What facial expressions did you make when you realized that Dr Jordan B Peterson singlehandedly saved the Western...

What facial expressions did you make when you realized that Dr Jordan B Peterson singlehandedly saved the Western Civilizations philosophical canon?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc
plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

What did he do?

Is he the next Bloom or is the guy at Harvard still the next Bloom?

get out of here toronto fag. the guy is a nut.

>that face you make when a social justice warrior glues your door shut

TORONTO REPRESENT ITT

what? They did that?

He's fighting hard for his right... OUR right... to bully trannies without getting fired from your job!

He's the hero we want, but not the one we deserve

Bullying anyone is pretty unprofessional desu

>tfw a prof ignorantly refuses to accommodate your dignity by addressing you by your chosen pronouns

>refusing to call some fucking idiot "zie/zim/zir/zis" or some other nonsensical "pronoun" is bullying
>being against legislation that actively controls speech solely for the sake of not hurting some fucking idiot's feelings = bullying

You're right. It's not bullying, it's violence.

if we are free to choose our own gender why are we not free to choose someone else's?

Free speech is an abstract concept that doesn't exist. What is and isn't considered acceptable to say will always be controlled by the collective, either via the state or the community at large.

Zizek pls go.

I don't really see your point. Free speech is a concept that exists within that community, you can perpetuate it or not.

all rights are abstract concepts that don't exist

Precisely. Which is why Peterson and his supporters are cucks.

Nah, they're just fighting fire with fire.

These Tumblr faggots are using "muh rights" to oppress and coerce others into obeying them, under penalty of their jobs/livelihoods/etc

Peterson/etc are simply saying "I have some of your phony rights too, which you're trying to overrule."

>ignorantly
Because that is what's behind this. People actually believe that. Even after watching this people will keep saying that. Its kind of scary that people can listen to him go on about the various problems behind forcing pronounce use and still say that "hurr he ignoranot bigot". When someone does that how can one not think that they are either mentally deficient or deeply dishonest and willing to ignore everything in the pursuit of what they want? youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc

Free speech is the mechanism that keeps society together without the use of force and violence. Free speech is that thing which let people have their viewpoints and opinions heard and debated and reasoned with. If people are not allowed to be heard then the result of that is often conflict or violence. Do we want to live in a peaceful society? Then let those who are itching to get their opinions across be heard so they don't turn to violence.


You aren't free to do that. You are either born male or a female, but if you are mentally ill and think you are of the opposite sex then people are gonna be nice with you and play along with you.

What does this mean?

not really, it's an argument tactic
it's an appeal to morality of the masses, it sounds better than "let me say what I want because I'm right"
you're an idiot if you believe in rights, but they are a useful rhetorical tool (for the time being)

how can you say rights exist in a (truly) secular society?

I don't understand what you mean.

define a right

Why don't you do it as you are trying to make an argument? And tell me how its relevant to the bill c-16 thing or whatever

just try and define a right and I'll tell you why it doesn't exist
rights are a theological concept so that should give you a clue

Well i am not going to. If you want to have a discussion on rights then why don't you create a thread about it instead?

Rights are not exclusively a theological concept.

expand

plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/

the concept of 'rights' relies on some metaphysical sense of entitlement
i.e. there needs to be a higher authority that guarantees them at all times
the state can't do this
unless you want to define rights as 'something the state says you can do, but can't guarantee you can always do it and this right can also be taken away at any time', at this point the entire concept is just so weak it doesn't even register

There are institutions such as legal institutions that supposedly uphold rights independently of states. How this works in practice I don't know.

>the concept of 'rights' relies on some metaphysical sense of entitlement
i.e. there needs to be a higher authority that guarantees them at all times

Deontological ethics provide much of the basis for modern rights I believe, and there are deontological arguments that do not hinge on any higher authority in a religious sense.

why don't you read the article bub, you'll notice god or metaphysics are barely mentioned.
but since you seem to have the attention span of a goldfish, I'll just mention it's based on ethics.

bro you can't even argue in your own words

I made the point to you in the first place, and I used my own words here

>held up as a hero of rationality for standing up to SJW ideology
>he's a Jungian psychologist

You should watch his lectures on Jung and you'll see that you are most likely wrong about Jung.

I agree with your point that complaining about somebody not going out of their way to accommodate your preferred pronoun isn't a bad thing. To me, it seems obvious at face value that things like pronouns exist as a concession that people are more comfortable when referred to as a specific gender - an attempt to meet that expectation should be enough.

However, you didn't really provide an argument for why non-traditional pronoun use is a bad thing. If somebody asks me to refer to them as a specific pronoun, sure, its annoying. But the desire to be respected for what you identify with is understandable. Your argument orients pronouns other than he or she as inherently bad. If you want to do that, you need to establish why he and she are the 'correct' pronouns. Is there a biologically significant enough difference between men and women for objectively correct pronouns to exist?

Don't really care enough to take sides, just hate to see people espousing unsupported opinions even if it is on Veeky Forums.

>I agree with your point that complaining about somebody not going out of their way to accommodate your preferred pronoun isn't a bad thing.
I am sorry. I am not the brightest person, i honestly don't understand what this means.

>To me, it seems obvious at face value that things like pronouns exist as a concession that people are more comfortable when referred to as a specific gender
I think that pronounce exist as a way to describe things in an accurate way, not to make someone comfortable. He/her are two different categories, categories which are based on biology and something that is also found in other species. Categories that have been around for millions and millions of years. If we are talking about a person then the gender of that person comes with pretty big assumptions of what and who that person is. This didn't come about out of nowhere, its something that evolved naturally as a those terms are very useful terms. The words exist and are used because they are practical useful words that helps us to accurately make sense of the world and to communicate properly. Back in the stoneage knowing the gender of a person you could infer from that wether it be a good hunter or a warrior. Of course women can be those things but on average men are stronger physical and make better hunters and warriors. There are differences between the genders and because of that we have different words for them. We call a sheep for a sheep and a cow for a cow because they are different, because they have different properties and mixing those things in to one category doesn't make sense and leads to confusion or more difficulties in communicating. Language naturally arises if its useful. To borrow Stefans "free market" meme, there is a free market of words and whichever words people find most useful is gonna be the words that people use. Its quite simple.

>If somebody asks me to refer to them as a specific pronoun, sure, its annoying. But the desire to be respected for what you identify with is understandable.
But what if the words are contradictory and causes confusion? And if those words go against common sense? What if those words comes with assumptions of reality which are not true? I am Scandinavian male in my twenties 5"1 tall but i identify as a 43 year old Chinese woman that is 6"1 can you refer to me as that? is that just annoying or does that maybe start to convolute what is and what is not?

>your argument orients pronouns other than he or she as inherently bad.
Does not.

>Is there a biologically significant enough difference between men and women for objectively correct pronouns to exist?
Absolutely without a doubt. And if you look at the context of what is happening with the bill c-16 in 5 years it can be illegal to say that there are biological differences between the genders.

Why not just call war peace? And freedom slavery?

>It's a "people think Enlightment concepts like """free"" speech" are ends in themselves" episode

>it's a naive linguistic realist tries to talk intelligently about gender episode

There are only two genders. Tumblr fuck off and never come back.

debate me fucker and see what happens

Someone has yet to explain what the OP was talking about. I'm not go ogling it; I'm on mobile

youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc


>51:00

what a fucking beast

he is a professor of psychology at the university of toronto
he refuses to call people by their preferred pronouns and makes it known that he won't do this. he especially has disdain for these newly coined pronouns like xim,xer,...,
he's career could be over at any tick of the clock

>man's career could be over for not enabling mental illness

What a time to be alive.

Another thing I never understood: why does gender eclipse the entire being of the modern SJW? What an insipid, worthless individual do you have to be in order to base your entire persona around gender?

he's problem isnt saying these pronouns moron. He has issue with the fact that canada wants to force you by law to say them which is coerced speech. also the law is so badly stated that it could be possible to accuse some1 of hate speach just because you claim to be insulted , even if he wanted to insult you or not


. are you this dense?

Why are you so angry? Guy you replied to didn't say anything wrong.

>also the law is so badly stated that it could be possible to accuse some1 of hate speach just because you claim to be insulted
And if you want an example of how this law will be used, then look no further then to what is happening to Peterson right now.

Look @ 28:07 and 28:48 youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc

He accuses Peterson of having abused students at campus. Well how have he abused students? Well, he didn't want to call a student for "they". Lets put him in the slammer! That horrible hate-crime committing transphobe!

This is how the law will be abused make no mistake about it. This is a horrible political takeover in the process. People better wake up

This whole affair is kinda silly. It receives such attention because delusional types on either side think this is the prime issue of our times. I agree with the guy completely and think he should not loose his job over such a stupid reason. I think he is defending free speech for the proper reasons. But he does seem a little off, like something is not right. He goes into these long lectures about the nature of totalitarianism or the evolution of biological gender traits, when he would probably be better off explaing why what is happening to him is illegal and irrational. Normal people would take him more seriously, I think. Maybe it's just because he's a professor that he does this.

>refer to them in a way that doesn't recognize their humanity and dignity
What's so undignified about he or she or they? I wouldn't want to dignify anyone more or less than that.