@@Uub27 running outta time doesn’t make his point invalid. They completely ignored it. If it were a point supporting them I’m sure this woulda gone differently
@@CenkoDeMayo -Running out of time doesn't make his point invalid I never said it did. -They completely ignored it I don't know if you've seen any other senate hearing but yes they don't acknowledge anything out loud. They silently acknowledge it. -If it were a point supporting them I'm sure this woulda gone differently. No, just no. He ran out of time, that's it. There's (almost) no bias in these senate hearings and you can even see that in this video. When the woman was scared to go on she said "Well, I think the chair would stop me-" but the chair cut her out and said "No. you're fine" Surely if there's bias they would've stopped her so there was no chance for Peterson to retort back in the first place.
While true, politicians deal with the public, and if they sound as smart as Jordan than the public will have a hard time understanding, and good leaders should speak in a manner that does not confuse most
@@MusicEnthusiast_27I was taught by a doctorate in rhetoric that if your audience does not understand you then you are far less effective in persuading them. So if what you say is true, and Jordan wants a change in policy, then he should speak more "effectively" to his audience
I think a huge problem that JP faces, is that he’s actually SO logical and SO coherent, that people aren’t used to it so it just doesn’t land the way it should.
You are exactly right. When Jordan Peterson retweets fetish porn and says it's a real Chinese milking facility or when he gets mad at paper towel dispensers and explain how they're tyranny, people just cannot understand how next level logic and coherent it is.
@@TheMarsCydoniastrawman arguments are all you have. And you claiming that Nazis are wonderful people makes you a terrible human being that should lose his job
@@TheMarsCydonia These tweets are clearly Satire, He never said that paper towel dispensers are tyranny, and I have to ask,Whar has he's said that makes him so unintelligent to you?
Not only is he extremely intelligent, he is capable of clearly explaining the realities by providing facts and related studies in support of his findings. He simply points out inconsistencies and flaws, undermining the ignorant with a particular agendas.
Not only is he over-qualified for the Courts, but he is also over-qualified for any contemporary Western politician, or even globally..If Jesus Crist was to come back into this world, I would not be surprised he chooses Mr. Perterson as his first Apostle
I agree with you. He does that a lot. Body language experts would say that when someone touches their wedding ring it's usually because they are thinking of their spouse. So I think the real genius here is Mrs. Peterson. ;)
@@dsma06 I think it's an intentional 'tick' he developed. (He may be trying to convey different messages when he does it depending on the person/situation that it calls for.) I really like it though. (Can't help but think he developed it/uses it mostly when dealing with someone who he's noticed has a peaked interest in him..) I love that he found a way to convey (w/e message it is) so subtly. ( I'd love to point out how genius he is but, that honestly feels a little redundant.) Ugh- Love this man-
@@PaulJacobs1970 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. GOD IS HOLY
Why should God let you into Heaven? Have you lied (even once in your entire life), looked with lust (sexual desire), dishonoured parents, stolen anything, had hatred towards someone, had premarital sex, adultery etc If you answered yes to any one of the above then you are a sinner like the rest of us. So, I ask you again, why should God let a sinner into Heaven? Sinners don’t go to heaven they go to hell, But we are blessed to have Jesus (God incarnate) die on the Cross and rise from the dead. If you Repent (forsake your sinful, unholy ways and live righteous instead) & Believe in Jesus as God, you will be seen as a Saint and welcomed into Heaven. John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
Mike skidoo I agree that celebrities lecturing people is dumb. As If they know anything about the world outside LA and London. But people hate Trump because he actually does dumb shit.
Superb, accurate, articulate, honest, diligent, caring and hopeful. JP deserves better than to be placed in a position where he has to explain things to idiots who don’t understand or appreciate that he is an extraordinary human being who wants the best for everyone concerned. He has helped so many and asks for nothing in return. JP is a living legend and a total inspiration to such a varied and diverse amount of individuals.
@@jackfisk2840 Not all opinion. For example, factually, Peterson cannot be called honest as he is a serial liar. You can have your own opinion of Peterson but there are things that remain factual, no matter your feelings.
@@jackfisk2840 Peterson lied about C-16. If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence. Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements: - That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law - That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns). - That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime" So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ Is now this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words. So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims. 1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word: - Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them. - If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada. - In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012 - That's 5 years before bill C-16 - Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16 So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law". 2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned: a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_ So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either: Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated. What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16. b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed. They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled. Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades. So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago. 3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime. It does not either. The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are: *Section 318 Advocating genocide* _Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_ *Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred* _Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_ You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity. The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not. So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation. Peterson has not stopped lying since.
Uhm U.N. , American Psychological Association...oh...you ste just a person...uh...they know a lot...and ugh...how do YOU reply to that Mr Peterson...HmmmmmMmMMMm?!?
Every time I hear him express himself I can't help myself to believe there is still hope for humanity. My mother is my hero and he is a version of a super human being. I hope God continues to bless him with knowledge and a sense of balance for his sake.
Why should God let you into Heaven? Have you lied (even once in your entire life), looked with lust (sexual desire), dishonoured parents, stolen anything, had hatred towards someone, had premarital sex, adultery etc If you answered yes to any one of the above then you are a sinner like the rest of us. So, I ask you again, why should God let a sinner into Heaven? Sinners don’t go to heaven they go to hell, But we are blessed to have Jesus (God incarnate) die on the Cross and rise from the dead. If you Repent (forsake your sinful, unholy ways and live righteous instead) & Believe in Jesus as God, you will be seen as a Saint and welcomed into Heaven. John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
@@Student4Life89 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. GOD IS HOLY
@@mandagenesis485 Yes, Jesus is a Hero and God. PERSONAL MIRACLE Everyone’s got struggles of some kind, whether it be financial, health related or sinful addictions that you know is bad but can’t stop it. Ask for Jesus to intervene and help. God will help you overcome, thus giving you a personal miracle, and proving He exists to you. I have received a physical healing miracle, Jesus is waiting for you to humble yourself and ask.
I just enjoy the way he expresses himself. The way he builds sentences, the logic behind it, the examples. So vivid and sharp, right on point. It doesn't matter if I disagree with him about anything, I know that I can respect him for being a person who's able to speak about differences (of any topic) in a calm and respective manner.
Most people have heard “Jesus/God loves you”. Does that mean they have a relationship with God and will go to heaven? Depends on the individual. A relationship is 2 sided, you receive love and you give love back. God showed His love by suffering, dying on the cross and rising from the dead for you, now you show Love back by repenting of your sins (lying,, stealing, sexual sins, taking the Lord’s Name in vain etc) and believing in Jesus as your Lord and saviour so that Heaven is in your future not hell
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 Firstly, this has absolutely nothing to do with the video and is just pure fundamentalist proselytizing. Secondly, that sounds like emotional blackmail to me. “I did this thing for you that you never asked for, so now you have to love me back for it or you’ll go to hell”. Your God sounds like a very bad boyfriend 😂
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Eddie Butkaliuk what? He purely is defending his right of freedom of speech, which any human with any sense would want, I don’t think that the lgbtq+ community should legislate themselves to acceptance, acceptance doesn’t work like that, btw he doesn’t disagree with their views he just doesn’t like the thought that one could potentially get punished for expressing their opinion (by not calling someone by their pronoun), that is called suppression, I don’t understand how this is such a hard concept to grasp, a government can tell people what they can’t say (such as a threat to public safety) but a government cannot and should not mandate what one has to say
Most people have heard “Jesus/God loves you”. Does that mean they have a relationship with God and will go to heaven? Depends on the individual. A relationship is 2 sided, you receive love and you give love back. God showed His love by suffering, dying on the cross and rising from the dead for you, now you show Love back by repenting of your sins (lying,, stealing, sexual sins, taking the Lord’s Name in vain etc) and believing in Jesus as your Lord and saviour so that Heaven is in your future not hell
This is a great take. I had extreme difficulty communicating my thoughts until I listened to Dr. Peterson. When I started listening to his lectures, I literally had to pause sometimes to process his sentences because they have so much depth to them. He doesn't waste a word. Years later and I finally feel adequate in terms of saying what I truly think. It's a blessing having people more intelligent around you to learn from.
@@Hectorlph All sin must be punished that’s how judgement works, a Judge judges you on the bad you do and since everyone has sinned (lied, stolen, sexual immorality, dishonoured parents, had hatred towards other people etc). All humans need to repent and believe in Jesus (God) to go to Heaven or spend eternity paying for your sins in hell.
Not only was the bill passed, the very same abuse of it that Peterson talked about here and elsewhere, and that the empty suits in this panel said would never happened DID happen not even 6 months later. Peterson is absolutely vindicated in this beliefs on this issue because there's already one documented case where an institution used the law to restrain free speech under the threat of termination and/or a jail sentence.
Feel good politics and social justice have no place in leadership or Government. Jordan Peterson is as smart as they come but yet he speaks clearly and intelligently he’s spoon feeding it to this woman and she’s to dumb to understand it however in her mind she’s already decided.
No. It didn't. You're foolish for even believing this is actually a thing. Stop trying to pretend it is real. You aren't fooling anyone. The facts in the discussion's are interesting, however.
All the fancy speech boils down to what you wrote. They won't say what they really mean and want which is to ask him to just go away and be quiet while they deconstruct Western civilization piece by piece. I don't mind anyone living their lives as long as they don't try to control me.
@@coaldoubt2879 how isnt it? The law says misgendering would be illegal. Misgendering as in the words you say that applies to the persons gender. How isnt it forced speech?
Dr. Peterson gave an outstanding argument on this bill with valid overwhelming points.. but they passed it anyway. Never forget that. It's not for the greater good. It's for an agenda.
Josip don’t let this happen to your country. We’re trying to get this changed, but the media refuses to cover the problems, in fact the media is forced to use female pronouns even for a sex offender if he chooses to identify as a woman. It’s so disgusting and misogynistic.
When people ask a question, they are either looking for an answer or a fight. If they're looking for a fight, they won't accept to your answer, regardless of what you say.
The guy is a savage. He comes up with perfect responses and comebacks instantly which most of us come up in the shower after thinking about it for a week.
Menn, you would have to combine the intellectual powers of taking a crap and showering at the same time, you'd have take a crap in the shower to come up with a response 1/10th as good as Petersons comeback. Mans crazy
I'm sure it probably has everything to do with his clinical psychology background, in which he is highly qualified, and his interest in socio-political matters. Not only is he acutely familiar with the subject content being discussed (or at least themes that strongly correlate) and facts that back his viewpoints but he is also very practiced in cognitive theory. Much of what you see when Jordan is in full swing is a combination of muscle memory in terms of recalling salient facts, and an inherent ability to adapt his responses and counter-arguments with the application of sound logic and critical thinking . That's a very powerful combination and you see people really struggling to handle him, particularly the glib ones who can't back up their claims with anything tangible.
Id say Ben Shapiro, Steven crowder, Bill Burr, and many more TH-camrs do the same, things are better than they seem, don't believe the media saying we are the little, nah uh, we are the majority, u can check out Aba and Preach u may like them
@@triskalion9627 Steven crowder is a completle moron tho. Hes embarassing against anyone that can talk coherently. He only looks smart against some of the most extreme SJW students.
@@marwin4348 let me guess, you are referring to that Joseph in the argument about socialism? Yea Steven turned out like a total dumbass there, but if you judge people by one or two rare cases and extremes you will never have any friends, no one is perfect and Steven has his bias too, many conservatives are biased when it comes to Capitalism it's true.
I have never seen him ever show any sign of being frustrated and on the edge of losing control of said frustration. The man is a machine, nothing can shock him.
I strongly disagree. I think she is an idol of the modern day, Western politician due to the fact her attributes are so antithetical to those of Jordan Peterson. She's full of incompetence, virtue-signaling, and - as Dr. Peterson put it - "cognitive incoherency." Yep, sounds like a senator to me :/
I believe that means "In an ideal world, this woman would never be a senator". You are correct that she represents something that is sadly typical of today's political climate.
@@Omnipoops Why should God let you into Heaven? Have you lied (even once in your entire life), looked with lust (sexual desire), dishonoured parents, stolen anything, had hatred towards someone, had premarital sex, adultery etc If you answered yes to any one of the above then you are a sinner like the rest of us. So, I ask you again, why should God let a sinner into Heaven? Sinners don’t go to heaven they go to hell, But we are blessed to have Jesus (God incarnate) die on the Cross and rise from the dead. If you Repent (forsake your sinful, unholy ways and live righteous instead) & Believe in Jesus as God, you will be seen as a Saint and welcomed into Heaven. John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
@@alfiepicton1339 Bill c-16 only adds gender expression to an already existing list of protected grounds. Misgendering someone by accident would not be considered discriminatory as many canadian lawyers have already talked about, repeated and deliberate attempts to harm someone through constant misgendering on the other hand is another story. This bill only compels speech in the same way that the original law compelled righteous canadians to not yell slurs at indigenous people
@@randomcaribou2747 I would disagree, there is a big difference between making it illegal for people NOT to say something and telling people they HAVE TO say something. Especially if we are forcing them to say something a lot of people (older generations in particular) don't really agree with or really understand. And all of this to accommodate 0.6% of society (In America).
Paper towel dispenser sticker: "Remember, you don't need an arm's length of paper towel to dry your hands" Jordan Peterson: "Up yours, woke moralists. Tyranny is always petty--and petty tyranny will not save the planet"
I don’t get why people hate him for his views here. He isn’t transphobic at all and he’s said (numerous times) that he actually will call someone by the pronoun they prefer because he considers it to be common decency. He just doesn’t want it to be illegal to not do it.
Don't worry, I've been labelled sexist, racist for simply saying that to make an equal society, you shouldn't drag down , demonise, witch hunt or discriminate the predominant race or sex etc .
@TURD BURGLAR I assume you're murican? Because usually, only muricans throw liberals, lefties, socialists and communists in the same pot. For example for most of Europe, a liberal is a centrist, more or less
@@eraproductions9923 Its about feminism 3rd gen. and 1: yes it's in their own heads and 2: pls worry, it affects western legislation. Ruth bader ginsburg, the old lady that sleeps at work in the us supreme court has stated that "women are by definition victims".
Kenny berg. Thats hit the nail on the head. If you look at the list of 'genders', you will find one called 'adamasgender'. This is the given name of a particular type of gender that refuses to be categorised. Yep. Refuses to be labelled. Except.....well.......to be labelled as an adamasgender! Don't put me in a box! Ok, that box is alright. 😂
No she can't. She had to have the Senate moderator rush in to save her by cutting off Jordan Peterson. There was no other way. The frightening thing here is that the Canadian Senate could LEARN about this just by listening to Peterson. He's right there. He knows, well, pretty much everything on this. But they don't want to do that. They just want him to shut up and go with whatever legislation they write when they don't even know why they wrote it. They took a poll and said that it is more likely they will get re-elected if they write it, that is what they know. They don't care about anything else.
@slayne2 If they presume to tell me what to do, and have no idea what they are talking about, and impede me in my lawful behaviour, then yes, I'll disparage them every time, and not only refute them, but ignore them and expose their misguided beliefs for all to see. Exactly what JP has done in this case.
Agree. They come into the room thinking they are smart until Jordan speaks, They hear truth but remain stubborn and choose to be willingly ignorant at this point..showing the kind of person they really are which speaks to why they have the stance they do in the first place. They are control freaks used to faking being smart, they support each other in this endeavor and it works because nobody stands up to them...enter Jordan Peterson...just the man for the job of exposing these types. Jordan Is a true blessing to this world.
You are really being delusional, and falling into the exact same mindset as the people you seem to reject. Stop assigning such strong ideals to individuals, it is careless and harmful. Jordan Peterson isn't God's grace of intelligence to the world.
Well, he didn't show any new side to his expression here, except a situatory extension of vocabulary. His trait of openess is integrated with his speech. That is of course not a problem, but it shows the limitasion. ... I don't have English anymore in school so i have to practice in the comment-section on TH-cam.
Alright, if you want to improve your English skills. Instead of saying limitisation, say limitation. And use big "I"s, when they are alone. Openness* also. Some more, but I don't give that much of a damn.
If people aren't able to improvise & engage in dialog but rather have to continue relying on their notes, they are the less intellegent person in the discussion.
@Shailendra Saiwal Neither did Peterson. He just puts big words together to try and confuse people with his nonsensical gibberish to the point that he doesn't even understand the shit that came out of his mouth.,
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Yes. JP was right. What would surprise me is JP being flat-wrong on something important. I'm sure he's not "Mr. Right" and makes plenty of mistakes, but his mind 'as it relates to' large scale issues is STUNNING. This dude is kick-ass.
@@Fedreal_Bureau_Of_Investigaton he’s written one of the most impactful books on religious interpretations which he spent 15 years writing. You sure that you know better?
Dr. Peterson - brilliant as ALWAYS, is unbelievable how good he is EACH TIME. That lady - she could not say 2 proper sentences, imagine how messy is her brain and so her actions. Pffff... 😊
@@TheMarsCydonia Sharp. Fact based. Knowledge. Experience. Packed up with kindness. One of a kind! His detractors... messy messages, messy language, messy behaviour- nothing to learn from. Simple
@@cristinabadea6344 I've definitely reached a different conclusion than you did here. I do not find Peterson to be anything you claim he is while being what you say his "dectractors" are. I guess that when Peterson replied "You don't know what you're talking about" when I explained his lies about C-16, I expected more from someone "Sharp" and "Fact based".
@@WLyons9856 As long as the person expressing those facts can articulate them coherently. Jordan can and does better than almost anyone else on the planet. Facts don't have feelings and they can be discombobulated if the deliverer of the facts is a poor communicator.
Intelligent people that don't conform to those leftist ideology are vilified cause they speak the truth, thus they are not listened to, just ignored or put into a "far right or fascist" category, and I really do think that this is unfortunate, on all the videos I've seen of him, he's never been discriminatory against anyone, but well, logic and common sense are rare nowadays, I can't comprehend nor I want to abide by their stupid rules, with their unlimited amount of genders and sexualities, this world is going downhill and everybody in the west are pressing on the gas. Like there aren't anything more important on this planet than fucking imaginary genders and sexualities, this is what happen when you let deranged people give their opinion. This world doesn't have more than a few decades to live. Hope I wont be there at the downfall.
I don't think the "level of badass" is a physical trait, man. In fact, I would argue its a behavioral trait. At no level, even the lowest, is it physical.
@@punxOiOi13 well..bad assery can be a metric of how close to a mythological hero an individual is, or how competent an individual is in the domain of transcending the dragon of chaos. Jordan Peterson's level of bad assery is somewhere that is approximating the archetype of the ideal mythological hero. ... roughly speaking
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Genuinely! I have a psychology degree im a clinical child psychologist and behaviour analyst. Still when i listen to him I remain silent for hours after afraid i will sound like a toddler
@@Hello11235 Look up Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, probably the most articulate man I've ever come across. Famous for uttering the longest word ever used in british parliament. Here's a link. th-cam.com/video/Wc9b08J2KrA/w-d-xo.html
Esta Noche De Luna simply using logic and rationale is seen as intelligence in the modern day and age(even though it was usually rebuked in former generations to fit a religious status quo). We’re lacking in intelligence and logic for sure in this crazy world. It probably wouldn’t be so insane if many tried to create order through systems and people having simple common courtesy due to the rule of “what’s done unto others should be done unto me.” (No, I said something that many people should’ve thought of many years ago. Kill me like you did Socrates.)
hoply... i wich he would talk in Europe too..i am watching nearly all of his Videos on TH-cam. I love it. I am from Germany and i would love it if someone from here would the same work as him.
@@kailaine3974 This law will never lead to what Peterson envisions. He's one of the weakest intellectuals I've ever seen. Just plain misinformed on so many things.
rugbyguy59 I don’t really know what you mean by “what he predicts.” As far as I can tell, he is concerned about a compelled speech law, which is what bill C-16 is. I’ll also give you a bit of a pro tip: never in the history of ever has an ad hominem been a valid argument
@@micci9865 Before lying to the public to start his career as a culture war commentator, Peterson was an university professor. Do you believe all Canadian university professors to be millionnaires?
@@user-ug2hk3go6i Have you missed that the original comment mentionned Peterson's risk of what he could be losing? Why have you not asked them this question instead of asking it to me who pointed out the fact that Peterson gained from it and rather than lose anything?
Paolo Mendoza Dr. Jordan Peterson as Prime Minister would be FUCKING AMAZING! So much better than Justin Trudeau or Stephen Harper. Sadly, though, I don't see him making the decision to run anytime soon, if at all... :/
@@jamesramplin8124 while others might not be peterson, I have experienced this sort of argument where I'm arguing a principle and brain dead people assume you're against their entire argument. Like people are allowed to support trans people but also be against compelled speech or bathrooms for example
Conner Mccord actually if you read it the APA didn’t change anything in terms of the requirements for diagnosis or the symptoms. They changed the name and classification to “reduce stigma”. They freely admit they did it under the pressure of lobby groups, in fact one of the people who wrote the thing admitted as such on Twitter a while back.
I can argue with him, so can anyone else, easily, As long as the person is in the right, saying that, lets presume Mr Peterson came into said debate half cocked ( yes, highly improbable), engaged in the discussion, then was shown to be lacking, he would then apologise unreservedly, then change sides, to advance the truth, its a thought exercise, Mr Perterson, was asked by joe rogan, what can anyone wanting to help in this C16 law, to help? Mr Peterson, said something so profound and which struck me in awe, He said " work on yourself" or words to that effect, what the ......... no asking for money, donations or anything, he said sort yourself out, come on, a truly great role model, he is Good and truthful actions, backed up by words, the politicians are hollow words, hot air and slight of hand to gain by deceit
smartchip He also rented out a theater using his Patreon money to sort out his thoughts on the bible in front of a crowd. And it is becoming increasingly obvious he's doing it so people can understand the core benefits of religion and why it has held so much weight. It doesn't come off as pretentious, as he stands there as a lecturer, doing what he knows he can do really well.. Teach.
She called him Mr Peterson. For someone who claims to hold pronouns in high esteem, she betrays her narrative by incorrectly addressing Professor Peterson.
@@mdellertson He spoke many times in fabulously intelligence ridden videos that he would run for PM, but it turns out he didnt. Maybe next time around. Or he can simply gain more momentum where he is and just outshine them all, and somehow inspiring a whole new, GRASSROOTS leadership that has its own way of functioning. Instead of reprisenting the kangaroo parliaments of England.
Pepe's bodega USA has our own version of this guy. His name is Trey Gowdy and hes the governer of south carolina. look him up on youtube if you want some keks
"hopefully nobody will care" With all due respect, I think that's more than a little optimistic. Governments don't pass bills for no reason, they pass them to affect serious changes. This is ideology being shoved down our throat, and believe me, we are going to get it whether we like it or not. I mean, just look around and ask people around you and see how many people buy into this nonsense. I can wait, but I guarantee you'll be depressed when you get back.
then someone needs to put it to the test like that man did the blasphemy law in Ireland where he reported Stephen Fry to the police after his TV interview where he told god how dare he give children cancer and so on. source: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/09/stephen-fry-blasphemy-prosecution-ireland-reportedly-dropped/
Guys, the law in California, that puts people in jail for 1 year for using the wrong pronouns...is it true? Did that kind of law really get implemented?
@@TheMarsCydonia you need to elaborate on what he has lied about and what he is unrepentant about. Lying maybe but penance implies submission to JC. I’m not sure if he has bowed down to Jesus. Yet?
@@NHL4740 Unrepentant in the sense of showing no remorse or regret for years of lying, it has nothing to do with Jesus. And If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence. Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements: - That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law - That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns). - That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime" So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ Is now this list: _"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_ The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words. So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims. 1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word: - Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them. - If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada. - In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012 - That's 5 years before bill C-16 - Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16 So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law". 2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned: a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_ So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either: Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated. What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16. b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed. They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled. Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades. So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago. 3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime. It does not either. The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are: *Section 318 Advocating genocide* _Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_ *Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred* _Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_ You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity. The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not. So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation. Peterson has not stopped lying since.
Jordan Peterson's rethorical skills and the way he articulates his thoughts into arguments continues to amaze me. I want to learn to speak like that too.
Tadai, nenusisnekek jo sakiniai per ilgi buvo tai durnei kuri nekrimto jo mokslu, jo sakiniu gramatine ir semantine sandara pusei kambario buvo tamsus miskas. Petersono adresatai jo nesuprato nes jis ne ju kalba kalbejo kitaip tariant. Petersono kalba nera retorine, o akademine ir moksline.
He has very high verbal abilities. His VIQ must be over 4sd. That's why he sounds very clever and thoughtful when speaking. He also reads a lot of complicated texts, so that helps him for his rhetorical way of talking.
@@NFLStefanONFL his speaking manner was too intelelctual and academical for anybody to understand in that room. If he had better rethoric, he would have said the same thing in their "language". Dont you see the stares of mild stupor in their eyes? Their vague attempts to grasp his ideas, their reactions and rrplies? They clearly do not understand him.
@@zilvinasyes sakydamas, kad Petersono retoriniai įgūdžiai įspūdingi turėjau omenyje tai kaip jis valdo pokalbį. Pvz. kai toji senatorė pradeda vardinti organizacijas pasisakančias prieš lytinę diskriminaciją Petersonas taikliai pastebi, kad tokia jų pozicija neprieštarauja tam ką jis teigia. Aš pats tokioje situacijoje tikriaisiai būčiau bandęs impulsyviai gintis šitaip sukurdamas sąlygas neigti mano teiginius ir argumentus, padaręs save pažeidžiamą, bet štai Petersonas neleidžia oponentui valdyti diskusijos krypties pagal savo interesus, nepriima kaltinimų ar naratyvo kurį konstruoja priešinga stovykla. Nebūčiau pagalvojęs apie tokį greitą būdą išsisukti jo vietoje toje situacijoje. Pritariu tau, kad daugelis toje patalpoje nesuprato Petersono ir tyrimų metodikos apie kurią jis kalba, bet būtent ta akimirka apie kurią aš kalbu nėra susijusi su moksline/akademine kalba ar jos vartojimu. Labiau atkreipiau dėmesį į Petersono sugebėjimą valdyti diskusiją, nepakliūti į oponento spąstus, išlikti sąmoningam pokalbio eigai ir priešininko motyvams. Manau daug galima išmokti man šioje vietoje ir faktas, kad tau turėjau atrašyt tokią ilgą žinutę, tam, kad paaiškinčiau šitą mintį tai liudija :D todėl ir delsiau atsakyti, žinijau, kad bus daug rašymo.
What’s sad is he’s a classic liberal. He agrees with the bulk of what the left believes, but they’re so dig into a political civil war they can’t figure out who is on their side anymore.
The only problem is that his way of speaking is so sophisticated that even university students and professors have a hard time not misunderstanding him. Think about him trying to speak to average people. Average people want a "straight talker" that dumbs things down to slogans and bumper stickers. Im a huge fan of Jordan but even though he has millions of intellectuals following him I dont think that is enough against the tens/hundreads of millions of average individuals who dont understand a word he says. :/
The point is, they argue with 'feelings' while in reality companys do a shittone of money with court cases (more law mean - generally speaking - more court cases, more tax contributions, more lawyers needed, ppl believing their arm doesnt belong to their body, etc. In other words, its more about the money than everything different. Politicians think in the matter of how to get more money out of this as the only possible way of thinking. Therefor they are not interessed in JP views. Interesstingly i agree with JP views, although i see myself more of a leftist-marxist than the ppl JP seems to criticise in many of his speeches.
Senator: "W-w-what about t-t-the people writing us letters about their feelings?" Answer = irrelevant on what their feelings are but they have to bring facts which science/biology is and what damages it will do to our society. Quit trying to please everyone, stand up and state this is what it is in terms of definition/biological, etc. This is been going on for years and will continue to be this way it is.
@@juniorvonclaire3576 Being good at debating is still another thing than being right or having good points. I know quite a few people who are absolutely reta... Mentally challenged... Well, to state it briefly; they make ridiculous and unprovable claims, yet they still shine when they debate another's well-founded arguments, somehow. My point is, it's still alot easier to debate with an intellectual than it is with a professional debater. Jordan Peterson adheres too much to facts and logic to ever be a debater, a debater will throw anything under the bus to win the argument. As far as their own dignity, trustworthiness and principles. Look at the majority of successful politicians for proof of that.
![500 บาท สุ่มกินสตรีทฟู้ดริมทะเล หาดจอมเทียนพัทยา 8K [HDR]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aZLagyZyQE4/mqdefault.jpg)
Oh no. He’s making sense. We need to move on to another senator.
Omgg 😂 that’s exactly what happened. They didn’t know what to say it’s like oh okay let’s wrap this up then 😂 and ignore what he said, typical
@@CenkoDeMayo That's not what happened, I agree with Peterson on these points, but he just ran out of time, that's all.
@@Uub27 running outta time doesn’t make his point invalid. They completely ignored it. If it were a point supporting them I’m sure this woulda gone differently
@@CenkoDeMayo
-Running out of time doesn't make his point invalid
I never said it did.
-They completely ignored it
I don't know if you've seen any other senate hearing but yes they don't acknowledge anything out loud. They silently acknowledge it.
-If it were a point supporting them I'm sure this woulda gone differently.
No, just no. He ran out of time, that's it. There's (almost) no bias in these senate hearings and you can even see that in this video. When the woman was scared to go on she said "Well, I think the chair would stop me-" but the chair cut her out and said "No. you're fine" Surely if there's bias they would've stopped her so there was no chance for Peterson to retort back in the first place.
@@Hildreth1101 Yes but there's different sections, he ran out of time for this one.
The more people attack him, the better he gets at defending himself.
Sadly, even he has limits.
killbotone nice
killbotone he’s addicted to drugs?
Sounds like Hulk
@JamesThat's because it's impossible to argue with someone who is lying, and Peterson is a liar.
Most politicians just don't have the intellect to keep up with what he is saying.
I see the same! 😊
yep and they make the laws what a world we live in
While true, politicians deal with the public, and if they sound as smart as Jordan than the public will have a hard time understanding, and good leaders should speak in a manner that does not confuse most
@@djryken bro its not a matter of what/how they sound like they actually lack the ability to even comprehend what Jordan is saying
@@MusicEnthusiast_27I was taught by a doctorate in rhetoric that if your audience does not understand you then you are far less effective in persuading them. So if what you say is true, and Jordan wants a change in policy, then he should speak more "effectively" to his audience
I think a huge problem that JP faces, is that he’s actually SO logical and SO coherent, that people aren’t used to it so it just doesn’t land the way it should.
You are exactly right. When Jordan Peterson retweets fetish porn and says it's a real Chinese milking facility or when he gets mad at paper towel dispensers and explain how they're tyranny, people just cannot understand how next level logic and coherent it is.
@@TheMarsCydoniawhat is a woman?
@TheMarsCydonia When was the last time you cleaned your room?
@@TheMarsCydoniastrawman arguments are all you have. And you claiming that Nazis are wonderful people makes you a terrible human being that should lose his job
@@TheMarsCydonia These tweets are clearly Satire, He never said that paper towel dispensers are tyranny, and I have to ask,Whar has he's said that makes him so unintelligent to you?
“I’m sorry mister Peterson, but you are overqualified for the court..”
Sadly the truth
Not only is he extremely intelligent, he is capable of clearly explaining the realities by providing facts and related studies in support of his findings. He simply points out inconsistencies and flaws, undermining the ignorant with a particular agendas.
Just another way of saying, “damn, my mind tricks won’t work on you, correct??”
She goes out and drinks heavily for three days
😂
Not only is he over-qualified for the Courts, but he is also over-qualified for any contemporary Western politician, or even globally..If Jesus Crist was to come back into this world, I would not be surprised he chooses Mr. Perterson as his first Apostle
@@jphalsberghe1 That is correct. Our savior's first Apostle would be Dr Peterson.
Everybody gangsta until Peterson starts playing with his wedding ring
😂
😂😂😂
I agree with you. He does that a lot. Body language experts would say that when someone touches their wedding ring it's usually because they are thinking of their spouse. So I think the real genius here is Mrs. Peterson. ;)
@@dsma06 I think it's an intentional 'tick' he developed. (He may be trying to convey different messages when he does it depending on the person/situation that it calls for.) I really like it though. (Can't help but think he developed it/uses it mostly when dealing with someone who he's noticed has a peaked interest in him..) I love that he found a way to convey (w/e message it is) so subtly. ( I'd love to point out how genius he is but, that honestly feels a little redundant.) Ugh- Love this man-
🤣🤣🤣🤣
"no you're fine" had me laughing so hard, she was looking for a way out and they closed the door on her 🤣😂
Haha yeh I liked that too. She was like “damnnn!”
@@PaulJacobs1970 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. GOD IS HOLY
Why should God let you into Heaven?
Have you lied (even once in your entire life), looked with lust (sexual desire), dishonoured parents, stolen anything, had hatred towards someone, had premarital sex, adultery etc If you answered yes to any one of the above then you are a sinner like the rest of us.
So, I ask you again, why should God let a sinner into Heaven?
Sinners don’t go to heaven they go to hell, But we are blessed to have Jesus (God incarnate) die on the Cross and rise from the dead. If you Repent (forsake your sinful, unholy ways and live righteous instead) & Believe in Jesus as God, you will be seen as a Saint and welcomed into Heaven.
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 this is not a place to preach nonsense, try a street corner and wear a sandwich board!
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 just repent before death and you will be fine lol
He's so articulate its almost a symphony.
he literally just says words for the sake of saying words. he doesn't have any fucking opinions, just says words without anything
@@psychoaurora2673 comprehension issue
@@zephysx6089 i mean like... im not wrong though
@@psychoaurora2673 Comprehension issue
@@NASTrading u took a long time to respond to that..
I’d like to thank every SJW out there for introducing me to this man
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Haha so right!!!
Honestly listening to this man at least once everyday makes you a little bit smarter
Sjw?
@@fabulyzqueen582 Social Justice Warrior
"You can't have all of the power and all of the victimization at the same time."
- Jordan Peterson
SJWs & cie: "ShUt Up YoU NaZi! REEEEEE!"
You can pretend your the victim, "'I'm oppressed"' they who hold the power, the far left, stupid people, with power very dangerous
@@desslattery3457 If you think the far left hold the power you're stupid
They sure as hell want it tho, that’s why everyone and all the social media and celebrities out there is trump hating saying crazy shit
Mike skidoo I agree that celebrities lecturing people is dumb. As If they know anything about the world outside LA and London. But people hate Trump because he actually does dumb shit.
Give this man the Nobel prize for peace. And let them haters hate
lol
amen brother
Superb, accurate, articulate, honest, diligent, caring and hopeful. JP deserves better than to be placed in a position where he has to explain things to idiots who don’t understand or appreciate that he is an extraordinary human being who wants the best for everyone concerned. He has helped so many and asks for nothing in return. JP is a living legend and a total inspiration to such a varied and diverse amount of individuals.
I would agree if what you were saying was true.
It's not.
@@TheMarsCydonia , in your opinion.
@@jackfisk2840 Not all opinion.
For example, factually, Peterson cannot be called honest as he is a serial liar.
You can have your own opinion of Peterson but there are things that remain factual, no matter your feelings.
@@TheMarsCydonia , ok, can you tell me what was factually untrue?
@@jackfisk2840 Peterson lied about C-16.
If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence.
Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements:
- That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law
- That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns).
- That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime"
So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list:
_"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_
Is now this list:
_"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_
The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words.
So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims.
1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word:
- Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them.
- If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada.
- In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012
- That's 5 years before bill C-16
- Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16
So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law".
2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned:
a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_
So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either:
Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated.
What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16.
b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed.
They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled.
Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades.
So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago.
3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime.
It does not either.
The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are:
*Section 318 Advocating genocide*
_Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_
*Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred*
_Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_
You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity.
The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not.
So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation.
Peterson has not stopped lying since.
They say if you're the smartest person in the room, then you're in the wrong room. I think Dr Peterson is in the wrong room a lot.
Unfortunately...but its his responsibility either way to do the right thing, which is.... to enlight people.
Hell if that's the case I'm not sure the poor guy could EVER find the right room😫😫😫😂😂😂
A LOT a lot
So teachers are always in the wrong room? You're an idiot...
Matthew Scott many of mine weren’t.
When a smart person talk to someone who is pretending to be smart, the results are just priceless.
Uhm U.N. , American Psychological Association...oh...you ste just a person...uh...they know a lot...and ugh...how do YOU reply to that Mr Peterson...HmmmmmMmMMMm?!?
Thomas Grabowski dumbass that’s how he should reply
Corona Virus Agar - correct, that's what Peterson should have replied.
Good of you to complete the thought there.
Exactly..
Pro 23:9 KJV Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Every time I hear him express himself I can't help myself to believe there is still hope for humanity. My mother is my hero and he is a version of a super human being. I hope God continues to bless him with knowledge and a sense of balance for his sake.
Why should God let you into Heaven?
Have you lied (even once in your entire life), looked with lust (sexual desire), dishonoured parents, stolen anything, had hatred towards someone, had premarital sex, adultery etc If you answered yes to any one of the above then you are a sinner like the rest of us.
So, I ask you again, why should God let a sinner into Heaven?
Sinners don’t go to heaven they go to hell, But we are blessed to have Jesus (God incarnate) die on the Cross and rise from the dead. If you Repent (forsake your sinful, unholy ways and live righteous instead) & Believe in Jesus as God, you will be seen as a Saint and welcomed into Heaven.
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
for OUR* sakes.
Man is a hero
@@Student4Life89 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. GOD IS HOLY
@@mandagenesis485 Yes, Jesus is a Hero and God.
PERSONAL MIRACLE
Everyone’s got struggles of some kind, whether it be financial, health related or sinful addictions that you know is bad but can’t stop it. Ask for Jesus to intervene and help. God will help you overcome, thus giving you a personal miracle, and proving He exists to you. I have received a physical healing miracle, Jesus is waiting for you to humble yourself and ask.
I just enjoy the way he expresses himself. The way he builds sentences, the logic behind it, the examples. So vivid and sharp, right on point. It doesn't matter if I disagree with him about anything, I know that I can respect him for being a person who's able to speak about differences (of any topic) in a calm and respective manner.
Most people have heard “Jesus/God loves you”. Does that mean they have a relationship with God and will go to heaven? Depends on the individual. A relationship is 2 sided, you receive love and you give love back. God showed His love by suffering, dying on the cross and rising from the dead for you, now you show Love back by repenting of your sins (lying,, stealing, sexual sins, taking the Lord’s Name in vain etc) and believing in Jesus as your Lord and saviour so that Heaven is in your future not hell
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363
Firstly, this has absolutely nothing to do with the video and is just pure fundamentalist proselytizing.
Secondly, that sounds like emotional blackmail to me. “I did this thing for you that you never asked for, so now you have to love me back for it or you’ll go to hell”.
Your God sounds like a very bad boyfriend 😂
This woman is lucky he didn't start playing with his Wedding ring, she would've been smoked.
LMAO 😆
What do you mean
@@zacdawson6881 typically when peterson plays with his wedding ring or stares away it’s bad news for his opponent
@@zacdawson6881 If you watch a lot of Dr. Petersons videos, he fiddles with his wedding ring when he's basic slaying his opposition.
I actually did see him touch his wedding ring in this video. Check out 04:15 haha!
Oh no. I've fallen into a Jordan Peterson feedback loop again.
Hahah
Welcome back
Yup. I watch The Real, puppy videos, old football highlights, jordan Peterson, and that guy that clears sewer grates too much...
Clean your room
lol
i can only dream of speaking like this man does
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Our biggest problem is our leadership. Thank you, Doctor, for your clear and thoughtful thinking . Sent
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
Funny how she says he's entitled to his opinion when they're literally trying to outlaw it.
E B truth
Snake
Eddie Butkaliuk what? He purely is defending his right of freedom of speech, which any human with any sense would want, I don’t think that the lgbtq+ community should legislate themselves to acceptance, acceptance doesn’t work like that, btw he doesn’t disagree with their views he just doesn’t like the thought that one could potentially get punished for expressing their opinion (by not calling someone by their pronoun), that is called suppression, I don’t understand how this is such a hard concept to grasp, a government can tell people what they can’t say (such as a threat to public safety) but a government cannot and should not mandate what one has to say
@@eddiebutkaliuk4681 ??? He's not a legislator...??
Lol... they are literally giving him a platform to outline his grievances... I agree with pete but you are lost in emotions.
Dr Peterson’s greatest weapon is how he listens to another speaker and so quickly distills their meaning.
Yeah, uh...no. His greatest weapon is calculated sophistry.
TheBermudaMan Point out one from this video
He pays attention, then he speaks magic words that extract habitable order out of chaos
And destroys them
He's very intelligent, very well read, he is sincere and has huge integrity, we're lucky to have him speak on _anything_.
I love to hear intelligent people who make me think and improve my understanding.
Most people have heard “Jesus/God loves you”. Does that mean they have a relationship with God and will go to heaven? Depends on the individual. A relationship is 2 sided, you receive love and you give love back. God showed His love by suffering, dying on the cross and rising from the dead for you, now you show Love back by repenting of your sins (lying,, stealing, sexual sins, taking the Lord’s Name in vain etc) and believing in Jesus as your Lord and saviour so that Heaven is in your future not hell
This is a great take. I had extreme difficulty communicating my thoughts until I listened to Dr. Peterson. When I started listening to his lectures, I literally had to pause sometimes to process his sentences because they have so much depth to them. He doesn't waste a word.
Years later and I finally feel adequate in terms of saying what I truly think. It's a blessing having people more intelligent around you to learn from.
@@Hectorlph All sin must be punished that’s how judgement works, a Judge judges you on the bad you do and since everyone has sinned (lied, stolen, sexual immorality, dishonoured parents, had hatred towards other people etc). All humans need to repent and believe in Jesus (God) to go to Heaven or spend eternity paying for your sins in hell.
A “career” based off a lie. There was and never would have been “compelled speech” in the bill. To quote a great entertainer “ya played yourself”
"Well, i think the Chair would stop me if i..."
"No, you're fine."
"Crap."
You have entered the thunderdome
She had the shit face
Def. the funniest part of this clip !
lol u caught that? smart man!
it's like someone edited the clip and added that sound😂😂😂
And the Bill still passed. That's disgusting.
And predictable
Not only was the bill passed, the very same abuse of it that Peterson talked about here and elsewhere, and that the empty suits in this panel said would never happened DID happen not even 6 months later. Peterson is absolutely vindicated in this beliefs on this issue because there's already one documented case where an institution used the law to restrain free speech under the threat of termination and/or a jail sentence.
Feel good politics and social justice have no place in leadership or Government. Jordan Peterson is as smart as they come but yet he speaks clearly and intelligently he’s spoon feeding it to this woman and she’s to dumb to understand it however in her mind she’s already decided.
Damn Canadian politicians shouldn't even be running a primary school.
No. It didn't. You're foolish for even believing this is actually a thing. Stop trying to pretend it is real. You aren't fooling anyone. The facts in the discussion's are interesting, however.
The power of knowledge and eloquence. My hero.
the power of being wrong
The eloquency of this man is incredible.
Pronouns = Ok
Being forced by law to use certain speech = Not Ok
Hard to understand ? I think not.
All the fancy speech boils down to what you wrote. They won't say what they really mean and want which is to ask him to just go away and be quiet while they deconstruct Western civilization piece by piece. I don't mind anyone living their lives as long as they don't try to control me.
@@randallN-sw6ee the government isn't trying to redefine identity. The people are, and the government accommodates the people.
Because they know.
I agree. But that’s got nothing to do with c 16
@@coaldoubt2879 how isnt it? The law says misgendering would be illegal. Misgendering as in the words you say that applies to the persons gender. How isnt it forced speech?
Dr. Peterson gave an outstanding argument on this bill with valid overwhelming points.. but they passed it anyway. Never forget that. It's not for the greater good. It's for an agenda.
Voting cannon fodder.
Yay Canada.
naxel37 Meghan Murphy also spoke there against this insanity and was overruled. Even Rona Ambrose voted for this stupid law.
Josip don’t let this happen to your country. We’re trying to get this changed, but the media refuses to cover the problems, in fact the media is forced to use female pronouns even for a sex offender if he chooses to identify as a woman. It’s so disgusting and misogynistic.
@@barbarasherman4870 Unfortunately these people took most of the world. We just have to root them out and take it back.
Jordan I am with you! You are a great man of our time. Love your work
When people ask a question, they are either looking for an answer or a fight. If they're looking for a fight, they won't accept to your answer, regardless of what you say.
The guy is a savage. He comes up with perfect responses and comebacks instantly which most of us come up in the shower after thinking about it for a week.
Menn, you would have to combine the intellectual powers of taking a crap and showering at the same time, you'd have take a crap in the shower to come up with a response 1/10th as good as Petersons comeback. Mans crazy
I'm sure it probably has everything to do with his clinical psychology background, in which he is highly qualified, and his interest in socio-political matters. Not only is he acutely familiar with the subject content being discussed (or at least themes that strongly correlate) and facts that back his viewpoints but he is also very practiced in cognitive theory. Much of what you see when Jordan is in full swing is a combination of muscle memory in terms of recalling salient facts, and an inherent ability to adapt his responses and counter-arguments with the application of sound logic and critical thinking . That's a very powerful combination and you see people really struggling to handle him, particularly the glib ones who can't back up their claims with anything tangible.
@@bigmonsieurp.3564 LMAO this is great
lmaooooo accuracy 100%
@@mikerconway basically, man's highly educated lmao
This guy is litterally carrying the whole genderdebate on his own!!
so true👌
And dont forget Bill Burr, last of the two men fighting for us...
Id say Ben Shapiro, Steven crowder, Bill Burr, and many more TH-camrs do the same, things are better than they seem, don't believe the media saying we are the little, nah uh, we are the majority, u can check out Aba and Preach u may like them
@@triskalion9627 Steven crowder is a completle moron tho. Hes embarassing against anyone that can talk coherently. He only looks smart against some of the most extreme SJW students.
@@marwin4348 let me guess, you are referring to that Joseph in the argument about socialism? Yea Steven turned out like a total dumbass there, but if you judge people by one or two rare cases and extremes you will never have any friends, no one is perfect and Steven has his bias too, many conservatives are biased when it comes to Capitalism it's true.
That woman went home with very sore ass... Jordan smacked the hell out of it 😂
Dr Peterson trying with every inch of himself to control his frustration at the complete lack of sense from the panel.
The opposition never listens to what he actually during these debates, major problem
politicians are not elected for their intellect. They are elected for their likeableness and oversimplified campaigning rhetoric.
I see what you did there :)
@Jim Jones can i add you man
I have never seen him ever show any sign of being frustrated and on the edge of losing control of said frustration. The man is a machine, nothing can shock him.
Dr.Peterson is next level of linguistic and thought .This woman should not be a senator.
I strongly disagree. I think she is an idol of the modern day, Western politician due to the fact her attributes are so antithetical to those of Jordan Peterson. She's full of incompetence, virtue-signaling, and - as Dr. Peterson put it - "cognitive incoherency." Yep, sounds like a senator to me :/
In a round about way, you two agree...
Edit: I strongly disagree with the second sentence of his original comment. lol
I believe that means "In an ideal world, this woman would never be a senator". You are correct that she represents something that is sadly typical of today's political climate.
jeepers what was that about how do they get to be a senator in canada?
Absolute legend 👏
He is a hero ✨ thank you for being here and doing what you doing!
A hero who was completely wrong? Lol.
@@Omnipoops get a fucking grip
@@jaylinn7763 thank you for your useless comment
@@Omnipoops Why should God let you into Heaven?
Have you lied (even once in your entire life), looked with lust (sexual desire), dishonoured parents, stolen anything, had hatred towards someone, had premarital sex, adultery etc If you answered yes to any one of the above then you are a sinner like the rest of us.
So, I ask you again, why should God let a sinner into Heaven?
Sinners don’t go to heaven they go to hell, But we are blessed to have Jesus (God incarnate) die on the Cross and rise from the dead. If you Repent (forsake your sinful, unholy ways and live righteous instead) & Believe in Jesus as God, you will be seen as a Saint and welcomed into Heaven.
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 sorry I don't speak absolute garbage
He's trying to explain nuclear fusion to a pre-schooler.
A pre schooler will understand in a certain point, a politician never.
He misunderstood the entire bill tho, if anything he's a pre schooler trying to tell his teacher that 2+2=5
@@randomcaribou2747 in what way may I ask?
@@alfiepicton1339 Bill c-16 only adds gender expression to an already existing list of protected grounds. Misgendering someone by accident would not be considered discriminatory as many canadian lawyers have already talked about, repeated and deliberate attempts to harm someone through constant misgendering on the other hand is another story. This bill only compels speech in the same way that the original law compelled righteous canadians to not yell slurs at indigenous people
@@randomcaribou2747 I would disagree, there is a big difference between making it illegal for people NOT to say something and telling people they HAVE TO say something. Especially if we are forcing them to say something a lot of people (older generations in particular) don't really agree with or really understand. And all of this to accommodate 0.6% of society (In America).
STOP SHE'S ALREADY DEAD
stickexjr lmao its better to make sure
@Mike Fletcher "It's too late for words with these people." That may be true, but that line of thinking can be imminently dangerous.
Shes all coal now but he just keeps burning her
stickexjr crush your enemies completely
J Peterson: OMAE WA MOU SHINDEIRU
Senator Gender Identity: NANI?!
He is absolutely correct 👏
This man's every words save for future generations.
Paper towel dispenser sticker: "Remember, you don't need an arm's length of paper towel to dry your hands"
Jordan Peterson: "Up yours, woke moralists. Tyranny is always petty--and petty tyranny will not save the planet"
I don’t get why people hate him for his views here. He isn’t transphobic at all and he’s said (numerous times) that he actually will call someone by the pronoun they prefer because he considers it to be common decency. He just doesn’t want it to be illegal to not do it.
Because he refuses to play their game.
Don't worry, I've been labelled sexist, racist for simply saying that to make an equal society, you shouldn't drag down , demonise, witch hunt or discriminate the predominant race or sex etc .
That very simple concept is somehow so difficult for people to understand it blow my mind!
Even If you don't want to do it still you're not transfobic
@TURD BURGLAR I assume you're murican? Because usually, only muricans throw liberals, lefties, socialists and communists in the same pot. For example for most of Europe, a liberal is a centrist, more or less
1990's "don't put me in a box or lable me"
2019 "you better put me in a very specific box or I'll cancel you"
@Phix don't worry non of this is real except inside their own heads
@@eraproductions9923 Its about feminism 3rd gen. and 1: yes it's in their own heads and 2: pls worry, it affects western legislation. Ruth bader ginsburg, the old lady that sleeps at work in the us supreme court has stated that "women are by definition victims".
Kenny berg. Thats hit the nail on the head. If you look at the list of 'genders', you will find one called 'adamasgender'. This is the given name of a particular type of gender that refuses to be categorised. Yep. Refuses to be labelled. Except.....well.......to be labelled as an adamasgender! Don't put me in a box! Ok, that box is alright. 😂
@@ohcrikey9560 i wouldn't have a clue what any of them are because they are not real so no point checking them out
@@eraproductions9923 yep. It's totally absurd, self indulgent nonsense.
Bravo Jordan!!!!
She can't even understand what he's saying. How pathetic.
No she can't. She had to have the Senate moderator rush in to save her by cutting off Jordan Peterson. There was no other way.
The frightening thing here is that the Canadian Senate could LEARN about this just by listening to Peterson. He's right there. He knows, well, pretty much everything on this. But they don't want to do that. They just want him to shut up and go with whatever legislation they write when they don't even know why they wrote it. They took a poll and said that it is more likely they will get re-elected if they write it, that is what they know. They don't care about anything else.
I think it is worse. She does understand but it doesn't fit her political agenda.
@slayne2 only when they are politicians
@slayne2 If they presume to tell me what to do, and have no idea what they are talking about, and impede me in my lawful behaviour, then yes, I'll disparage them every time, and not only refute them, but ignore them and expose their misguided beliefs for all to see. Exactly what JP has done in this case.
Ofc your name is Kyle
Unfortunately I think this brilliant mind speaks to deaf ears. Dude is a legend
I wonder if he will be mentioned in history books (or whatever children will use in schools to read about history) in, like, 2050.
@@Noctazar Not if the left has its way.
Agree. They come into the room thinking they are smart until Jordan speaks, They hear truth but remain stubborn and choose to be willingly ignorant at this point..showing the kind of person they really are which speaks to why they have the stance they do in the first place. They are control freaks used to faking being smart, they support each other in this endeavor and it works because nobody stands up to them...enter Jordan Peterson...just the man for the job of exposing these types. Jordan Is a true blessing to this world.
You are really being delusional, and falling into the exact same mindset as the people you seem to reject. Stop assigning such strong ideals to individuals, it is careless and harmful. Jordan Peterson isn't God's grace of intelligence to the world.
@@lolmanittakesguts LOL, if Jordan Peterson isn't intelligent, then what does that make you?
This man is so much more than just his title.
Ever notice that as soon as Mr. Peterson is making his point (driving it in), someone says "We have to wrap it up there. Let's move on to..."?
No, because this was actually the last 5 minutes of a scheduled one hour.
he's so articulate it's astounding
Well, he didn't show any new side to his expression here, except a situatory extension of vocabulary. His trait of openess is integrated with his speech. That is of course not a problem, but it shows the limitasion.
...
I don't have English anymore in school so i have to practice in the comment-section on TH-cam.
Alright, if you want to improve your English skills. Instead of saying limitisation, say limitation. And use big "I"s, when they are alone. Openness* also. Some more, but I don't give that much of a damn.
Snorri did use limitation, just incorrectly* spelled it 'sion' at the end. ( * Incorrectly for American English anyway.)
It’s called well read, life long learner, magi, truth speaker, polyhistor aka Educated.
Anthony Corleone why dont you ask if he's single? Takem out ta denny's. SPLURGE a lil bit.
She didn’t understand a word he said.
If people aren't able to improvise & engage in dialog but rather have to continue relying on their notes, they are the less intellegent person in the discussion.
His speech wasn't for her. Doesn't matter if she understood or not.
@Marylee Macpherson I dont think she had a narrative. Her point was valid until she realized he was objecting to a specific detail.
@Shailendra Saiwal
Neither did Peterson.
He just puts big words together to try and confuse people with his nonsensical gibberish to the point that he doesn't even understand the shit that came out of his mouth.,
@@glennbeck9496 if you weren't following the case specifically it may have been hard to understand but it was actually very articulate and specific.
Dr. Peterson is a world treasure and should be protected at all costs
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, but impossible to win against an idiot! 😂😉
Here we are three years later, and he was totally right.
Yes. JP was right. What would surprise me is JP being flat-wrong on something important. I'm sure he's not "Mr. Right" and makes plenty of mistakes, but his mind 'as it relates to' large scale issues is STUNNING. This dude is kick-ass.
Right about what? The bill has passed and nothing terrible has happened like he was afraid of.
@@nathanleach238 his weak points are religious interpretations
@@Fedreal_Bureau_Of_Investigaton he’s written one of the most impactful books on religious interpretations which he spent 15 years writing. You sure that you know better?
@@ismaelmelendez2710 i heard him talking about that for hours. Yeah
Imagine standing up for something despite being internationally vilified and risk losing your job. This man is a hero.
@@brianwilson7624 but they dont exist??? Stfu ok
Yeah, I guess you could say the same about Hitler right?
@@89Valkyrie how is hitler in this conversation
Yeah man it’s rare to a person with that much courage
He's the man they couldn't cancel lol
He's Indestructible.
Dr. Peterson - brilliant as ALWAYS, is unbelievable how good he is EACH TIME.
That lady - she could not say 2 proper sentences, imagine how messy is her brain and so her actions. Pffff... 😊
What was brilliant about Peterson here?
@@TheMarsCydonia
Sharp. Fact based. Knowledge. Experience. Packed up with kindness. One of a kind!
His detractors... messy messages, messy language, messy behaviour- nothing to learn from.
Simple
@@cristinabadea6344 I've definitely reached a different conclusion than you did here.
I do not find Peterson to be anything you claim he is while being what you say his "dectractors" are.
I guess that when Peterson replied "You don't know what you're talking about" when I explained his lies about C-16, I expected more from someone "Sharp" and "Fact based".
@@TheMarsCydonia .. ... go home, we are fed up with this nonsense, go home
@@cristinabadea6344 Have I upset your feelings by having a different conclusion?
This man doesn't rattle easily. Thinks quick on his feet and disembowels his opponents in such a thoughtful and polite manner that it's a work of art.
Because facts can not be debated
Please watch his debate with slajov zizek(that peterson posted) if you think he is so quick on his feet
@@WLyons9856 As long as the person expressing those facts can articulate them coherently. Jordan can and does better than almost anyone else on the planet. Facts don't have feelings and they can be discombobulated if the deliverer of the facts is a poor communicator.
You almost make him sound like he's the great Hannibal lecter lol!
Absolutely!
He's rational. He's logical. He thinks critically. For these reasons he is vilified.
1000%
Hitler thought critically. Do you want to be like Hitler. (just kidding)
@@grantlandis2747 how is this kidding?
Intelligent people that don't conform to those leftist ideology are vilified cause they speak the truth, thus they are not listened to, just ignored or put into a "far right or fascist" category, and I really do think that this is unfortunate, on all the videos I've seen of him, he's never been discriminatory against anyone, but well, logic and common sense are rare nowadays, I can't comprehend nor I want to abide by their stupid rules, with their unlimited amount of genders and sexualities, this world is going downhill and everybody in the west are pressing on the gas.
Like there aren't anything more important on this planet than fucking imaginary genders and sexualities, this is what happen when you let deranged people give their opinion.
This world doesn't have more than a few decades to live.
Hope I wont be there at the downfall.
@@demons21100 its just with the western civilization , not the entire world
Bravo!!! What else can I say to show appreciation for this man! absolutely brilliant!!
The level of badass this guy has obtained is beyond physical
Lobster energy 💪
amin
Yes, his badassery is strong here.
I don't think the "level of badass" is a physical trait, man. In fact, I would argue its a behavioral trait. At no level, even the lowest, is it physical.
@@punxOiOi13 well..bad assery can be a metric of how close to a mythological hero an individual is, or how competent an individual is in the domain of transcending the dragon of chaos. Jordan Peterson's level of bad assery is somewhere that is approximating the archetype of the ideal mythological hero. ... roughly speaking
seriously lady: what were you thinking whilst trying to bamboozle The lobster king?
Well done sir. . . Well done.
lol
the lobster king lmao
Good one, lol
She is nothing more than completely affected by politics with a half working brain.
Thanks JP. keep speaking the truth and logic
Love this man ❤ he doesn’t take BS from No one
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
It's just mind-blowing, how articulate he is
Yeah, the way he quickly and elegantly processes and communicates (often complex) arguments is amazing! It’s so inspiring to listen to him speak...
That was the first thing I thought when I seen the thumbnail of this video
Genuinely! I have a psychology degree im a clinical child psychologist and behaviour analyst. Still when i listen to him I remain silent for hours after afraid i will sound like a toddler
@@Hello11235 Look up Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, probably the most articulate man I've ever come across. Famous for uttering the longest word ever used in british parliament.
Here's a link. th-cam.com/video/Wc9b08J2KrA/w-d-xo.html
Agreed. Peterson has an extremely high verbal IQ
An intelligent man in an increasingly absurd and facile world.
well that's how become relatively intelligent in the first place lol
I was gonna like your comment but it's at 666 so I wont
@@Mr59J hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Yes intelligent is relative, amongst uneducated people and bunch of idiots, even a 3rd grade school student is intelligent
Esta Noche De Luna simply using logic and rationale is seen as intelligence in the modern day and age(even though it was usually rebuked in former generations to fit a religious status quo). We’re lacking in intelligence and logic for sure in this crazy world. It probably wouldn’t be so insane if many tried to create order through systems and people having simple common courtesy due to the rule of “what’s done unto others should be done unto me.” (No, I said something that many people should’ve thought of many years ago. Kill me like you did Socrates.)
A politician without a paid agenda…..is a public servant!
ALWAYS come prepared!😂
Dr. Peterson will go down in history as one of the greatest minds of the 21st century.
hoply... i wich he would talk in Europe too..i am watching nearly all of his Videos on TH-cam. I love it. I am from Germany and i would love it if someone from here would the same work as him.
It's funny because the Bill passed and we haven't seen anyone actually charged under it...
@@StevesSammiches you're missing a key word at the end there. "Yet."
@@kailaine3974 This law will never lead to what Peterson envisions. He's one of the weakest intellectuals I've ever seen. Just plain misinformed on so many things.
rugbyguy59 I don’t really know what you mean by “what he predicts.” As far as I can tell, he is concerned about a compelled speech law, which is what bill C-16 is.
I’ll also give you a bit of a pro tip: never in the history of ever has an ad hominem been a valid argument
omg i love you Dr. Peterson, you eloquent son of a gun.
100% hero JP brilliant x
In spite of what he could lose after, this man stands by what he think is right. balls of steel right there.
He risked losing so much by becoming a millionaire?
@@TheMarsCydonia This man is intelligent and hard working. Do you not think that he had already made millions before going viral?
@@micci9865 Before lying to the public to start his career as a culture war commentator, Peterson was an university professor.
Do you believe all Canadian university professors to be millionnaires?
@@TheMarsCydonia You know his finances? What does his financial standing have to do with his position on the issue being discussed?
@@user-ug2hk3go6i Have you missed that the original comment mentionned Peterson's risk of what he could be losing?
Why have you not asked them this question instead of asking it to me who pointed out the fact that Peterson gained from it and rather than lose anything?
Someone make that Man a Senator.
or PM
+Paolo Mendoza yes PM
Paolo Mendoza Dr. Jordan Peterson as Prime Minister would be FUCKING AMAZING! So much better than Justin Trudeau or Stephen Harper. Sadly, though, I don't see him making the decision to run anytime soon, if at all... :/
Canadians would sort themselves out and clean their rooms.
William McCormack Heck, lets making supreme ruler of earth. Hahaha
Everytime he speaks I feel educated. Intellectual heavy weight.
Everytime I listen to him I feel like my IQ is increased by 50
until he opens his mouth about god and jesus that is ...
What do you mean?
Ocean Backwards he doesn’t know what he means.
@forza juventus I have a tiktok account (lord forgive me) and I literally saw an SJW talk shit about Peterson. Had to destroy her
She doesn't seem to understand that he is against mandated speech !!!!!!
Senate Chairperson: "We need to move on..." Loose translation: She is getting torched so I'm going to save her from further embarrassing herself...
When they can’t defeat Peterson’s argument, they say:”Let’s wrap up here and move on...”
Yeah , that happens to me often 😆
@@amandahelenatkins8636 You're not Peterson
So true.
He had them and they knew it.
@@jamesramplin8124 while others might not be peterson, I have experienced this sort of argument where I'm arguing a principle and brain dead people assume you're against their entire argument. Like people are allowed to support trans people but also be against compelled speech or bathrooms for example
Jordan Peterson for the next Canadian Prime Minister !
Gabriel Szohner Insane SJWs would have him dead in a week.
^^ Trump laughs at you
Yeah, can't have anyone reasonable in there.
Not in the Canadian context. Elected officials there don't have to pretend they go to church, unlike in the US
Add another point to the board for places to migrate to.
On point ☝️
The man is too coherent, that he is incomprehensible for her
What did you not understand?
@@misanthrophex i meant for the senator lady peterson only speaks the truth
He isn’t against trans people . He against a law that says “you HAVE to use this pronouns”. Compelling someone to do anything is wrong
Well yes, in regard to 'compelled speech' anyway.
That's not what the law says.
Conner Mccord actually if you read it the APA didn’t change anything in terms of the requirements for diagnosis or the symptoms. They changed the name and classification to “reduce stigma”. They freely admit they did it under the pressure of lobby groups, in fact one of the people who wrote the thing admitted as such on Twitter a while back.
@Brittany D and there you have it. Another dumb ass. Congrats
@Brittany D lol, keep breeding acceptance.
If you think you can argue against Peterson, think again. This man is a logical beast.
...yep, you should think again sunshine
I can argue with him, so can anyone else, easily, As long as the person is in the right, saying that, lets presume Mr Peterson came into said debate half cocked ( yes, highly improbable), engaged in the discussion, then was shown to be lacking, he would then apologise unreservedly, then change sides, to advance the truth, its a thought exercise, Mr Perterson, was asked by joe rogan, what can anyone wanting to help in this C16 law, to help? Mr Peterson, said something so profound and which struck me in awe, He said " work on yourself" or words to that effect, what the ......... no asking for money, donations or anything, he said sort yourself out, come on, a truly great role model, he is Good and truthful actions, backed up by words, the politicians are hollow words, hot air and slight of hand to gain by deceit
smartchip He also rented out a theater using his Patreon money to sort out his thoughts on the bible in front of a crowd. And it is becoming increasingly obvious he's doing it so people can understand the core benefits of religion and why it has held so much weight. It doesn't come off as pretentious, as he stands there as a lecturer, doing what he knows he can do really well.. Teach.
listen to the sam harris and jordan peterson debate on truth
+Apoorv Salar - How.
She has my blue prints of what we do
Those who seek to represent us ought to be of a higher level of competence than demonstrated here.
This lady should not be asking any questions period !
She called him Mr Peterson. For someone who claims to hold pronouns in high esteem, she betrays her narrative by incorrectly addressing Professor Peterson.
Sam Chop Mr. Dr. Prof. Peterson
Your're*
Some pronouns are more equal than others in this legislation.
I want Jordan Peterson to have excessively more power than her and people like her
Could you make that happen by nominating Mr. Peterson for public office? I'm curious if he might accept such a nomination.
we often want outspoken people like peterson until we get them....
@@mdellertson He spoke many times in fabulously intelligence ridden videos that he would run for PM, but it turns out he didnt. Maybe next time around. Or he can simply gain more momentum where he is and just outshine them all, and somehow inspiring a whole new, GRASSROOTS leadership that has its own way of functioning. Instead of reprisenting the kangaroo parliaments of England.
PROF. DR PETERSON
except he doesnt lust after power in the slightest
Hahaha, what a genius!!!!
The king will live forever
He is so sharp when speaking
Pepe's bodega USA has our own version of this guy. His name is Trey Gowdy and hes the governer of south carolina. look him up on youtube if you want some keks
T. M lol that's such a diservice to Mr. Peterson. And the fact that you can't see so if kind of funny. Peterson is on a whole. nutha. level.
Michael Egan ive seen trey gowdy on cspan rip people in half. Hes been ripping comey in half before trump even thought of presidencym
Awww cute, you have your first intellectual hack for a hero! We've all been there mate.
Pepe's bodega Roughly speaking
Well, the bill ultimately passed. RIP freedom of speech. 😓
at least no one will ever respect it and hopefuly nobody will care
"hopefully nobody will care"
With all due respect, I think that's more than a little optimistic. Governments don't pass bills for no reason, they pass them to affect serious changes. This is ideology being shoved down our throat, and believe me, we are going to get it whether we like it or not.
I mean, just look around and ask people around you and see how many people buy into this nonsense. I can wait, but I guarantee you'll be depressed when you get back.
then someone needs to put it to the test like that man did the blasphemy law in Ireland where he reported Stephen Fry to the police after his TV interview where he told god how dare he give children cancer and so on. source: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/09/stephen-fry-blasphemy-prosecution-ireland-reportedly-dropped/
Guys, the law in California, that puts people in jail for 1 year for using the wrong pronouns...is it true? Did that kind of law really get implemented?
@Pramu Dananjaya if only there were some website that would allow you to google a question like that.
God bless that man. Let truth prevail
Ironic, considering Peterson is a shameless, unrepentant liar.
@@TheMarsCydonia you need to elaborate on what he has lied about and what he is unrepentant about. Lying maybe but penance implies submission to JC. I’m not sure if he has bowed down to Jesus. Yet?
@@NHL4740 Unrepentant in the sense of showing no remorse or regret for years of lying, it has nothing to do with Jesus.
And If Peterson very publicly and very repeatedly misgendering people not leading him to being forced to use a pronoun or to being charged with a hate crime clued in his followers that Peterson disinformed the public about bill C-16, reading the bill for themselves should have but they believed Peterson on no evidence and against all evidence.
Peterson's claims about C-16 usually were or were near these statements:
- That bill C-16 is unprecedented in English law
- That bill C-16 would compel him to use certain words (namely pronouns).
- That bill C-16 would make misgendering a "hate crime"
So what did bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code actually do? It changed both these laws so that this list:
_"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_
Is now this list:
_"race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered"_
The bill is easily accessible through any search engine. No other words were added to these laws. There were not any new standards of application created with these 4 words nor were decades of legal precedents overturned by adding these 4 words.
So none of his claims ever had any sound basis. Peterson needed but never could make the case that the already existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code could compel speech or make derogatory language a hate crime. Neither of these amendment supports either of Peterson's claims.
1st, the amendment made by bill C-16 is not "unpredecented in English law" by any definition of the word:
- Both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code have been amended before, an obvious example being when "sexual orientation" was added to them.
- If instead one tries to make it about "gender identity" and not simply the list of identifiable groups being amended, it's also false as every single Canadian province made the same amendment adding "gender identity" to their respective Human Rights Act or Code. With bill C-16, the federal government was simply updating the law that applies to itself to follow what was already in place at the provincial level through all of Canada.
- In Peterson's province, the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended, adding "gender identity" the same way, with bill 33 in 2012
- That's 5 years before bill C-16
- Some province and territories passed the same amendment even sooner, in some instances up to 10 years before bill C-16
So obviously, it was not "unprecedented in English law".
2nd, where the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned:
a) First, obviously C-16's amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would not compel Peterson's speech. As mentionned above, the CHRA does not apply to every area of Canada, it only applies to areas where individuals _"are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies that are regulated by the federal government such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters and telecommunications companies"_
So if the amendment "compels" speech (and it does not), the CHRA would only "compel" the federal government or federally regulated employees. Peterson has never been either:
Universities are not federally regulated, they are provincially regulated.
What applies at the provincial level is the province's respective Human Rights Act or Code and as previously stated, Peterson's province Human Rights Code was amended by bill 33. If this amendment "compels" speech, then Peterson's speech would actually have been compelled for the 5 years previous to his objection to bill C-16.
b) So why didn't Peterson notice his speech being "compelled" for 5 years? Before going on a crusade against a bill amending a law that would not "compel" him? The simple answer is: the amendment to the CHRA or to his province's human rights code does not compel speech as Peterson falsely claimed.
They simply prohibits discrimination and harassment and the amendment only extended the classes covered to "gender identity and expression" as explained above. For example, the repeated and deliberate use of a derogatory term such as a racial slur or a misgendering pronoun. Obviously, prohibitions of certain words are not mandates to use certain words and thus no words, including pronouns, are compelled.
Unless you stretch the definition of "compelled" so that it does not have anything to do with bill C-16. The Canadian Human Rights Act has over 4 decades of existence. If one argues the prohibition of using the incorrect pronoun is "compelling" to use the correct pronoun the individual desires, then the CHRA has "compelled" speech for those 4 decades. For example, a federal judge using the pronoun "it" to refer as a member of a racial minority repeatedly and deliberately while performing their official duties may be in violation of the CHRA and this is true of it since before bill C-16 was even thought up. If the standard is "prohibiting me from using derogatory term compels me to use terms that are not" for the standard of "compelled speech", then it would have been compelled for decades as these laws have existed for decades.
So his claims that the 4 words added to CHRA would compel his speech are obviously false and one would have to say Peterson either never noticed or cared about his speech being compelled by bill 33 until an amendment to the CHRA, which does not apply to him, was about to pass with bill C-16. It should be noted however that Peterson still has not said a single word about bill 33 since it was passed over 10 years ago.
3rd, the amendment to the Criminal Code. Because if the amendment to the CHRA does not supports Peterson's claims of "compelled speech", then surely, the amendment to the Criminal code must. It certainly must support his claims that misgendering should now be a hate crime.
It does not either.
The amendment added the same 4 words to the Criminal code that were added to the CHRA. Those 4 words obviously do not add a whole host of new "hate crimes" such as "misgendering". The relevant sections of the Criminal code that were impacted by bill C-16 are:
*Section 318 Advocating genocide*
_Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide, which is defined as killing members of an identifiable group, or inflicting conditions of life on a group which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. The offence is indictable, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment not exceeding five years. There is no minimum punishment. The consent of the provincial Attorney General is required for a charge to be laid under this section_
*Section 319 Publicly inciting hatred*
_Section 319 makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years. There is no minimum punishment_
You can see here what it takes for speech to be a crime. Hate speech laws are often misunderstood as being about "feelings of hatred" but the Code is not concerned with people simply saying something "hateful", what is said needs to rise to the level where it is likely incite some form of violent action against an identifiable class or on the level of advocating the genocide of a identifiable class such as race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. and since bill C-16, a gender identity.
The Criminal code too has been in existence for decades. As deliberate derogatory misgendering against an individual is on par to the deliberate derogatory use of a racial or homophobic slur, for Peterson's claim to have any basis, he would need to support it with any legal precedents made available in the decades of the Criminal code's existence where racial/homophobic slurs are on par with the advocacy of genocide and charged as a hate crime. Peterson could not because there is not.
So Peterson at best spread misinformation due to a gross misunderstanding of Canadian law. Since Peterson continued to repeat his false claims about bill C-16 after being corrected about it repeatedly by actual law experts, ranging from law professor colleagues at his university to the Canadian Bar Association (and even made new false claims in a recent interviews), it is disinformation, not misinformation.
Peterson has not stopped lying since.
I love his wisdom of knowledge, morals and firm to it!! Thank you for fighting and insisting what is proper and rigth Sir Jordan❤God Bless
Jordan Peterson's rethorical skills and the way he articulates his thoughts into arguments continues to amaze me. I want to learn to speak like that too.
Tadai, nenusisnekek jo sakiniai per ilgi buvo tai durnei kuri nekrimto jo mokslu, jo sakiniu gramatine ir semantine sandara pusei kambario buvo tamsus miskas. Petersono adresatai jo nesuprato nes jis ne ju kalba kalbejo kitaip tariant. Petersono kalba nera retorine, o akademine ir moksline.
Read
He has very high verbal abilities. His VIQ must be over 4sd. That's why he sounds very clever and thoughtful when speaking. He also reads a lot of complicated texts, so that helps him for his rhetorical way of talking.
@@NFLStefanONFL his speaking manner was too intelelctual and academical for anybody to understand in that room. If he had better rethoric, he would have said the same thing in their "language". Dont you see the stares of mild stupor in their eyes? Their vague attempts to grasp his ideas, their reactions and rrplies? They clearly do not understand him.
@@zilvinasyes sakydamas, kad Petersono retoriniai įgūdžiai įspūdingi turėjau omenyje tai kaip jis valdo pokalbį. Pvz. kai toji senatorė pradeda vardinti organizacijas pasisakančias prieš lytinę diskriminaciją Petersonas taikliai pastebi, kad tokia jų pozicija neprieštarauja tam ką jis teigia. Aš pats tokioje situacijoje tikriaisiai būčiau bandęs impulsyviai gintis šitaip sukurdamas sąlygas neigti mano teiginius ir argumentus, padaręs save pažeidžiamą, bet štai Petersonas neleidžia oponentui valdyti diskusijos krypties pagal savo interesus, nepriima kaltinimų ar naratyvo kurį konstruoja priešinga stovykla. Nebūčiau pagalvojęs apie tokį greitą būdą išsisukti jo vietoje toje situacijoje. Pritariu tau, kad daugelis toje patalpoje nesuprato Petersono ir tyrimų metodikos apie kurią jis kalba, bet būtent ta akimirka apie kurią aš kalbu nėra susijusi su moksline/akademine kalba ar jos vartojimu. Labiau atkreipiau dėmesį į Petersono sugebėjimą valdyti diskusiją, nepakliūti į oponento spąstus, išlikti sąmoningam pokalbio eigai ir priešininko motyvams. Manau daug galima išmokti man šioje vietoje ir faktas, kad tau turėjau atrašyt tokią ilgą žinutę, tam, kad paaiškinčiau šitą mintį tai liudija :D todėl ir delsiau atsakyti, žinijau, kad bus daug rašymo.
Hey Canada........here's the guy that needs to be your prime minister
You have no idea how many of us have said it and wish he was. But he isn't going to run for prime minister, unfortunately.
If Dr Peterson became Prime Minister of Canada, I would move to Canada.
NeoTheChosenOne he wouldn’t unfortunately, too many lefties misinterpret common sense
What’s sad is he’s a classic liberal. He agrees with the bulk of what the left believes, but they’re so dig into a political civil war they can’t figure out who is on their side anymore.
The only problem is that his way of speaking is so sophisticated that even university students and professors have a hard time not misunderstanding him. Think about him trying to speak to average people. Average people want a "straight talker" that dumbs things down to slogans and bumper stickers. Im a huge fan of Jordan but even though he has millions of intellectuals following him I dont think that is enough against the tens/hundreads of millions of average individuals who dont understand a word he says. :/
“I will have to wrap it up there before The Dr wraps the stupid cow a bit more. 😂😂😂😂
Dr Peterson should be one of the minds employed by the UN to help guide correct international policies on these matters. Simply brilliant.
Peterson, supporter of conversion therapy, opponent of free speech, should help the UN?
How is he brilliant exactly?
Jordan: "Your legislation is too general and disjointed"
Senator: "W-w-what about t-t-the people writing us letters about their feelings?"
The point is, they argue with 'feelings' while in reality companys do a shittone of money with court cases (more law mean - generally speaking - more court cases, more tax contributions, more lawyers needed, ppl believing their arm doesnt belong to their body, etc. In other words, its more about the money than everything different. Politicians think in the matter of how to get more money out of this as the only possible way of thinking. Therefor they are not interessed in JP views. Interesstingly i agree with JP views, although i see myself more of a leftist-marxist than the ppl JP seems to criticise in many of his speeches.
I want to like this but 69 😅
Senator: "W-w-what about t-t-the people writing us letters about their feelings?"
Answer = irrelevant on what their feelings are but they have to bring facts which science/biology is and what damages it will do to our society. Quit trying to please everyone, stand up and state this is what it is in terms of definition/biological, etc. This is been going on for years and will continue to be this way it is.
Brandon E then cue in the Offspring song: Feelings. th-cam.com/video/XnhoIf8dDVE/w-d-xo.html
"Fuck your feelings"
-Gad Saad
"Gonna have to wrap it up there and move on"
Translation: You're making too much sense, stop it.
It's that noticeable that when Peterson is making minced meat of her they stop him. How pathetic are they.
People who don’t REALLY want to debate tend to steer clear of individuals who are as intelligent, knowledgeable and articulate as Jordan.
😂 haha
Nah bruh how can he make sense to her she doesn't even understand half the stuff he's saying stupid bimbo
@@juniorvonclaire3576 Being good at debating is still another thing than being right or having good points. I know quite a few people who are absolutely reta... Mentally challenged... Well, to state it briefly; they make ridiculous and unprovable claims, yet they still shine when they debate another's well-founded arguments, somehow. My point is, it's still alot easier to debate with an intellectual than it is with a professional debater. Jordan Peterson adheres too much to facts and logic to ever be a debater, a debater will throw anything under the bus to win the argument. As far as their own dignity, trustworthiness and principles. Look at the majority of successful politicians for proof of that.