https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDvj6DQd93o
This was a really interesting debate imo. I am kind of leaning towards Peterson's arguments more after listening to it. What do you guys think?
(debate starts around 12 minutes in)
Dr. Jordan Peterson Debate
posted in
World Events
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDvj6DQd93o
This was a really interesting debate imo. I am kind of leaning towards Peterson's arguments more after listening to it. What do you guys think?
(debate starts around 12 minutes in)
This was a really interesting debate imo. I am kind of leaning towards Peterson's arguments more after listening to it. What do you guys think?
(debate starts around 12 minutes in)
Oh I saw this on imgur. This was the guy who had that argument with a bunch of angry SJWs
Oh I saw this on imgur. This was the guy who had that argument with a bunch of angry SJWs
Dr. Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at University of Toronto.
Some context on this:
The debate is concerning a law passed in Canada called Bill C-16 that makes it a criminal offense to "misgender" someone (referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice, including words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).
Jordan Peterson is against the bill because it's putting limits on free speech by criminalizing "hate speech".
Here's another interesting video with him in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4R0bWC41g4
He shows up at the beginning, and then again 6 minutes in.
Dr. Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at University of Toronto.
Some context on this:
The debate is concerning a law passed in Canada called Bill C-16 that makes it a criminal offense to "misgender" someone (referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice, including words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).
Jordan Peterson is against the bill because it's putting limits on free speech by criminalizing "hate speech".
Here's another interesting video with him in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4R0bWC41g4
He shows up at the beginning, and then again 6 minutes in.
Some context on this:
The debate is concerning a law passed in Canada called Bill C-16 that makes it a criminal offense to "misgender" someone (referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice, including words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).
Jordan Peterson is against the bill because it's putting limits on free speech by criminalizing "hate speech".
Here's another interesting video with him in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4R0bWC41g4
He shows up at the beginning, and then again 6 minutes in.
Not_MatlockDr. Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at University of Toronto.
Some context on this:
The debate is concerning a law passed in Canada called Bill C-16 that makes it a criminal offense to "misgender" someone (referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice, including words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).
Jordan Peterson is against the bill because it's putting limits on free speech by criminalizing "hate speech".
Here's another interesting video with him in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4R0bWC41g4
He shows up at the beginning, and then again 6 minutes in.
that's actually really interesting
[quote=Not_Matlock]Dr. Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at University of Toronto.
Some context on this:
The debate is concerning a law passed in Canada called Bill C-16 that makes it a criminal offense to "misgender" someone (referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice, including words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).
Jordan Peterson is against the bill because it's putting limits on free speech by criminalizing "hate speech".
Here's another interesting video with him in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4R0bWC41g4
He shows up at the beginning, and then again 6 minutes in.[/quote]
that's actually really interesting
Some context on this:
The debate is concerning a law passed in Canada called Bill C-16 that makes it a criminal offense to "misgender" someone (referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice, including words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).
Jordan Peterson is against the bill because it's putting limits on free speech by criminalizing "hate speech".
Here's another interesting video with him in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4R0bWC41g4
He shows up at the beginning, and then again 6 minutes in.[/quote]
that's actually really interesting
Hate speech is dumb but it's protected under the 1st amendment here in the US and I think thats rightfully so. There's the whole slippery slope kind of thing and also hate speech just makes it really easy to know who is a complete moron which is useful
Hate speech is dumb but it's protected under the 1st amendment here in the US and I think thats rightfully so. There's the whole slippery slope kind of thing and also hate speech just makes it really easy to know who is a complete moron which is useful
how is this even a debate
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year
how is this even a debate
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year
Is that true about the human rights court? That seems like a huge perversion of justice
Is that true about the human rights court? That seems like a huge perversion of justice
Yeah! Canada has freedom of speech, as long as what you say doesn't hurt anyone's feelings!
I'm all for supporting trans people but do u really have to pass a law criminalizing incorrect usage of gender pronouns?!?!
Yeah! Canada has freedom of speech, as long as what you say doesn't hurt anyone's feelings!
I'm all for supporting trans people but do u really have to pass a law criminalizing incorrect usage of gender pronouns?!?!
I'm all for supporting trans people but do u really have to pass a law criminalizing incorrect usage of gender pronouns?!?!
aierahow is this even a debate
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year
because allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
[quote=aiera]how is this even a debate
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year[/quote]
because allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year[/quote]
because allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
eeeaierahow is this even a debatebecause allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
There is a large difference between limiting things like racism and limiting how much you can or cannot speak out about the stupid SJW shit. Saying whatever you want with zero consequences is not ok especially when it is racist or hate speech, not being able to say he or she because he/she wants to be identified as a plant or some shit is stupid. Thats not freedom of speech, thats speech manipulation. Like if you want to identify as a plabt whatever, thats fine, its your life and your choices. But do not think for a moment that it is OK to push those choices onto me or anyone else and expect us to abide by your version of reality.
[quote=eee][quote=aiera]how is this even a debate
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year[/quote]
because allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive[/quote]
There is a large difference between limiting things like racism and limiting how much you can or cannot speak out about the stupid SJW shit. Saying whatever you want with zero consequences is not ok especially when it is racist or hate speech, not being able to say he or she because he/she wants to be identified as a plant or some shit is stupid. Thats not freedom of speech, thats speech manipulation. Like if you want to identify as a plabt whatever, thats fine, its your life and your choices. But do not think for a moment that it is OK to push those choices onto me or anyone else and expect us to abide by your version of reality.
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year[/quote]
because allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive[/quote]
There is a large difference between limiting things like racism and limiting how much you can or cannot speak out about the stupid SJW shit. Saying whatever you want with zero consequences is not ok especially when it is racist or hate speech, not being able to say he or she because he/she wants to be identified as a plant or some shit is stupid. Thats not freedom of speech, thats speech manipulation. Like if you want to identify as a plabt whatever, thats fine, its your life and your choices. But do not think for a moment that it is OK to push those choices onto me or anyone else and expect us to abide by your version of reality.
eeeaierahow is this even a debatebecause allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
Right, but "black people should be considered equals" was once considered an "undesirable element" of society. So why should people be able to subjectively define what these things are?
[quote=eee][quote=aiera]how is this even a debate
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year[/quote]
because allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive[/quote]
Right, but "black people should be considered equals" was once considered an "undesirable element" of society. So why should people be able to subjectively define what these things are?
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year[/quote]
because allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive[/quote]
Right, but "black people should be considered equals" was once considered an "undesirable element" of society. So why should people be able to subjectively define what these things are?
Geel9eeeaierahow is this even a debatebecause allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
Right, but "black people should be considered equals" was once considered an "undesirable element" of society. So why should people be able to subjectively define what these things are?
At any point in time where it would have been prudential to say that you'dve been able to say it, any other time you'dve been publicly ostracized without government intervention. There's only a notable difference between being able to say what you want and the government limiting it when what you're saying is absolutely off the grid publicly and defends all moral sensibilities in society. Currently, that sort of speech is banned de facto.
The government already sets a line of what is alright to say and no one complains about it. I dont see the difference between this and any other sort of limitation on speech that already exists
[quote=Geel9][quote=eee][quote=aiera]how is this even a debate
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year[/quote]
because allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive[/quote]
Right, but "black people should be considered equals" was once considered an "undesirable element" of society. So why should people be able to subjectively define what these things are?[/quote]
At any point in time where it would have been prudential to say that you'dve been able to say it, any other time you'dve been publicly ostracized without government intervention. There's only a notable difference between being able to say what you want and the government limiting it when what you're saying is absolutely off the grid publicly and defends all moral sensibilities in society. Currently, that sort of speech is banned de facto.
The government already sets a line of what is alright to say and no one complains about it. I dont see the difference between this and any other sort of limitation on speech that already exists
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year[/quote]
because allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive[/quote]
Right, but "black people should be considered equals" was once considered an "undesirable element" of society. So why should people be able to subjectively define what these things are?[/quote]
At any point in time where it would have been prudential to say that you'dve been able to say it, any other time you'dve been publicly ostracized without government intervention. There's only a notable difference between being able to say what you want and the government limiting it when what you're saying is absolutely off the grid publicly and defends all moral sensibilities in society. Currently, that sort of speech is banned de facto.
The government already sets a line of what is alright to say and no one complains about it. I dont see the difference between this and any other sort of limitation on speech that already exists
Tino_eeeaierahow is this even a debatebecause allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
There is a large difference between limiting things like racism and limiting how much you can or cannot speak out about the stupid SJW shit. Saying whatever you want with zero consequences is not ok especially when it is racist or hate speech, not being able to say he or she because he/she wants to be identified as a plant or some shit is stupid. Thats not freedom of speech, thats speech manipulation. Like if you want to identify as a plabt whatever, thats fine, its your life and your choices. But do not think for a moment that it is OK to push those choices onto me or anyone else and expect us to abide by your version of reality.
I dont wanna abide by the reality where blacks are equal to whites but the government will force that too
how is this different?
[quote=Tino_][quote=eee][quote=aiera]how is this even a debate
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year[/quote]
because allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive[/quote]
There is a large difference between limiting things like racism and limiting how much you can or cannot speak out about the stupid SJW shit. Saying whatever you want with zero consequences is not ok especially when it is racist or hate speech, not being able to say he or she because he/she wants to be identified as a plant or some shit is stupid. Thats not freedom of speech, thats speech manipulation. Like if you want to identify as a plabt whatever, thats fine, its your life and your choices. But do not think for a moment that it is OK to push those choices onto me or anyone else and expect us to abide by your version of reality.[/quote]
I dont wanna abide by the reality where blacks are equal to whites but the government will force that too
how is this different?
why are we criminalizing speech
i hate current year[/quote]
because allowing all speech allows anything to be said which attracts and normalizing undesirable elements of society
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive[/quote]
There is a large difference between limiting things like racism and limiting how much you can or cannot speak out about the stupid SJW shit. Saying whatever you want with zero consequences is not ok especially when it is racist or hate speech, not being able to say he or she because he/she wants to be identified as a plant or some shit is stupid. Thats not freedom of speech, thats speech manipulation. Like if you want to identify as a plabt whatever, thats fine, its your life and your choices. But do not think for a moment that it is OK to push those choices onto me or anyone else and expect us to abide by your version of reality.[/quote]
I dont wanna abide by the reality where blacks are equal to whites but the government will force that too
how is this different?
eeeI'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
??????
[quote=eee]
I'm [b]pro free speech[/b] but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider [b]limiting what people can say to each other[/b] is p naive[/quote]
??????
I'm [b]pro free speech[/b] but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider [b]limiting what people can say to each other[/b] is p naive[/quote]
??????
ReeroeeeI'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive
??????
The US already limits free speech in the form of fighting words
most other countries limit speech that incites hate groups
Germany is a country with a colored history that realized why pure free speech can bite people in the ass
[quote=Reero][quote=eee]
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive[/quote]
??????[/quote]
The US already limits free speech in the form of fighting words
most other countries limit speech that incites hate groups
Germany is a country with a colored history that realized why pure free speech can bite people in the ass
I'm pro free speech but pretending like there aren't genuine reasons to consider limiting what people can say to each other is p naive[/quote]
??????[/quote]
The US already limits free speech in the form of fighting words
most other countries limit speech that incites hate groups
Germany is a country with a colored history that realized why pure free speech can bite people in the ass
We are not arguing that having limits to what you can say is wrong, we are arguing that having limits that overstep basic logic is. Having pronouns classified as hate speech oversteps that line by a mile.
We are not arguing that having limits to what you can say is wrong, we are arguing that having limits that overstep basic logic is. Having pronouns classified as hate speech oversteps that line by a mile.
This law seems like a fucking nightmare to enforce and prosecute for, how do you prove that someone didn't call you by your preferred pronouns?
This law seems like a fucking nightmare to enforce and prosecute for, how do you prove that someone didn't call you by your preferred pronouns?
Tino_We are not arguing that having limits to what you can say is wrong, we are arguing that having limits that overstep basic logic is. Having pronouns classified as hate speech oversteps that line by a mile.
whats the difference?
[quote=Tino_]We are not arguing that having limits to what you can say is wrong, we are arguing that having limits that overstep basic logic is. Having pronouns classified as hate speech oversteps that line by a mile.[/quote]
whats the difference?
whats the difference?
eeeTino_We are not arguing that having limits to what you can say is wrong, we are arguing that having limits that overstep basic logic is. Having pronouns classified as hate speech oversteps that line by a mile.whats the difference?
I cant tell if you are actually serious or just playing devils advocate...
[quote=eee][quote=Tino_]We are not arguing that having limits to what you can say is wrong, we are arguing that having limits that overstep basic logic is. Having pronouns classified as hate speech oversteps that line by a mile.[/quote]
whats the difference?[/quote]
I cant tell if you are actually serious or just playing devils advocate...
whats the difference?[/quote]
I cant tell if you are actually serious or just playing devils advocate...
Dave audio's a bit off but if you have the time/ have a long drive to work I heavily recommend listening to Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin: Gender Pronouns and the Free Speech War (Full Interview)
Dave audio's a bit off but if you have the time/ have a long drive to work I heavily recommend listening to [url=https://youtu.be/5n8zn-R10qM]Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin: Gender Pronouns and the Free Speech War (Full Interview) [/url]
eeeThe US already limits free speech in the form of fighting words
most other countries limit speech that incites hate groups
Germany is a country with a colored history that realized why pure free speech can bite people in the ass
oh yeah man the Nazi regime was clearly known for it's freedom of speech and expression
[quote=eee]
The US already limits free speech in the form of fighting words
most other countries limit speech that incites hate groups
Germany is a country with a colored history that realized why pure free speech can bite people in the ass[/quote]
oh yeah man the Nazi regime was clearly known for it's freedom of speech and expression
The US already limits free speech in the form of fighting words
most other countries limit speech that incites hate groups
Germany is a country with a colored history that realized why pure free speech can bite people in the ass[/quote]
oh yeah man the Nazi regime was clearly known for it's freedom of speech and expression
eeeThe US already limits free speech in the form of fighting words
most other countries limit speech that incites hate groups
Germany is a country with a colored history that realized why pure free speech can bite people in the ass
What..? Germany's hate speech laws make it so YOU CAN TAKE AWAY OTHERS RIGHTS WITH YOUR SPEECH.
In Scotland (which has similar laws) PEOPLE ARE IN PRISON OVER FUCKING TWEETS AND POSTS ON 4CHAN.
Do you not see how absurd that is? If you voice your disagreements with someone on religion/politics you can go to prison. Hate speech laws are designed to silence political dissent. It is not about protecting minorities/classes etc.
[quote=eee]
The US already limits free speech in the form of fighting words
most other countries limit speech that incites hate groups
Germany is a country with a colored history that realized why pure free speech can bite people in the ass[/quote]
What..? Germany's hate speech laws make it so YOU CAN TAKE AWAY OTHERS RIGHTS WITH YOUR SPEECH.
In Scotland (which has similar laws) PEOPLE ARE IN PRISON OVER FUCKING TWEETS AND POSTS ON 4CHAN.
Do you not see how absurd that is? If you voice your disagreements with someone on religion/politics you can go to prison. Hate speech laws are designed to silence political dissent. It is not about protecting minorities/classes etc.
The US already limits free speech in the form of fighting words
most other countries limit speech that incites hate groups
Germany is a country with a colored history that realized why pure free speech can bite people in the ass[/quote]
What..? Germany's hate speech laws make it so YOU CAN TAKE AWAY OTHERS RIGHTS WITH YOUR SPEECH.
In Scotland (which has similar laws) PEOPLE ARE IN PRISON OVER FUCKING TWEETS AND POSTS ON 4CHAN.
Do you not see how absurd that is? If you voice your disagreements with someone on religion/politics you can go to prison. Hate speech laws are designed to silence political dissent. It is not about protecting minorities/classes etc.
I think we can agree that private organizations like schools and universities have the right to police your speech, but it should never be by law.
I think we can agree that private organizations like schools and universities have the right to police your speech, but it should never be by law.
Not_MatlockSome context on this:
The debate is concerning a law passed in Canada called Bill C-16 that makes it a criminal offense to "misgender" someone (referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice, including words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).
Don't be such a thick cunt, the bill only extends existing laws against discrimination by recognising discrimination on the basis of gender identity/expression. It's already illegal to discriminate based on skin colour, age, weight, hetero/homosexual etc., and this bill would allow taking an employer to court if you can prove they are discriminating based on your gender identification. It would also allow criminal prosecution in cases where someone is attacked for identifying as a certain gender, or if someone puts out flyers telling people to harm people based on their gender identity; in that sense, it's very close to the laws protecting homosexual people.
It's nowhere suggested that using the wrong pronouns would become a *criminal* offense. Seriously? You have to either be completely ignorant of law or simply baiting to write such bullshit.
[quote=Not_Matlock]
Some context on this:
The debate is concerning a law passed in Canada called Bill C-16 that makes it a criminal offense to "misgender" someone (referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice, including words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).
[/quote]
Don't be such a thick cunt, the bill only extends existing laws against discrimination by recognising discrimination on the basis of gender identity/expression. It's already illegal to discriminate based on skin colour, age, weight, hetero/homosexual etc., and this bill would allow taking an employer to court if you can prove they are discriminating based on your gender identification. It would also allow criminal prosecution in cases where someone is attacked [b]for[/b] identifying as a certain gender, or if someone puts out flyers telling people to harm people based on their gender identity; in that sense, it's very close to the laws protecting homosexual people.
It's nowhere suggested that using the wrong pronouns would become a [i]*criminal*[/i] offense. Seriously? You have to either be completely ignorant of law or simply baiting to write such bullshit.
Some context on this:
The debate is concerning a law passed in Canada called Bill C-16 that makes it a criminal offense to "misgender" someone (referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice, including words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).
[/quote]
Don't be such a thick cunt, the bill only extends existing laws against discrimination by recognising discrimination on the basis of gender identity/expression. It's already illegal to discriminate based on skin colour, age, weight, hetero/homosexual etc., and this bill would allow taking an employer to court if you can prove they are discriminating based on your gender identification. It would also allow criminal prosecution in cases where someone is attacked [b]for[/b] identifying as a certain gender, or if someone puts out flyers telling people to harm people based on their gender identity; in that sense, it's very close to the laws protecting homosexual people.
It's nowhere suggested that using the wrong pronouns would become a [i]*criminal*[/i] offense. Seriously? You have to either be completely ignorant of law or simply baiting to write such bullshit.
It's so nice to listen to such an intelligent being debating.
It's so nice to listen to such an intelligent being debating.
every side of this is dumb. not calling someone by their preferred pronoun is pretty rude (welcome to the real world) but making it illegal to be rude is absolutely ridiculous.
every side of this is dumb. not calling someone by their preferred pronoun is pretty rude (welcome to the real world) but making it illegal to be rude is absolutely ridiculous.
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.