Current Events > Who is this Jordan Peterson guy?

(+) Yeah! (+)

He is popping up on my feed/radar today.
---

He's a psychology professor/therapist.

He's like an intellectual guy that anti-intellectual people love.
---

Jim_Stark posted...

He's like an intellectual guy that anti-intellectual people love.

H3H3 likes him. Guy does seem to be speaking common sense stuff though.
---

Cult leader
---

In the first H3H3 podcast interview he did, he seemed like pretty cool guy. I also saw a long TV interview he did where he did a very good job of arguing his points. He tends to garner appreciation more from conservatives, but he doesn't seem to be partisan.
---

He says a lot of things that people don't want to hear

an extremely normal man who, extremely normally, tells edgy right-wing libertarians to stand up straight and clean their rooms and has an extremely normal cult following among them
---

HashtagTartarus posted...

In the first H3H3 podcast interview he did, he seemed like pretty cool guy. I also saw a long TV interview he did where he did a very good job of arguing his points. He tends to garner appreciation more from conservatives, but he doesn't seem to be partisan.

Yeah. He doesn't seem to be against either side. He is just calmly stating common sense stuff that's missing on both sides.
---

CrazyandLazy posted...

HashtagTartarus posted...

In the first H3H3 podcast interview he did, he seemed like pretty cool guy. I also saw a long TV interview he did where he did a very good job of arguing his points. He tends to garner appreciation more from conservatives, but he doesn't seem to be partisan.

Yeah. He doesn't seem to be against either side. He is just calmly stating common sense stuff that's missing on both sides.

that's just blatantly untrue
---

Intellectual guy who triggers sjws.
---

don't be fooled, bucko, that man is a postmodern neo-marxist
---

An idiot masquerading as an intellectual.
---

averagejoel posted...

CrazyandLazy posted...

HashtagTartarus posted...

In the first H3H3 podcast interview he did, he seemed like pretty cool guy. I also saw a long TV interview he did where he did a very good job of arguing his points. He tends to garner appreciation more from conservatives, but he doesn't seem to be partisan.

Yeah. He doesn't seem to be against either side. He is just calmly stating common sense stuff that's missing on both sides.

that's just blatantly untrue

he's for free speech. not approving hate.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

don't be fooled, bucko, that man is a postmodern neo-marxist

lol'd smh @ people like you
---

Canadian psychology professor at the University of Toronto who is famous for "owning" SJWs. He's a classical liberal though.
---

He's about the most agreeable conservative out there. Even if you don't like what he has to say it's still hard to not be able to see where he's coming from.
---

CrazyandLazy posted...

he's for free speech. not approving hate.

his points might have carried a bit more weight if his free speech was being threatened in the first place

he's also called for the mass firing of other academics, which is incredibly ironic considering the grounds on which he thought his free speech was being threatened
---

averagejoel posted...

CrazyandLazy posted...

he's for free speech. not approving hate.

his points might have carried a bit more weight if his free speech was being threatened in the first place

he's also called for the mass firing of other academics, which is incredibly ironic considering the grounds on which he thought his free speech was being threatened

Peterson is against compelled speech, he's not defending free speech in that particular case
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

averagejoel posted...

CrazyandLazy posted...

he's for free speech. not approving hate.

his points might have carried a bit more weight if his free speech was being threatened in the first place

he's also called for the mass firing of other academics, which is incredibly ironic considering the grounds on which he thought his free speech was being threatened

Peterson is against compelled speech, he's not defending free speech in that particular case

also a non-issue. compelled speech wasn't at all relevant to the conversation until he somehow got it into his head that it was
---

averagejoel posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

averagejoel posted...

CrazyandLazy posted...

he's for free speech. not approving hate.

his points might have carried a bit more weight if his free speech was being threatened in the first place

he's also called for the mass firing of other academics, which is incredibly ironic considering the grounds on which he thought his free speech was being threatened

Peterson is against compelled speech, he's not defending free speech in that particular case

also a non-issue. compelled speech wasn't at all relevant to the conversation until he somehow got it into his head that it was

it really depends on how the law interprets the anti-hate speech bill. i don't think pronoun usage has ever even come up in a court ruling. until it does we won't know if his worries are justified or not.
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

averagejoel posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

averagejoel posted...

CrazyandLazy posted...

he's for free speech. not approving hate.

his points might have carried a bit more weight if his free speech was being threatened in the first place

he's also called for the mass firing of other academics, which is incredibly ironic considering the grounds on which he thought his free speech was being threatened

Peterson is against compelled speech, he's not defending free speech in that particular case

also a non-issue. compelled speech wasn't at all relevant to the conversation until he somehow got it into his head that it was

it really depends on how the law interprets the anti-hate speech bill. i don't think pronoun usage has ever even come up in a court ruling. until it does we won't know if his worries are justified or not.

I don't know who the "we" in your sentence is referring to, but I know 100% that his worries were unjustified
---

averagejoel posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

averagejoel posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

averagejoel posted...

CrazyandLazy posted...

he's for free speech. not approving hate.

his points might have carried a bit more weight if his free speech was being threatened in the first place

he's also called for the mass firing of other academics, which is incredibly ironic considering the grounds on which he thought his free speech was being threatened

Peterson is against compelled speech, he's not defending free speech in that particular case

also a non-issue. compelled speech wasn't at all relevant to the conversation until he somehow got it into his head that it was

it really depends on how the law interprets the anti-hate speech bill. i don't think pronoun usage has ever even come up in a court ruling. until it does we won't know if his worries are justified or not.

I don't know who the "we" in your sentence is referring to, but I know 100% that his worries were unjustified

i don't think it's a big deal either but can you clarify what you mean when you say compelled speech isn't an issue?

EDIT: so i looked at the OHRC website, and it says if someone prefers gender-neutral pronouns you have to ask about them. it doesn't say you have to use them, instead saying you can just use their name (which is why i think this is a non-issue in the first place). it seems implies that you should use gender-neutral pronouns, though.

"Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use they if you dont know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach."
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

averagejoel posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

averagejoel posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

averagejoel posted...

CrazyandLazy posted...

he's for free speech. not approving hate.

his points might have carried a bit more weight if his free speech was being threatened in the first place

he's also called for the mass firing of other academics, which is incredibly ironic considering the grounds on which he thought his free speech was being threatened

Peterson is against compelled speech, he's not defending free speech in that particular case

also a non-issue. compelled speech wasn't at all relevant to the conversation until he somehow got it into his head that it was

it really depends on how the law interprets the anti-hate speech bill. i don't think pronoun usage has ever even come up in a court ruling. until it does we won't know if his worries are justified or not.

I don't know who the "we" in your sentence is referring to, but I know 100% that his worries were unjustified

i don't think it's a big deal either but can you clarify what you mean when you say compelled speech isn't an issue?

EDIT: so i looked at the OHRC website, and it says if someone prefers gender-neutral pronouns you have to ask about them. it doesn't say you have to use them, instead saying you can just use their name (which is why i think this is a non-issue in the first place). it seems implies that you should use gender-neutral pronouns, though.

"Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use they if you dont know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach."

Bill C16 made no mention of pronouns; it merely adds "gender identity" to the list of legally protected classes. unless you also think having ethnic minorities or other LGBT+ people as protected classes counts as compelled speech, that point of view isn't even internally inconsistent.
---

listening to his JRE podcast now
---

I'm talking about the Ontario Human Rights Code

"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. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular."
---

CrazyandLazy posted...

a

he's for free speech. not approving hate.

How the heck would you know? According to you, an hour ago you didn't even know who he was...
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I'm talking about the Ontario Human Rights Code

"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. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular."

that still isn't compelled speech. it's just ensuring that there are consequences to discrimination against a protected class of people
---

averagejoel posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I'm talking about the Ontario Human Rights Code

"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. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular."

that still isn't compelled speech. it's just ensuring that there are consequences to discrimination against a protected class of people

like i said before, the only situation where it might be compelled speech (depending on how you view the expanded list of neutral pronouns), is undecided. don't mistake me for saying that trans people shouldn't be addressed by their proper pronouns. they don't even mention non-binary or gender nonconforming so it's not something that you can be entirely sure of.
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

averagejoel posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I'm talking about the Ontario Human Rights Code

"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. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular."

that still isn't compelled speech. it's just ensuring that there are consequences to discrimination against a protected class of people

like i said before, the only situation where it might be compelled speech (depending on how you view the expanded list of neutral pronouns), is undecided. don't mistake me for saying that trans people shouldn't be addressed by their proper pronouns. they don't even mention non-binary or gender nonconforming so it's not something that you can be entirely sure of.

unless court cases related to discrimination against transgender people are handled drastically differently from cases related to discrimination against other protected groups (they won't be), OR other court cases related to said discrimination fall into the realm of compelled speech (they don't), there's no legitimate reason to believe that this will be the case. Jordan Peterson's points were nothing but fear-mongering
---

Jim_Stark posted...

He's like an intellectual guy that anti-intellectual people hate

---

I just started listening to him and I like him so far.
---

dirtycommunist posted...

An idiot masquerading as an intellectual.

Also a nutjob.
---

He's got a habit of saying dumb things about stuff he doesn't have any expertise in.
---

averagejoel posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

averagejoel posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I'm talking about the Ontario Human Rights Code

"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. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular."

that still isn't compelled speech. it's just ensuring that there are consequences to discrimination against a protected class of people

like i said before, the only situation where it might be compelled speech (depending on how you view the expanded list of neutral pronouns), is undecided. don't mistake me for saying that trans people shouldn't be addressed by their proper pronouns. they don't even mention non-binary or gender nonconforming so it's not something that you can be entirely sure of.

unless court cases related to discrimination against transgender peop are handled drastically differently from cases related to discrimination against other protected groups (they won't be), OR other court cases related to said discrimination fall into the realm of compelled speech (they don't), there's no legitimate reason to believe that this will be the case. Jordan Peterson's points were nothing but fear-mongering

i'm talking about non-binary people that aren't trans and decide to use an unusual pronoun and i don't understand why you're purposely ignoring that fact but because we occupy the same ideological ground i'm just going to let it go
---

You can tell all you need to know about him by the same people who are threatened by what he has to say.

These people that vehemently hate him are exactly the type of people you wouldn't want to ever associate with in the first place. Take a step back and look at who keeps trying to discredit him every time he comes up. It's very telling. Proof enough he's definitely on the right track.
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

He's vastly overrated and unfortunately seems to be giving a rise to the religious right (yet again) with Christianity, as if it wasn't bad enough listening to the inane ramblings of the regressive left with Islam.

Sam Harris noted this in his previous podcast, since so many Peterson fans (who resemble a cult in some ways) also just happen to be religious (as is their hero).

Stop with the Christophobia.
---