Shad
Veteran Member
Or asking him to repeat the point slower.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Listening to the Other Side of the Aisle
- Thread starter Quetzal
- Start date
Or asking him to repeat the point slower.
Because I consider it one based on the how the current President operates and what his instincts are: regime: a government, especially an authoritarian one.
I do not think he talks about it much at all in 12 Rules. He may have mentioned it in passing as a personal story, but that is about it.
If you enjoy those, I highly recommend 12 Rules for Life. I picked it up as an audio book (he reads it) and I think it is worth it.
Audie
Veteran Member
Guess you have no experience with an authoritarian
govt. Those that do would be delighted to trade places.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
When he was on a tour and becoming popular where I live, doctors were warning about pseudoscientific and obviously bogus claims he has made about his diet and health.
I notice that in Ameristan, people don't know what a real authoritarian government is
like. All those foreign s**thole countries exist only in concept...in the news, or for the
inquisitive, in Wikipedia. So terms like "fascist", "authoritarian", & "socialist" have
become insults to their own government when something they dislike happens.
We live in a country with greater liberty than decades ago, yet liberals still in anguish
over Hillary's loss see us living in the Fourth Reich, with reanimated Hitler at the helm.
What we need to do....help them regain sanity & equanimity. I'll leave that up to you,
with your sophisticated female social skills. (I only annoy them.)
I Was in the Room While Jordan Peterson and Senators Debated My Human Rights
(Bill C-16 extended the federal laws against discrimination based on sex, age, race, orientation, etc. so that they also prohibited discrimination based on gender identity on the same basis)
I knew this was going to come up. His concern was that malicious individuals on the left would press criminal charges if he spoke out of turn. In more recent interviews he has noted that he will respect individuals by their desired pronouns. As of right now, this is a non-issue and has been resolved.
He fought against equal rights for trans people and in the process, misrepresented what the proposed law said. Even though the law was passed, the episode still speaks to his character.
Thanks for bringing that up. I've seen most all of Petersons youtube interviews regarding this. His concern is not about discrimination rather that certain pronouns may be deemed hate speech.
That's what he said. IOW, he misrepresented what was being proposed.
No, he didn't. He fought against government reach which would extend the umbrella of 'hate speech', thus, allowing for additional micro-management of citizens via the government. Nowhere did he fight against the rights for trans people. That is, he did not fight for any rights to be taken away from them. To claim he did so is a blatant and intentional misrepresentation of what he was discussing.
Exactly. I have never heard anything where he said that lgbtqrs people should have rights taken away. He simply doesn't believe the govt. should legally enforce what pronoun he uses to address them.
He fought against bill C-16, which extendee normal anti-discrimination protections to trans people. That was the bill that made it illegal at a federal level to, say, refuse to rent an apartment to a trans person or pass them over for a job. Peterson fought against it.
Do you know how Canada's hate speech laws work? There are two provisions in the Criminal Code dealing with hate:
- advocating violence against an identifiable group (e.g. trans people) is considered hate speech (unless it's expressing a "sincere opinion on a religious subject", but that's something for a different discussion)
- if a person commits a crime in furtherance of hate, the fact that it was hate-motivated can be a factor in sentencing.
Merely being annoying, disrespectful or discriminatory cannot be considered "hate speech" unless it involves a call to violence or some other crime.
I'm sure Jordan Peterson knew this. Anyone who actually read these sections of the Criminal Code would have known this.
Edit: and he fought Bill C-16 - and the rights that the bill provides - anyway.
So then why did he fight a piece of legislation that wouldn't have made it illegal to merely use the wrong pronoun to address someone?
I would highly recommend you listen to what he actually said in regards to this, I will leave you to that.
I trust him about as far as I could comfortably throw him, so I'm not sure what excuses he could give that would make his actions okay in my mind.
I really appreciate you saying that. Your statement is exactly what this thread is all about. You don't care about what he thinks or says because you don't like him. There is nothing from him you could learn or even attempt to learn from. Hell, you won't even consider listening. I found a three minute clip of his rationale but I am not even going to bother because you are so close minded that it won't matter.