- Empathize with your enemy
- Rationality will not save us
- There's something beyond one's self
- Maximize efficiency
- Proportionality should be a guideline in war
- Get the data
- Belief and seeing are both often wrong
- Be prepared to re-examine your reasoning
- In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil
- Never say never
- You can't change human nature
That brings more ignorance
Pavan reddy I think random accusations without any substance is actual ignoranz. Or do you bother to tell, what you think is ignorant about it?
Funny to look back on this, this is the first debate/discussion type video made with Peterson and it is the first time he made a group of people look like idiots. Now days we laugh and see it as common practice, but basically anyone who has tried to go toe to toe with him has ended up looking absolutely horrible.
I guarantee all these people STRONGLY regret doing this debate at all, they look like such fascists that it isn't even funny
Isn't the moderator supposed to be neutral?
That's capitalists talk. Gulag for you, Sir!
Der Kerder how is that capitalist xD
The university is trying to discredit him so they can fire him with less blowback
such BS
***** Now you ask further questions. Maybe you are even a intellectuel? Double Gulag! Triple Gulag! Ten time Gulag for you, Mister, "I'm a smart capitalist with many questions"!!! Davai!
I don't know about you, but I have been addicted to this conversation. Damn, this is good. Jordan Peterson is a modern day hero because he has reminded us -- really reminded us -- of what we are all capable of. Look into that abyss people. Wow! JP, you have not been "denounced" in my eyes - not by a long shot. I reckon you're probably the most important person of the 21st century. Hopefully time will not tell ;)
Sick 3v1, bro
Rousing applause for Peterson, scattered applause for the social underminers.
Wonder how much it pays to offer one's services as a professional applauder.
First off Mr. Peterson I would like to say thank you for your work, your effort and your stance on the matter and the fact that you are still standing despite all of it taking a tremendous toll on you - which can be visibly observed. I hope others will be inspired stepping up by your courage, your scientific and historian approach, while using logic and reason to defend your arguments.
It takes 3 people to try to fight 1 honest and educated scholar, and they still resort to denounciation, hatred, lies, strawman- and other fallacies nonstop and lose miserable intellectually. Those people don't have a shred of decency, integrity or academic solidity behind them. I am close to an MA in education myself, but I can recognize or I even have to, that an astounding amount of social science and educational sciences is fairly abstract in a way, which makes a validation of proof near impossible in the objective world. The problem with that is, that some claims are essentially a gamble - on one's life, on other people's life or even society - and that those claims can even be conflated with obtuse ideological claims from a certain group. So what I am saying is that some SJW's and others can state "scientific" facts within social sciences which either have grounds in completely different settings and have not been subjected to the malicious intent at work here, or worse, can mirror from established social science theories that have more or less been proven but are subject to an entirely different set of circumstances, which can be conveniently set aside, depending on the nature of the debate and topic.
What Prof. Peterson understands is, that you have to stop movements which restrict or thwarten a liberal society at the very beginning, as soon as you can get a grip on things. Because if you don't, your capacity to respond and revoke it gets more and more limited, to a point where every possible option puts a large number of people on the losing side. And by losing I don't mean losing a debate like those three women.
I find it alarming that the law professor basically said "you don't understand the laws" and "fear not, because we won't do what you fear we do", either because she honestly doesn't believe it because she is oblivious to the truth of human behaviour and oblivious to the very nature of laws and codebooks that come along with it. Her input was basically the request of trust into the body of government and the people to make the right judgement call when push comes to shove. This is inherently dangerous and ignorant.
Also losing property (and she didn't state to what degree or effect) and wages to pay for possible accidental insinuated insults, which you cannot prove that you didn't intented it but since it doesn't even require an accuser for you to be prosecuted, the system can charge you on what are basically arbitrary grounds. And since it appears to be bound to the choice of a government employee, it basically ends up being a political choice.
If your verbal comprehension isn't on point, good luck understanding what they're talking about. Respect if you understand this with English as a second language. Conversations like these are the cornerstones of history.
1:22:02 'let's go to the question though' the moderator says.... totally bullshit moderation right there. If you were listening to the debate you'd see that was important for him to say.
Also at 1:24:50 'I think we might be straying a little away from the question' the moderator says.. and I am so happy Peterson spoke up and said he was not straying. This moderator is displaying EXACTLY the type of attitude that loves to control other people's speech.... passing things off as irrelevant.. and asking vindictive questions to demonize a beautiful man.
It is so easy to see... not only does peterson win the arguments but he wins by presenting in purity... you can tell by the way the other people craft their language that they have a vindictive agenda. They skip around responding directly to the arguments made and create so many straw man arguments and vomit out emotional appeals left right and center.
Also, peterson gets asked many misleading questions that are designed to demean his character... where as the others were asked questions about what they think as an 'expert'! This is disgusting... it's in plain view... the very debate is organized in such a way that it favors this indoctrinating cult. It's VERY manipulative. There need be no debate about it, you can SEE it right in the video.
The lawyer is incorrect. Peterson was plainly denounced (i.e. accused of a violation).
Is this not the full video? I don't have time to watch it now, but will be coming back to do so tomorrow or monday.
What do they call the ditch and mound structure along the side of canals?
I think I just spotted on talking!
Watching from Australia. :)
QuasiMonkey
No worries 😉
Reckless Abandon i'ma thinking it will be a study that is reviewed by peers that all operate within the same specialist area she does.
The thing about Peterson is he has the humility to look outside his own discipline to understand how the specialised knowledge of respected academics fits into the bigger picture.
My question is - Are there sex and gender studies (with peer review) that are performed by a multi academic field and also peer reviewed by a multi academic peers. Multi academic meaning, gender, anthro, socio, biol, psycho, neuro et-fucking-cetera.
I'm sure their is all sorts of pollitucking (misspelled on purpose) that makes this kind of research difficult to orchestrate but it seems abundantly clear that there is a distinct problem with inter-disciplinary communication.
So I am wondering if I used the right pronoun in my comments above.
BOOM I'm a criminal!
Of course professor, boycotting a debate is a very important form of speech. You're just proving his point
Typical SJW, shut down any discussion that might disagree with their opinions. Echo chambers are their safe space.
Good lord that was an epic smack down. Peterson is brave and well informed on the causes of 20th century totalitarian regimes. I wish he'd been able to engage in colloquy with his opponents.
After browsing through Brysons papers, I find it rather .. weird .. that she/he/something tries to beat down Peterson with rigor of peer-reviewed research. I have no idea what her/his/zerself/whatevers/ research papers have to do with scientific rigor. Fuck. Even the difficulty to write this comment in a .. correct .. way presents a difficulty. Perhaps I should google his/her/zerself/their preferred pronoun before commenting?
I think you have to interpret her use of the term 'peer-reviewed research' to mean 'echo-chamber vomit of at-best pseudo-science' which is where things have been going in academia for at least 30 years with these types. They think that now they've (almost) cleansed 'Academia' they can start using terms like 'peer-reviewed research' (from their ideological side) without sane individuals simultaneously giggling and vomiting a little in their mouth.
peer reviewed = got the Marxist stamp of approval
I think her definition of "peer review" means spell-check and if it reads OK, as opposed to what ACTUAL peer review in Science means is "is it correct? is it novel? does it extend the present knowledge on a subject?" I found her to be incredibly dishonest and precisely why young academics and people with any sense of common sense should be very concerned about the kinds of misinformation coming out of these institutions.
She/He/Ze - whatever, uses too much weird terminology and gobbledegook, I cant follow what her point is except, I know better than him, I challenge his academic acumen and call his professionalism into question and by the way read all this obscure research that I SAY refutes his arguments.
It's the usurpation of credible authority. It's why we're at the point we are with trying to fight absurd authoritarian legislation being passed.
These ideologues have already completed step 1 of getting their bullshit cloaked in the veneer of academic and scientific rigor. But you find if you really dig into their papers is a labyrinthine warren of circular citations and interpretations of interpretations of flawed data.
"Social justice warriors construct fictional worlds then try to bring
real world consequences upon those who refuse to live within them." - Anthony Furey
Hopefully this video won't disappear...
Jordan Peterson was outstanding despite an almost cringe worthy amount of bias, that is so unreflective that the moderator and other speakers don't see their absurdity.
First thing out of the dean: "SORRY INDIANS, SO SORRY, WE STOLE YOUR LAND, IT WAS LONG AGO, I WASN'T THERE BUT I FEEL TERRIBLE, SORRY SORRY SORRY".
I like how she explained that it was possessed by at least 3 different tribes prior. Guess they were all just "sharing" it, definitely not killing each other for it. Hahah.
Nailed it Jennifer, this is the patronizing racism of the SJWs. They don't see minorities as people, they see them as pets. This is what Peterson is saying when he says leftist authoritarians primarily differ from rightwing ones in their higher "compassion" trait - whereas rightwing bigots are blunt and hateful about it, leftwing bigots are like overbearing mothers infantilizing minorities. The indigenous people were PEOPLE. Like all people, they were complex. Good and bad qualities. SJWs view them like an innocent virginal child-race living in a Garden of Eden until the evil white men came and corrupted them. How condescending and dehumanizing.
"You're an expert in Law"...wait, moderator-person-zee, you just said law experts would disagree on most things...brilliant
Where do you see the full debate
this is the full debate
Ian P thanks for that!!!!
Based Peterson. I can't watch the rest of this nonsense. What a nightmare. It's over soon though. Hold in there if you see this
1:10:58 "And since we can't remove sexism and misogyny from the production of gender, we can't actually reach conclusions about what we take to be gender differences." Feminist circular logic. They insist that patriarchy/sexism/misogyny runs rampant and prevents women from equaling men, then when you challenge their claim with scientific evidence of sex differences, they say we can't actually know what 'real' sex differences exist because there's too much sexism and misogyny in the world so you can't do an unbiased study. By that logic, we also can't know if sexism and misogyny have any effect at all. Yet she assumes they have major effects. To top it off, she's incredibly condescending about it.