How many times does it need to be said that Peterson has no problem calling people by their preferred pronouns. We have a video no more than 2 pages back with this quote.
Why are you misrepresenting Peterson's position? Why are you lying?
GirlySports posted a video saying everyone is allowed to do that.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I liked some things he said and I believe he's earnest in wanting to help people but I feel like his celebrity and media power has gotten to his head as he ventures more and more from earnestness to hyperbole. Every damn thing he has a criticism of is referred to as "a catastrophe" or "absolutely disgraceful" in his interviews and debates.
Every damn thing he has a criticism of is referred to as "a catastrophe" or "absolutely disgraceful" in his interviews and debates.
He's always been like that. I listened live to the first interview Peterson did, on CBC radio back in 2016, and I came away thinking he was A) very smart and articulate, and B) overheated to the point of verging on hysteria.
I really don't think he's motivated by fame or money, or that they've changed him. He's been saying the same things in the same way for years. And he genuinely believes them.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
He says people need goals. He also says we should give some thought before we tear down existing norms. I don't see him presenting a collective, conformist program.
Peterson's objective moral paradigm seems to be that which we can draw from common myths. That's about as simplistic and retrograde as it gets. It's basically a pseudo-intellectual appeal to tradition.
Because it's not what the law states or how the Charter works. Adding gender identity to the Charter has nothing to do with language. It means you can't discriminate against someone on the basis that they do not identify with their biological sex. That means things such as denying services, employment, etc.
So yeah, if we're going to call out the far left for distorting the facts, then why are we not holding Peterson to the same standards? The guy completely talked out of his ass on this topic and refuses to back off or come correct on it.
It also adds gender identity and expressions as a protected category for hate speech laws. So I wouldn't say "nothing to do with language." But nonetheless, after reading a bit more, I agree that it would seem there's a high bar for a court to step in under this part--basically violence.
Still, nobody knows for sure how C-16 would play out on free speech grounds until someone brings a case forward and tests it in court. It's fair to view Peterson as pushing hyperbole to an extent, but I wouldn't rule out the concern over unintended effects. Also why add those categories in the first place? I'm not a lawyer but it seems like the hate speech parts of the Charter prior to Bill C-16 would have been adequate enough to do what C-16 proponents are looking for anyways.
Also, beware the the whole Lindsay Shepherd thing; the professor and administrators questioning her suggested that her presentation of the Peterson video violated Bill C-16. Sure, some legal people will say they misinterpreted the Bill. Why not just make the Bill clear and add in an excerpt to eliminate the ambiguity around free speech? Surely, the Shepherd thing won't be the last instance of Bill C-16 coming up in these ways, rightly or wrongly.
Rich, in a Peterson thread, that I have to suggest context matters. Wouldn’t want the leftist outrage machine to run too wild.
Quote:
Romanowski adds with young children, it’s not always about sexual consent, but teaching the concept of it.
“The concept of your rights and protecting yourself at the earliest ages possible to help children learn the entire scope around sexual consent,” she continues. “By asking if it’s OK or simply letting the child know you are going to change them, allows the opportunity to build skills around body awareness and personal boundaries.”
A baby doesn't have the cognitive wherewithal to NOT #### itself and the concern is to teach it sexual consent?
How about teaching it how a toilet works first?
Lol yup I’m a horrible person, your funny dude! You’ve jumped the shark my man.
Where did I even remotely suggest that, in any way whatsoever?
My point was (and it wasn’t even directed to you) that the lady in the video was not saying you need to get permission from your baby/toddler to change their diaper, but that you can start helping them understand these big and complicated ideas that so many struggle with by starting at a very granular level.
Sometimes you argue silly points and you know it. The only other time we’ve interacted I complimented you but it was obvious you were arguing just to argue and this feels like one of those times.
I apologize if this is something you take very serious.
You ended your post with a passive aggressive intention, that me suggesting it was silly to ask a baby consent to change it was horrific.
Did you suggest that? Looking back you asked “Is this real.” I honestly, 100%, did not even look at your post (if I had, I wouldn’t have gathered you asking if the video was real was actually you suggesting she was silly), I was responding to Cliche (and responding to the usual suspects who would turn it into some “leftists run amok” thing by ignoring the context, I don’t count you as one of those people).
The “horrific” was sarcasm. I was sarcastically suggesting it was horrific to teach plant the seeds of much larger concepts at an early age. It, again, had literally nothing to do with you in any way.
Sorry you took my post as some sort of personal attack. Outside of “Rich,” based on the content of your own post, I have no f###ing idea how you even thought I was referring to you, just because you asked if a video was real.
You've posted some really specious links and videos, but Worldnet Daily? Seriously? What's next, links from 4Chan? Do they not teach media literacy in Canada?
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
You've posted some really specious links and videos, but Worldnet Daily? Seriously? What's next, links from 4Chan? Do they not teach media literacy in Canada?
Oops. Obviously I have to post better than boingboing leading to a somethingawful article.
