This guy. This guy right here. He is the modern day Buddha

How can you post with ten dicks in your mouth at the same time?

He's alright. I think he had some good ideas and stuff I agree with, and also shit I don't agree with.

I mean, I don't hate him, but I think people treat him like the greatest mind that ever existed, which is kind of silly.

He was alright in 2014/15, but now that Reddit's picked him up he's gained a quasi-cult following; which is unsettling to say the least

leftypol is like 50 people, most of whom are 16

He is a completely average scholar. There's nothing wrong with being such, of course. The problem are his followers, who seized on his political views to declare the rest of his work beyond criticism. To be called great in such a fashion is as great an insult as to be called mediocre in such a fashion.

Admitting adherence to some philosopher of the week is just flaunting your intellectual shortcomings.

>I hate him because he’s popular
Ah so now i understand

My opinion is that if you find yourself agreeing with anyone 100% then you need to reevaluate if you're actually thinking for yourself.

Because, behind all their avowed disdain for academia, they secretly long for its approval

>Add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to existing Human (Civil) Rights and Hate Crime laws.
>Laws have only ever applied to discrimination in fiscal interactions and inciting hatred respectively.
>Motherfucker goes around telling people they'll get locked up for using a pronoun someone doesn't like to feed his victim complex.
>People believe him.

I've never listened to this dudes philosophy and really don't care because it's obvious he's either a liar or is talking out his ass.

SJW detected.

I'm a Canadian law student. I'd have been perfectly fine if there had been an actual debate but he preferred making up a cock and bull story about innocent men being dragged off to the Gulags because he was too much of a puss to just come out and say he thinks trans people don't deserve rights.

>Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.
ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

Begone intersectionalist.

Always refuse to pander to another person's mental illness.

Pandering to mental illness is cruel.

>I'm a Canadian law student

kek

What's your point? Peterson was going after the Federal Human Right's Code and this still isn't what he said it was. If you have a problem with having to use existing pronouns in an employment setting that's fine. The problem is he went around saying he could get arrested (something Human Rights Codes have no power to do) for not doing it in public, which is a total lie.

There was nothing intersectional about that. You're using words you don't know because you think it makes you sound smart. Also, talking shit when you're a degenerate quasi-anime poster is the pot calling the kettle black.

The job market is fine in Canada. We don't let people set up law school's in their basements.

>law school's

Yes, I see they only take the cream of the crop.

>I'm a Canadian
Stopped reading there. That's also the reason why I pay no attention to that cuck in the OP.

Yeah, because I judiciously edited that post. You're grasping at straws because you don't have anything substantive to say.

Then why are you even here?

You're a fool. You cannot frame his argument, which is Law School 101.

>The government compelling speech is antithetical to a free peoples.

>The Supreme Court has also found that some limits on free speech are justifiable to protect people from harassment and discrimination in social areas like employment and services.[3] On the other hand, decision-makers have said that freedom of expression is much less likely to be limited in the context of a public debate on social, political or religious issues in a university or a newspaper.
Literally from the same article. You are free to say whatever you want on your own time, it just labels it as illegal in professional or work settings. No different than laws against hitting on your co-workers.

>if there had been an actual debate but he preferred making up a cock and bull story about innocent men being dragged off to the Gulags
yeah, he was totally paranoid for suggesting that those bullshit laws would be used to threaten innocent people through draconian and left wing ideologue ways...

>I get all my information about the world from memes in my echo chamber of nonsense and refuse to listen to a very much qualified individual to talk about the matter of discussion I have no real life experience with because he must be a cuck
It's like you don't realize your a babbling autistic retard who's at this point soupy, rotting brain is slowly drizzling out your ears.

Or maybe I just fucking hate Leafs for being subhuman?

So we must kill him when we meet him on the road?

buddha: treat others how you would like to be treated
jordan peterson: fuck your pronouns, only my outdated view of gender matters

quite understandable

No, if you're opponent is using bullshit, made up precedent to forward their argument you definitely call them out on it, and that's exactly what he's done. The laws exist only within areas that the government have controlled for decades with little resistance and are similar to laws that exist in America. I think as says they're akin to laws against workplace harassment, but I understand why people are against them. The problem is again, that he's distorted the meaning of the law in order to make a straw-man argument against it.

I agree that was bullshit. I don't think we should base our laws on whether or not retards are going to pretend they mean something they don't.

Also, *your

>refuse to call a tranny “xir”
>get fired
lmao nice freedom of speech canada

>Calls black person "nigger"
>get fired
>lmao nice freedom of speech america

>outdated view of gender
lmoa

>canadians think these are equivalent

>the two are equivalent
imagine actually being this stupid. Go tell any black person that being "misgendered" is the same as someone calling them a nigger

Xe Xi Xo Xum, I smell the ass of a French Canadian bum

>i agree 100% with this post

I did not say they were the equivalent, but if your problem was actually with freedom of speech you wouldn't only defend speech you like, now would you?

Different right, like to private property such as your right to personal enterprise, and running it as such. You'd get fired for calling someone a shithead just as quick.

>I did not say they were the equivalent
yes you did you retard.

You did say they were equivalent though, you directly compared getting fired for calling someone a nigger, and not calling someone “xir”. You compared a racial insult, to not using a word that they made up 6 months ago to make themselves feel like a special snowflake

>Call a co-worker good looking one day
>You get fired
Happens in America too retard.

This right there

I don't think he thinks trans don't deserve right, he is just a fearmonger

Because they're largely community college students with effete mannerisms and a Kermit the Frog voice? Seriously, most incels seemingly come form the Muppets.

except the exact thing he said would happen happened.
see

As I stated above, you are incapable of framing an argument.

You lose.

Enjoy working at Tim Hortons.

I agree with this, I don’t people keep confirming these people’s delusions. You don’t tell a schizophrenic person that there in fact are demons outside his window trying to get in and eat him, so why do you humor these people and tell them they’re actually a woman in a mans’s body. It has even gone as far as passing laws which ensure you can be fired if you don’t play along

I was being hyperbolic, but my point still stands because you brainlets are trying to to rely on sick burns instead of directly confronting what I'm saying. Using racially charged language, even if its nothing else in speech seems to be inciting hate can get you in hot water, and while that's different from pronoun use, it is still restricting speech. If you genuinely cared about protecting speech rights, you wouldn't only protect them when you agree with the speech, but you and Peterson only seem to care now that you want to say the things that, in very limited circumstances, maybe possibly should not be said.

Getting fired is one thing, but a company can potentially face legal trouble for racial discrimination.

>Makes no argument
>Yo-you can't frame an argument!

Retard

Clean your lobster and save your dads gold from Pinocchio bucko

>but my point still stands
no it doesnt because its a false equivalency

He said some gild will have problem with her university for playing one of his video in front of students?
I thought it was about people getting jailed for not using muh rights pronums?

kek

>save your dads gold from Pinocchio
sublty antisemite

You use a lot of words, but say very little. Refusing to pander to someone’s mental delusions is not the same as outright racism, you haven’t said anything to refute that

It's not fucking restricting speech that he's railing against.

It's enforcing the use of bizarre tranniespeak that makes it a CRIME NOT TO USE FAKE FUCKING TRANNY WORDS that he's protesting.

You can't even figure that out, you fucking brainlet.

It's close enough in my book to assisted suicide to be indistinguishable, as the suicide rate for these kinds of trannies is over 40%.

My point and this guys point is that you can, and have been able to for a long ass time, been able to get fired simply for stating things due to laws that exist in both Canada and the United States. If you or Peterson actually gave a rats ass about free speech you'd care just as much, but you don't because you're only invoking now that speech you want to make is potentially being (again, in very limited and largely hypothetical circumstances) limited. People who actually care about freedom of speech defend the rights of Nazis to NAMBLA, Peterson and you clearly only care when its something you agree with.

There’s a difference between being a freedom of speech absolutist (which Peterson had never claimed to be), and being opposed to the newest social trend of the day being forced upon you with the threat of legal action. Your only argument is an extremely flawed false equivalency, I suggest you find a new angle

>I thought it was about people getting jailed for not using muh rights pronums?
She was threatened with legal action and also losing her job user. How does it feel knowing that you are demonstrably wrong considering there is a real life case of the exact thing Peterson warned about to the point where the university ended up having to apologize to her?

You keep arguing "free speech". That means defending speech even when you don't like what's being said. If you want to oppose the laws because you think trans people are mentally ill, that's fine, but don't give me BS about free speech when you won't defend speech you don't agree with in similar instances.

>CRIME
Not even fucking close.

You can be opposed to the trend, but don't claim your reasoning for doing so is free speech. Its simply because he opposes the trend, otherwise he would defend speech broadly.

>but don't claim your reasoning for doing so is free speech
why? because you said so since your stupid false equivalency failed horribly?

Here's a question: Who cares? About any of this? About the .001% of the mentally deranged population or the political factors at play that affect the administrative roles in academia? Dog and pony show.

Free speech, as a concept, is the idea that speech be protected regardless of whether or not people find it offensive. You are only willing to defend speech that you do not find offensive and are perfectly fine with speech that you do find offensive being restricted, so its bullshit to claim that your desire is based on an actual belief in free speech as a concept. You are simply invoking it because it is useful in this situation.

Criminal Code
2014, c. 31, s. 12
3Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
Definition of identifiable group
(4)In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
1995, c. 22, s. 6
4Subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(i)evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,

The absolute state of "law students" in Canada. Just appalling.

>Criminal Code

See that, Canuck fuck?

Criminal Code

What we are talking here is Peterson not understanding a specific law while pretending he does.
What happened to this girl was not in any way, shape or form an application of this law.

That has NOTHING to do with the Human Rights Codes. This would only apply in situations where genuine hate is being incited, you can call people faggot and nigger in Canada and won't get charged criminally, so you aren't going to for refusing to call someone Zimbabwe or whatever. The lot of you have no clue what you're talking about and are just talking out your ass in regards to Canadian law, as is Peterson.

I was a fan until I started researching some of his claims.
>Pan is not the god of everything
>and it is a coincidence that Peter Pan’s last name is Pan
>Berserker vikings didn’t really eat shrooms
>God did not liken sin to a horny cat when talking to Cain
Just off the top of my head, I’ve caught him bullshitting way more than that though and I’m sure others have too. He treats old stories like coloring books that he fills in with his own worldview having no respect to the original intent of the author. Case in point, his interpretation of Abraham’s call to adventure just being the story of a NEET who gets kicked out by his dad.

>get your stupid shill point BTFO
>"it doesnt even matter! stop caring about it!"
lol it amazes me just how much stormfags and leftypol employ the EXACT same nonarguments

Actually you're quite wrong.
When she was questioned, the people present were " Nathan Rambukkana, her supervisory professor, a member of the university's equity and diversity office, and another professor."
The university equity and diversity office member was hired as a result of the passing of bill C16, and Rambukkana even says "And this is actually, these arguments are counter to the Canadian Human Rights Code. Even since … C-16, ever since this passed, it is discriminatory to be targeting someone due to their gender identity or gender expression."

>What happened to this girl was not in any way, shape or form an application of this law.

That was my first post in this thread. You must have contracted the retardation, user.

>What happened to this girl was not in any way, shape or form an application of this law.
you mean other than the fact that what happened to her is EXACTLY what Peterson said what would happen?

LUL

>That was my first post in this thread.
That still doesnt excuse your stupidity and your failed attempt at shilling user.

>Just off the top of my head, I’ve caught him bullshitting way more than that though and I’m sure others have too
Yeah, pretty much any subject I know about I find he butchers it.

Another exemple is him citing the meme of male and female having the same avergage IQ but male having more genius and more retard.
Actually these stats are only showing in children of a certain age, in adult population it's another story.

Yeah, none of that changes the fact that university's are almost always considered private institutions in that contexts and therefore there interpretations of the law are no more valid than a dog's.

Peterson said she'd go to prison. She got the boot from a privately run organization. Now THAT'S a false equivalency.

It's a public university though.

B&B is anti-Chad propaganda

>Peterson said she'd go to prison
She was threatened with just that you stupid asshole. Seriously, how is someone this fucking devoid of any reason? How have you let your stupid ideology rot your brain to this degree that we now have to repeat the point over and over again to you you child?
SHE WAS THREATNED WITH LEGAL ACTION, JUST LIKE PETERSON SAID. Now tell me exactly what part of this does your dumb broken brain not understand.

Do you even know the words you're using? Usually shilling involves payment. And usually life requires you not be retarded.

The fact that you're holding this dumbfuck canuck up because he calls a spade a spade just perpetuates bringing these mentally ill, genital-mutilating fuckwits to the forefront. You're part of the problem, bucko.

Educational institutions are specifically cited here

They still didn't applied the law.

Not the police, not a juge.

>considered private institutions
Is that why its a public university?

Is that why numerous donors pulled funds from the university after this happaned because they all knew how bullshit it was?

Is that why even other universities condemned them?

Is that why even lawyers called them out?

Is that why the university itself issued a fucking apology to her?

How does it feel to be completely 100% you fucking idiot?
cbc.ca/news/opinion/laurier-free-speech-1.4414696

globalnews.ca/news/3874929/wilfrid-laurier-freedom-of-speech-lindsay-shepherd-apology-change/

EVERYONE agrees they were wrong user. Youre a testament to just how fucking stupid and clueless the average leftypol shill is.

So you agree they were not applying the law?

Given that he seems somewhat popular among /pol/tards, is he some kind of a race realist/supremacist?

Zizek will crush him

They're privately run. Again, make whatever joke you want about law school, but in most contexts, but because of the manner in which they function, institutions such as that are normally considered private for employment purposes because they are managed like private organizations and that tends to reflect on the relationship they have with employees.

>Thinks being threatened with legal action (about the most common thing ever regardless of chance of success) is the equivelent of facing a genuine potential jail sentence.
>Calls other people retarded and blinded by ideology.
I never heard of her threatened with imprisonment, I assume if she was it was by someone who had no actual authority to credibly make such a threat.

Yeah, they're cited as EMPLOYERS, meaning they are not inherently considered government entities.

I agree they were wrong, that doesn't change the nature of administrative law in Canada. Someone saying something stupid does not mean its law.

Its too late user, you cant try to spin this around when THE UNIVERSITY ITSELF said they were wrong after you tried to justify their actions, and you being so ignorant that you didnt even know it was a public university. Just admit you knew absolutly nothing about this case, and are just a typical clueless cookie cutter leftist who hates peterson because thats what your told to do. Youre an ass.

No he is a libtard that happen to think the extrem fringe of the left goes too far.
He is pretty much a smarter version of Sargon of Akkad

when peterson and zizek will fight each other.