Jordan Peterson and Bill Maher...

[icehorse]

Bill Maher is a vitriolically anti-religious, highly dismissive neoliberal. Jordan Peterson now works for the Daily Wire—a blatantly biased, ideologically slanted outlet that sows demonization and tribalism—while railing against "ideology" even though he works for such an outlet and also promulgates overgeneralized misrepresentations of groups with whom he disagrees, such as Marxists and "trans activists," both of whom he talks about as if they were uniform groups consisting of people who held the exact same views.

I would actually be more surprised if an interview involving both of these men were not mostly unproductive. Thankfully, both of them are far from being the most popular public figures among younger people (or any other age group, really).

I first heard of Peterson when he was talking about bill C-16. I thought his ideas ON THAT TOPIC, were spot on. Since then, I think he's mostly lost the thread. I find that SOMETIMES Maher is spot on, other times, not so much.

Last I checked, this is a DEBATE forum. As I understand it, debates are about ideas, not the leanings of the speakers.

But I knew when I saw the title of this thread, that no matter what, sooner rather than later, the "debate" would veer off from ideas into criticism of the speakers.

sigh.

 

[Kenny]

There's no law on that. It doesn't exist. Piggly-wiggly was doing nothing than being a pig and abusing the absolute hell out of her position.
As it turns out, lots of people get pulled over and arrested for legal things because many cops are abusive and none are required to have an actual background or knowledge of what the law is.
It's no more speech control than it was light control when I got pulled over for my legal underbody lights by a pig who insisted they're legal.

This, in reality, is a personal issue for you and has nothing to do with what happened.

 

[icehorse]

Free speech absolutists have a right to offend -- and the targets of their invective equally have a right to be offended.

The only thing that our U.S. Constitution guarantees is protection from government reprisal for the things that you say.

It doesn't grant anyone immunity from the social consequences that come from being an *******.

Yet somehow free speech absolutists have this idea that private citizens should not only quietly endure their verbal spewage, but also provide them with a free soapbox and an audience.

Speaking as someone who is nearly a free speech absolutist, I can tell you that your generalizations are incorrect. No doubt "some" absolutists feel the way you describe, but we don't all. So for example, "guarantee of a soapbox" is indeed a common misconception, but it's quite separate from absolutist thinking.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This, in reality, is a personal issue for you and has nothing to do with what happened.

The point is there are no such speech laws and the pig went rogue and enforced her own, personal law.

 

[Kenny]

The point is there are no such speech laws and the pig went rogue and enforced her own, personal law.

She was arrested on suspicion of homophobia because of what she said. - Did you watch the video? It was pretty clear.

 

[anna.]

Don't forget "postmodern neo-Marxists," a largely oxymoronic term—since much of Marxism is mutually exclusive with postmodernism—for a vaguely defined group whom he bashes but of whom he couldn't name a single example when Slavoj Zizek asked him to do so.

He got nailed on that. He was flailing when Zizek asked him, he had no answer for him and the audience knew it, too.

 

[anna.]

I read 12 Rules. I learned more about lobsters. And I wouldn't say it's all fluff. Like talking more clearly. But that's a basic communication thing to speak directly and clearly and to not assume people are mind readers. It's been said countless times before him. But the lobster bits were fascinating, lmao.

That's another reason I think he does it for the money. He's too smart to have a brazenly illogical and inconsent belief that goes all over the board and make not a shred of sense in the end. But to the scores and masses of pseudo-intellectuals it's clever bends and twists weave a tapestry that goes to, for them, a new level that is beyond their ability to logically analyze and on such a high level they see something easy to swallow.

Here's a marine biologist observing that Jordan fit the lobster to his own ideas rather than human behavior:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/04/jordan-peterson-needs-to-reconsider-the-lobster/

On the rest: I do think he appeals to men who want to justify their place in the hierarchy, that hierarchy that he claims didn't come about through the exploitation of others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I first heard of Peterson when he was talking about bill C-16. I thought his ideas ON THAT TOPIC, were spot on.

He was wrong. He put himself on a pedestal to declare he'd be a martry, but it never happened.

As I understand it, debates are about ideas, not the leanings of the speakers.

But I knew when I saw the title of this thread, that no matter what, sooner rather than later, the "debate" would veer off from ideas into criticism of the speakers.

Well, yeah. Peterson has been speaking on it for awhile now and he's been wrong time and time again on it.

 

[icehorse]

He was wrong. He put himself on a pedestal to declare he'd be a martry, but it never happened.

Well, yeah. Peterson has been speaking on it for awhile now and he's been wrong time and time again on it.

I hope you're right, but I fear you're jumping the gun. It takes a while for people and lawyers to figure out how to take advantage of new laws. I predict this one's going to have some bad consequences down the road. But only time will tell.

I will say however that any criticism of any trans initiative is not met with civil debate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I hope you're right, but I fear you're jumping the gun. It takes a while for people and lawyers to figure out how to take advantage of new laws. I predict this one's going to have some bad consequences down the road. But only time will tell.

I will say however that any criticism of any trans initiative is not met with civil debate.

It's not a new law anymore. Peterson was wrong.

 

[icehorse]

It's not a new law anymore. Peterson was wrong.

It takes time for laws to get tested, and their boundaries explored. We are both speculating

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It takes time for laws to get tested, and their boundaries explored. We are both speculating

No, we aren't. We already know the outcome of what Peterson predictions. Nothing happened and he was wrong. The actual law itself was passed in '77, the amendment in question in '16. It's not new.

 

[Estro Felino]

So if someone were to defecate on the Italian flag then set it ablaze, Italians would shrug their shoulders with indifference?

Well...there is the separation of Church and State.
The flag represents the State.
So you can set a hundred of bibles on fire, the State couldn't care less. But not the flag, which is sacred.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well...there is the separation of Church and State.
The flag represents the State.
So you can set a hundred of bibles on fire, the State couldn't care less. But not the flag, which is sacred.

But you said Italians don't get offended and laugh at those who do, correct? I said nothing about the state.

 

[Estro Felino]

But you said Italians don't get offended and laugh at those who do, correct? I said nothing about the state.

A random Italian won't get offended, no.
They couldn't care less.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I first heard of Peterson when he was talking about bill C-16. I thought his ideas ON THAT TOPIC, were spot on.

He misrepresented and oversimplified it, which legal experts corrected him on (for example), and has since been demonstrated to have been wrong about it because not a single person in Canada has been sent to jail for misgendering someone, and the bill has been in effect for over six years.

Since then, I think he's mostly lost the thread. I find that SOMETIMES Maher is spot on, other times, not so much.

Last I checked, this is a DEBATE forum. As I understand it, debates are about ideas, not the leanings of the speakers.

But I knew when I saw the title of this thread, that no matter what, sooner rather than later, the "debate" would veer off from ideas into criticism of the speakers.

sigh.

My criticism of the ideas is in posts #7, #28, and #72. Multiple other posters have also pointed out why they find the ideas ungrounded and inconsistent with how other forms of harassment are already addressed in professional, private, and academic settings.

 

[Viker]

Yay! A video with two out of many of my least favorite people. I may watch it later. Anyone interested in giving me a spoiler?

 

[icehorse]

My criticism of the ideas is in posts #7, #28, and #72. Multiple other posters have also pointed out why they find the ideas ungrounded and inconsistent with how other forms of harassment are already addressed in professional, private, and academic settings.

None of which somehow make your post #10 salient.

I think I might have finally figured out what you really mean by your handle "debate slayer". It's not that you win debates, it's that you destroy them so that no deep conversation or nuance is possible.

 

[YmirGF]

He misrepresented and oversimplified it, which legal experts corrected him on (for example), and has since been demonstrated to have been wrong about it because not a single person in Canada has been sent to jail for misgendering someone, and the bill has been in effect for over six years.

In your opinion. From the very article you cited: (My emphasis added)

"It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.

If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.

“It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that's likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you're looking at.”


“The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.”

Each time I have heard Peterson, the above has been his position. He isn't misrepresenting anything. Then again, people do have a vested interest in misunderstanding whatever Peterson is going on about. (No doubt, I am wrong, wrong, wrong - - as usual...)

 

[Debater Slayer]

In your opinion. From the very article you cited: (My emphasis added)

It's been over six years, and precisely zero jail sentences have been handed down per the bill. Peterson made it sound like mere refusal to use trans people's pronouns would open a Pandora's box of prosecution. On that, he was demonstrably wrong.

Since this is measurable and it should be possible to show cases where jail sentences have been given, it isn't a matter of opinion. It's just a matter of looking at the current situation and available evidence ever since the bill passed.

"It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.

If the person refused to comply with the tribunal's order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.

“It could happen,” Brown says. “Is it likely to happen? I don’t think so. But, my opinion on whether or not that's likely has a lot to do with the particular case that you're looking at.”


“The path to prison is not straightforward. It’s not easy. But, it’s there. It’s been used before in breach of tribunal orders.”

Each time I have heard Peterson, the above has been his position. He isn't misrepresenting anything. Then again, people do have a vested interest in misunderstanding whatever Peterson is going on about. (No doubt, I am wrong, wrong, wrong - - as usual...)

I would be interested to know how this is any different from the consequences for ignoring a tribunal's order in any other case. The excerpt you quoted explicitly states that 1) the same process has been used before for breaching tribunal orders, and 2) jail would be for ignoring the tribunal's order or being in contempt of it, not for using the wrong pronouns in the first place per se. Using the wrong pronouns repeatedly and deliberately would start the process of repercussions, but the jail would be for lack of compliance as it would be for any other instance of ignoring court orders.

As for Peterson, I don't think there's any need to misunderstand what he's saying. He has made his positions and ideology quite clear for people to see many times over the years.