POST MODERNISM I TELL YA! THE NEO MARXISTS ARE BRAINWASHING US WITH POST MODERNISM SO THEY CAN MAKE US INTO THE USSR!...

>free speech only applies to my special club
Free speech is a bitch like that, even people who are wrong/who you disagree with are permitted to say what they want.

please fuck off to whatever board you came from

Free speech is basically a meme. Theres no reason it should be legal to say things that are objectively wrong

Why doesnt anyone like my thread? I worked really hard on it

>he hasn't realized Veeky Forums is a /pol/ deprogramming centre

But trannies are trying to make it illegal to say things that are objectively right

Yes but if the one who decides what is objectively wrong is a libtard, suddenly we need free speech to return order. If you have free speech, either everyone is already brainwashed, or the decisionmakers are doing at least a semi-good job. Thats why in Europe free speech no longer exists.

No, but if you beat a tranny up and use tranny slurs it will be that you could get slapped with a hate crime.

Oh Kek please deliver this board from the hellfire tainting it.

Just legalize crime bro. Like they did that with weed in some places and it's all good.

>Be Marxist
>Get to live through a third red scare

Feels bad man

>she hasn't realized there's a dick in her dirty ass.

Which is why I dont do either of those things you fucking mouthbreather

He's just misrepresenting what's happening with the law. I don't disagree with what he's saying as far as principles go, I should have opportunities to speak about whatever and use certain language so long as it isn't to incite violence or w/e. But his whole factual thing for this legislation going to cause the decline of Canada is bs.

This /rwhinek/ style attempt at edgy/aggressive language from /pol/ is something I've found interesting recently. /r9k/ doesn't even really talk like this anymore, but /pol/ is infected with this shit.

>nearing a century of right wing thought being verboten in academia and half a century since the "march through the institutions"
>upset that someone is criticising thoughtcrime legislation pertaining to disgusting crossdressing faggots

You aren't a Marxist

You're a faggot who wants to suck tranny cocks so badly that you must ban all those who don't like tranny cock as much as you do

Marxists are OK, but you're just a faggot

redpill me on using a random board to fight meaningless proxy wars for like two years now

Kek

Do you honestly think Petersen is bigoted? Most people view trannies with bemused tolerance, nobody in their right mind actually thinks that they deserve special treatment. Our prime minister is a rich prat who just panders to shit like this because it distracts from the myriad ways he fucks up our economy.

>Well, as long as my party loves and tolerates everyone, it doesn't matter if we screw over the middle class in favour of Bay Street!

You got memed big time, kiddo.

It's a bad sign, it legitimizes these people and gives them sanction. Thin edge of the wedge.

>Thin edge of the wedge.
Maybe. I think most of the trans community tho don't really care all that much about being misgendered tho. If it does get worse I would guess it's for other reasons.

>Veeky Forums is actually this butthurt that this man completely BTFO their neo-marxist asses.

lol

They aren't trying to make saying something illegal but they are MANDATING that you use certain language. Very different.

This

Oh I just bet you're Canadian

Come on, we just had a thread about him, is this the continuation of the namecalling from the last thread?

Yeah that's exactly what we should do

>trying to impose your subjective wills on someone else by robbing them of their autonomy to say what they will
Kant would fuck you up

>nearing a century of right wing thought being verboten in academia and half a century since the "march through the institutions"
You are delusional if you think that leftist ideology has been the dominant force in academia for the 20th century.

Its certainly been dominant in the 21st century

I know exactly how Sophie will look when they're older. She'll be short, frumpy wearing oversized sweaters, bad glasses and will spit when she speaks.

t. French genes.

Say No To Happiness is a pretty fucking good piece of advice tbqh

youtube.com/watch?v=N6KQpw945GY

and you wonder why he looks like he's about to burst into tears and cry for mommy at any second
>wahhh i don't know shit about anything so i'm going to vicariously live through an alt-right pseud rhetorician
>i'm going to be a pedantic fuck and talk about the 21st century like the 1st quarter has even played out

>Facts
>Existing

Objectivity is basically a meme you dip

>You are delusional if you think that leftist ideology has been the dominant force in academia for the 20th century.

It has been since the 60s, at the very least. You're either ignorant or willingly ignorant for thinking otherwise. My university lecturer, an openly Marxist Englishwoman, trashes "straight white males" at least once per lecture without batting an eye.

He does seem to make too many Soviet Union comparisons. Old cold warrior I guess.

Still, he's allowed to state his opinion and have it argued or discussed, and speech should never be compelled. The feminists are in the wrong.

I understand you can't just reference something when it's not relevant to reinforce your argument, but I haven't seen Peterson do any of that. He brings the Soviet Union up a lot, but never out of context

>objectively wrong

My problem is that by referencing it, it almost seems like he's suggesting that this legislation will lead to the deaths of millions. When he says things like "You're next" (next to be put on trial) he's confusing something like heresy, which can be cured or prevented by conversion, to what happened under Stalin's regime, where people were arrested for 'nothing at all' or otherwise for entirely fabricated offenses. It only hurts his case. The campus rape claims sort of work in his favor, but there are ways of behaving that can prevent them, however humiliating or repressive they may be. Mostly, I just hate to see him hurting his case. He uses strange arguments a lot, and they aren't helping, in my opinion. His use of Jung, for example, denigrating the devouring mother as his opening argument, while completely understandable from a philosophical perspective, isn't going to help if his goal is to convince social justice warriors or even moderate feminists.

Not that guy but he clearly doesn't want to convince anybody, much like sam harris he clouds his actual intentions with pseud rhetoric bullshit (as you have pointed out) and has picked his side and if you can't see that then good luck to you.

Academia has been packed to the gunnels with leftists since at least the Second World War. Thousands of left leaning intellectuals fled Europe in the the 1930s to avoid Fascist persecution, and many ended up teaching in the United States. We're still dealing with their intellectual descendants today.

This book saved my life.

Actually watching Buckley is something I always find frustrating, however. He has an air of pretension about him.

Because Buckley is a tenth rate pseud

>implying buckley wasn't a closet homo pseud who wanted to get buttfucked by gore vidal

Nah he wasn't a pseud.

The guy had genuine merit, but I think he'd have preferred being born a Brit - particularly with his affected mid-Atlantic accent.

You can argue Peterson is being unduly severe in his comparisons, but the law is more of a step in that direction than it is in the other direction.
To assess your last point, Peterson knows better than to try and convince feminists and the like. Anyone that would call themselves as such is too unreasonable to talk to. He is addressing reasonable people that are unaware of the implications behind the law

righty intellectual is just a code-word for closet homosexual

this is just guaranteed replies out the ass, well played m8

>alt-righters being this easy to trigger

Thanks for the (You)s, lads ;)

Wow, that's, like really homophobic dude! I think you need to check your privilege.

I don't think It's that complex honestly, why would any sane right-leaning individual willingly subject himself to the insanity that is modern academia? only leftists could enjoy crippling depression, poverty and obscurity.

I'm inclined to believe his intentions are legitimate. He is risking his clinical practice and job security at the University. I don't doubt that he wants celebrity and fame too though. But I think his argument comes from a serious concern and conviction that this is a very bad thing to legislate

He could do so much better jesus, what a fucking cuck through and through.
Most people view trannies with violent disgust and are a few years from RWDSing.

you're the one who thinks it's a bad thing, righty intellectual.

i don't think you have any idea how easy and profitable it is to be a public intellectual, especially when you know the cards are stacked in your favor.

Damn dude I guess its true. I mean he has now generated this whole shitstorm around himself, and has his whole body of lectures up on Youtube anyway. I guess it conceivably could all just be a big ruse on his part. But I dunno, that considered, I still think his actual points concerning the law are legitimate. Peterson has a huge fixation on religion, maybe he really is doing it in the name of Truth

Let's all assume Peterson is a poopy head that only wants fame and fortune.
At the very least thanks to him, society as a whole is now aware of a massive amount of the population's disdain for the concept of gender identity.

And that's a good thing to me.

Ah, Veeky Forums's favorite "everyone I don't like is a pseudointellectual" pastime

kill yourself leftist scum