This guy's clearly smart. He has tons of really interesting ideas, and I really appreciate his blend of Hobbes, Nietzsche, Jung, and psychology. His lectures are some of the most interesting I've found, and his writing does a great job of efficiently laying out his beliefs
So why was he so retarded when it came to the Bill C-16 fiasco? I share a lot of the same concerns as him and if any of what he was saying was true it'd certainly be worth the outcry, but nearly everything he said the law could lead to really still can't happen at all. What am I missing here?
Is he a) right in a way that I can not see at all b) paranoid and panicking over something that doesn't exist c) nefariously trying to drum up publicity
Xavier Turner
He's unfortunate he was born in North America, if he was European he would have had a chance to be doing serious intellectual work. He would have made a fine Lacanian
Kayden Martinez
I'm going to fuck his daughter.
Tyler Sanders
his entire thing is based on neechee and jung that says all you need to know about him.
Xavier Anderson
I think he said something dumb, got in trouble, started getting a lot of fame and popularity and $30k a month on Patreon and decided to ride the money train as far as possible.
Ethan Kelly
>Someone in the humanities mentioning Godel This is an even more dastardly tactics then abusing the concepts of quantum physics
Colton Martin
rewatch the part in his interview in Joe Rogan where he talks about Brown's book 'ordinary man'
Xavier Diaz
He sounds very retarded when he tries to talk about maths, economics, sociology, politics, Marxism, post-modernism or anything outside his field.
Jackson Edwards
Pretty sure this is shitty bait to start a shitty thread the mods will have to close in 10 minutes but if you're serious:
It's 95% a) and 5% b) because his Soviet Union studies left him somewhat paranoid about where similarities can lead.
So if you're serious, I'll gladly point you in the right direction. What do you believe he said that is wrong, specifically?
Carson Moore
on his patreon you can pay 100 bucks to get a video of him thanking you
Cooper Butler
not that guy but point away, please.
Jonathan James
>maths Never heard that >economics Disagree >sociology Disagree >politics You can only say that if you're part of what he criticizes >Marxism, post-modernism Agreed, although I don't think he's completely wrong
Austin Smith
Well to point away I'd have to know what OP considers wrong about Peterson's interpretation of C-16.
Otherwise I can only say that Peterson has a lawyer and the university has lawyers and they all agreed that Peterson's interpretation was correct. One point of contention was whether you can end up in jail, and he explained how that can indeed happen if you don't change your position throughout the court proceedings.
Caleb Cook
OP here He's said that an individual could potentially be jailed for refusal to use someone's preferred pronouns, and critique of their gender expression, which ultimately boils down to fashion. From what I can see, no you can not be jailed for any of that Refusal to use pronouns is not considered illegal in any way by the law Critique of gender expression is not considered illegal in any way by the law
The law itself is pretty bare bones and a lot of his concerns are coming from the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the guidelines on their site. But those guidelines are not legally enforced in any way.
Tyler Garcia
Before I answer, did you watch the debate where he deduces how all of that follows from the admittedly harmless-seeming "bare bones" law? Because it makes a difference whether you heard and disagreed, or didn't hear the arguments yet.
Colton Sanders
Which one in particular? I kind of lost interest in the whole fiasco after a while and only stick to his lectures now. A link would be appreciated
Wyatt Jones
youtube.com/watch?v=68NHUV5me7Q This one. It's kind of messed up to call him retarded and wrong about the issue when you lost interest and got lazy. If you only have a few minutes worth of attention span, start at 34:00.
A general tl;dr though: Everyone, including the university and his critics, agree that it wrong pronoun use is now illegal. Then they say "yeah but we'll only fine you" and he says "yes but that still means forcing me to say a certain word, so if I disagree with the fine = contempt of court = jail".
Hudson Cox
Pretty sure it is legally enforceable They just aren't enforcing it because it would cause too much of a shitstorm
Nathan Rogers
I think I started this a while ago, I'll give it a full watch now Have you read the actual bill? It's three paragraphs long and doesn't permit that at all
Easton Robinson
It's long and honestly not a great debate, but you can't really talk about the issue without watching it. I'm biased obviously but as a law student I'll tell you that the excuses given by his opponents are plain wrong.
You need to understand the whole legal system behind it to understand why such a "harmless" bill has such big consequences. You cannot look at it in an isolated way.
