Current Events > Jordan Peterson fights for Canada's soul against the ''Muh Feels'' government

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo

tl;dw: Canada is seeking to punish anybody who doesn't use another person's "correct" pronoun, be it "xir", "bun", "your majesty", etc and Jordan Peterson is one of the few people in the frigid north who will point out how tyrannical and unscientific such a proposal is.
---

im not watching that lul. also who the hell is jordan peterson
---

Soviet_Shurima posted...

im not watching that lul. also who the hell is jordan peterson

He's a professional psychologist and college professor who rustled the left's jimmies a couple years ago when he said he would refuse to use fake pronouns.
---

cool
---

In before the far-left CEmen SJWs bash him for absolutely no reason besides the fact that he isn't a far-left SJW like them.

Clad posted...

In before the far-left CEmen SJWs bash him for absolutely no reason besides the fact that he isn't a far-left SJW like them.

in after proudclown prematurely attacks liberals
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Canada is seeking to punish anybody who doesn't use another person's correct pronoun

To clarify, the "correct" pronoun is what ever the person says, so if they say "call me fairykin" and you say "no", it would be a punishable offense (probably a fine).

I've watched a lot of Jordan Peterson interviews and he's great. He was on the Joe Rogan podcast twice. Basically his stance can be summed up in one of his (paraphrased) quotes "there's a fine line between what the government regulates what we can't say, and what we HAVE to say, and that's a line I believe we shouldn't cross".
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Clad posted...

In before the far-left CEmen SJWs bash him for absolutely no reason besides the fact that he isn't a far-left SJW like them.

in after proudclown prematurely attacks liberals

Leftists aren't liberals.

They're only liberal in the sense that they're liberal with other people's money.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Clad posted...

In before the far-left CEmen SJWs bash him for absolutely no reason besides the fact that he isn't a far-left SJW like them.

in after proudclown prematurely attacks liberals

In after Giant_Assperson finds some way to deflect

Bill C-16 is a critical step in recognizing that trans rights are human rights. Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it would add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Under the Criminal Code, it would protect against crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression.

Fair next.
---

iPhone_7 posted...

Bill C-16 is a critical step in recognizing that trans rights are human rights. Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it would add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Under the Criminal Code, it would protect against crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression.

Fair next.

If you read the entire bill and not just the blurb, you'd know that refusing to refer to someone by their preferred pronoun is counted as "discrimination"

Which is fucking ridiculous.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

tl;dw: Canada is seeking to punish anybody who doesn't use another person's correct pronoun, be it "xir", "bun", "your majesty", etc and Jordan Peterson is one of the few people in the frigid north who will point out how tyrannical and unscientific such a proposal is.

nothing is stopping you from just using the person's name if you don't want to use pronouns

total non-issue
---

LysistrataMedea posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

tl;dw: Canada is seeking to punish anybody who doesn't use another person's correct pronoun, be it "xir", "bun", "your majesty", etc and Jordan Peterson is one of the few people in the frigid north who will point out how tyrannical and unscientific such a proposal is.

nothing is stopping you from just using the person's name if you don't want to use pronouns

total non-issue

yeah but anti-sjws rely solely on fake outrage
---

LysistrataMedea posted...

nothing is stopping you from just using the person's name if you don't want to use pronouns

Actually the code demands proper usage of name AND pronoun under threat of legal punishment. This is tantamount to compelled speech, which under the US Constitution at least is plainly illegal, even if you have the option to use someone's first name instead.
---

how is this fake outrage. it's a crime not to call someone a helicopter of he asks you to

So will I get into trouble if I just never talk to them?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

LysistrataMedea posted...

nothing is stopping you from just using the person's name if you don't want to use pronouns

Actually the code demands proper usage of name AND pronoun. This is tantamount to compelled speech, which under the US Constitution at least is plainly illegal.

i don't see what Canadian law has to do with American law

anyway you can use a proper noun everytime a pronoun is called for so i don't see what the issue is.
---

LightHawKnight posted...

So will I get into trouble if I just never talk to them?

Not yet, I guess.
---

Who cares, none of you live in Canada.
---

That's what I hate about the left... this kind of extreme thing and being so offended and wanting to criminalize anything that might hurt anyone's feelings

That's why I think the best political position is fiscally socialist and socially conservative. Sadly, good luck finding such a political party :(
---

Clad posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Clad posted...

In before the far-left CEmen SJWs bash him for absolutely no reason besides the fact that he isn't a far-left SJW like them.

in after proudclown prematurely attacks liberals

In after Giant_Assperson finds some way to deflect

is it really a deflection when you're appropriately responding to something already way off topic?
---

frozenshock posted...

That's why I think the best political position is fiscally socialist and socially conservative. Sadly, good luck finding such a political party :(

Mormon.
---

Waluigi7 posted...

Who cares, none of you live in Canada.

i do, but i also dont care. kind of ironic
---

Mal_Fet posted...

LysistrataMedea posted...

nothing is stopping you from just using the person's name if you don't want to use pronouns

Actually the code demands proper usage of name AND pronoun under threat of legal punishment. This is tantamount to compelled speech, which under the US Constitution at least is plainly illegal, even if you have the option to use someone's first name instead.

... what the fuck does the US constitution have to do with a canadian law lmao
---

Wait so if Canada follows through with this people will have to call me Dovakiin? Canada here I come!
---

infinitydev2020 posted...

Wait so if Canada follows through with this people will have to call me Dovakiin? Canada here I come!

no, theyll have to call you that or your first name
---

Soviet_Shurima posted...

... what the fuck does the US constitution have to do with a canadian law lmao

Well I'm most familiar with US law, the first amendment is one of the most universally-accepted doctrines of freedom around the world, and I know that Canada has a similar doctrine.
---

also fwiw i go to the school Peterson teaches at and it's not even as big a deal as youtube videos of protestors would make you think it is.
---

then why the hell would you act informed on a subject you know nothing about
---

well my feelings are hurt that there is a giant racist maple leaf on that flag and not the beautiful crescent moon....who is going to hear my plea and back up my cause? its only just.....
---

Soviet_Shurima posted...

infinitydev2020 posted...

Wait so if Canada follows through with this people will have to call me Dovakiin? Canada here I come!

no, theyll have to call you that or your first name

I'm down for either.
---

infinitydev2020 posted...

Soviet_Shurima posted...

infinitydev2020 posted...

Wait so if Canada follows through with this people will have to call me Dovakiin? Canada here I come!

no, theyll have to call you that or your first name

I'm down for either.

cool
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Soviet_Shurima posted...

... what the fuck does the US constitution have to do with a canadian law lmao

Well I'm most familiar with US law, the first amendment is one of the most universally-accepted doctrines of freedom around the world, and I know that Canada has a similar doctrine.

Canadian free speech, really free speech in a lot of the western world is waay different from American free speech. But at its root, free speech was never (and in most of the west, still isn't) about giving private citizens the right to say whatever they want.
---

Soviet_Shurima posted...

then why the hell would you act informed on a subject you know nothing about

Did I make a false claim somewhere?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

LysistrataMedea posted...

nothing is stopping you from just using the person's name if you don't want to use pronouns

Actually the code demands proper usage of name AND pronoun under threat of legal punishment. This is tantamount to compelled speech, which under the US Constitution at least is plainly illegal, even if you have the option to use someone's first name instead.

---

LysistrataMedea posted...

Canadian free speech, really free speech in a lot of the western world is waay different from American free speech. But at its root, free speech was never (and in most of the west, still isn't) about giving private citizens the right to say whatever they want.

Canada has laws on what may not be said, but so far, Canada has no law that compels them to say something.
---

Soviet_Shurima posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

LysistrataMedea posted...

nothing is stopping you from just using the person's name if you don't want to use pronouns

Actually the code demands proper usage of name AND pronoun under threat of legal punishment. This is tantamount to compelled speech, which under the US Constitution at least is plainly illegal, even if you have the option to use someone's first name instead.

Which part of my post here is false
---

Mal_Fet posted...

LysistrataMedea posted...

Canadian free speech, really free speech in a lot of the western world is waay different from American free speech. But at its root, free speech was never (and in most of the west, still isn't) about giving private citizens the right to say whatever they want.

Canada has laws on what may not be said, but so far, Canada has no law that compels them to say something.

uh and it still wont. you can call the person by their first name
---

Soviet_Shurima posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

LysistrataMedea posted...

nothing is stopping you from just using the person's name if you don't want to use pronouns

Actually the code demands proper usage of name AND pronoun under threat of legal punishment. This is tantamount to compelled speech, which under the US Constitution at least is plainly illegal, even if you have the option to use someone's first name instead.

Wait hold on, I'm a bit tired, but if you don't use somebody's pronoun in conversation or everyday use then you can be punished?
---

infinitydev2020 posted...

Soviet_Shurima posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

LysistrataMedea posted...

nothing is stopping you from just using the person's name if you don't want to use pronouns

Actually the code demands proper usage of name AND pronoun under threat of legal punishment. This is tantamount to compelled speech, which under the US Constitution at least is plainly illegal, even if you have the option to use someone's first name instead.

Wait hold on, I'm a bit tired, but if you don't use somebody's pronoun in conversation or everyday use then you can be punished?

you can call them by their name. malfet is just being malfet
---

infinitydev2020 posted...

Soviet_Shurima posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

LysistrataMedea posted...

nothing is stopping you from just using the person's name if you don't want to use pronouns

Actually the code demands proper usage of name AND pronoun under threat of legal punishment. This is tantamount to compelled speech, which under the US Constitution at least is plainly illegal, even if you have the option to use someone's first name instead.

Wait hold on, I'm a bit tired, but if you don't use somebody's pronoun in conversation or everyday use then you can be punished?

please understand that Mal_Fet's interpretation of things does not always align with reality. take what he says with a grain of salt and do research on your own if you're curious, he won't give you a genuine/non-biased answer.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

LysistrataMedea posted...

nothing is stopping you from just using the person's name if you don't want to use pronouns

Actually the code demands proper usage of name AND pronoun under threat of legal punishment. This is tantamount to compelled speech, which under the US Constitution at least is plainly illegal, even if you have the option to use someone's first name instead.

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/first-reading

tl;dr you're objectively wrong
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Canada has laws on what may not be said, but so far, Canada has no law that compels them to say something.

This can be true, but the spirit of Canadian free speech has always been about not offending people. We recently passed an anti-Islam discrimination measure, and there have been similar measures in the past that reflect this mentality. And a lawyer can easily argue that you're being compelled to not say the wrong thing, when you misgender someone, rather than being compelled to say something specific.

It's true that C-16 is somewhat unique, maybe even draconian, but it's not an unusual direction for Canadian law. I'm not personally sure if I agree with Peterson about it being a 'dangerous path', but I'm also not closed off to his opinion either.
---

Oh ok, thanks. The more you know.
---

Soviet_Shurima posted...

uh and it still wont. you can call the person by their first name

And if you call them something that isn't their preferred pronoun or their name, you will be legally punished. And that's called "compelled speech".
---

so do i have to acknowledged that "x name" is a "gender 17"
---

k
---

Mal_Fet posted...

And if you call them something that isn't their preferred pronoun or their name, you will be legally punished. And that's called "compelled speech".

No you fucking won't you illiterate ignoramus
---

There are people on the panel that are in agreement that the bill seems to have, at least as an interpreted element, the risk of compelled speech. There is also the risk that the bill will enshrine in law the concept of gender fluidity, which is not scientific and which has been rejected by evolutionary biologists, etc. Those are the risks.

The people in this topic who are deflecting out the ass are simply doing so because they secretly want the bill to pass - to them, the compelled speech is a good thing because it would be in defense of their own opinions. If the bill instead had a risk of compelling speech regarding Allah being God and Muhammad being his only messenger, they'd be singing a different tune.

You can tell how honest or dishonest people in this topic are being by reading the bill and listening to what people on both sides of the panel are saying about it. Some of the questions they asked Peterson and company specifically touched on how it seems like the bill is a risk of compelled speech and also a risk of enshrining pseudoscience nonsense into law before evolutionary biologists and psychologists and etc even came to any conclusion on the matter.

LysistrataMedea posted...

This can be true, but the spirit of Canadian free speech has always been about not offending people. We recently passed an anti-Islam discrimination measure, and there have been similar measures in the past that reflect this mentality. And a lawyer can easily argue that you're being compelled to not say the wrong thing, when you misgender someone, rather than being compelled to say something specific.

It's true that C-16 is somewhat unique, maybe even draconian, but it's not an unusual direction for Canadian law. I'm not personally sure if I agree with Peterson about it being a 'dangerous path', but I'm also not closed off to his opinion either.

How about the lack of any proof this measure will actually help anyone? If you're going to introduce a draconian law in the name of not producing offense, shouldn't there be some literature on the subject that shows it will actually do that?

Bluster posted...

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/first-reading

tl;dr you're objectively wrong

The bill specifically refers to the OHRC for guidelines, and according to the OHRC website:

Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.

So actually you're wrong.
---