Who is saying otherwise?
I can safely say I have never seen or heard of anybody claiming that capitalists invented hierarchies.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Who is saying otherwise?
I can safely say I have never seen or heard of anybody claiming that capitalists invented hierarchies.
the person who constantly talks about the superiority of the judeo-christian west definitely doesn't make any value judgements about hierarchies and what he says has nothing to do with anything else he says
This charlatan is apparently one of the most influential thinkers of today. fecking idiot
Why even use lobsters when chimps exists and are massive cnuts.
the most famous use of the lobster analogy was when he was asked about the gender pay gap on channel 4, so even his specific uses of that dumb ass analogy contain value judgements
“Look for your inspiration to the victorious lobster, with its 350 million years of practical wisdom. Stand up straight, with your shoulders back.”
Nope, no validation of primitive hierarchies to see here folks.
Nope, no validation of primitive hierarchies to see here folks.
I'm just gonna go ahead an label the idea that you have to be in the "Judeo-Christian/Enlightenment tradition" to believe in free speech or the autonomous individual pure-strain racism.
hella stupid wordsalad from everyone's favourite carnivore, with a heavy dose of barely hidden racism
you must be all be unmarried since you keep besmirching jordans good namejpb said:
I'm keen to have a rational discussion about Peterson on here because I don't feel like I know as much about him as many of you.
I see myself as a fairly liberal socialist - people with more political nouse than me can probably label me more accurately - certainly I have more alignment with labour and the green party than the conservative party in the UK. I very strongly believe that everybody should have the same rights afforded to them and I believe people should be able to live lives free of harm (physical or psychological) or suffering - though I recognise that pain/loss/etc. is a part of life. I also see that there is a disparity between our ideals and our reality.
I feel, strongly, that some of Peterson's views are well represented and important. It seems as though his opposition frequently engage in ad hominem attacks (e.g. he's obviously crazy - he only eats beef) to discredit his assertions rather than addressing the things he actually says. On the legislation in Canada, with regard to trans pronouns, I think there is validity in what I understood to be his position. I was of the impression that his stance is that one should be able to choose to respect a person's choice of how they wish to be addressed, but that it should not be a legal requirement. I find it hard to disagree with this position.
I doubt there is any person in existence that my views align exactly with - I am confident there are examples of things Peterson has said or is known to believe that I disagree with - I don't see him as a champion of every political issue that lies at my core; but I do believe that he has a position which has validity on some issues and his voice is an important one which should be heard. Even if there are people who think his motives are nefarious those persons should be prepared to challenge his logic, rather than his character.
I think I feel as though there is a liberal movement that would prefer to shout down and ignore ideas that challenge their world view rather than address them with reason and on a level playing field and I find that hard to support. Peterson is prepared to swim against the tide, express himself openly, expose himself to criticism and attempt to explain his ideas to anybody who is willing to listen. I find that more admirable than standing in a crowd with a foghorn.
I hope this post can be treated with respect and without emotion. I am definitely open to considering other points of view and having mine changed.
I see myself as a fairly liberal socialist - people with more political nouse than me can probably label me more accurately - certainly I have more alignment with labour and the green party than the conservative party in the UK. I very strongly believe that everybody should have the same rights afforded to them and I believe people should be able to live lives free of harm (physical or psychological) or suffering - though I recognise that pain/loss/etc. is a part of life. I also see that there is a disparity between our ideals and our reality.
I feel, strongly, that some of Peterson's views are well represented and important. It seems as though his opposition frequently engage in ad hominem attacks (e.g. he's obviously crazy - he only eats beef) to discredit his assertions rather than addressing the things he actually says. On the legislation in Canada, with regard to trans pronouns, I think there is validity in what I understood to be his position. I was of the impression that his stance is that one should be able to choose to respect a person's choice of how they wish to be addressed, but that it should not be a legal requirement. I find it hard to disagree with this position.
I doubt there is any person in existence that my views align exactly with - I am confident there are examples of things Peterson has said or is known to believe that I disagree with - I don't see him as a champion of every political issue that lies at my core; but I do believe that he has a position which has validity on some issues and his voice is an important one which should be heard. Even if there are people who think his motives are nefarious those persons should be prepared to challenge his logic, rather than his character.
I think I feel as though there is a liberal movement that would prefer to shout down and ignore ideas that challenge their world view rather than address them with reason and on a level playing field and I find that hard to support. Peterson is prepared to swim against the tide, express himself openly, expose himself to criticism and attempt to explain his ideas to anybody who is willing to listen. I find that more admirable than standing in a crowd with a foghorn.
I hope this post can be treated with respect and without emotion. I am definitely open to considering other points of view and having mine changed.
that's not what the law does, it gave trans people the same rights as ethnic minorities and gay people, i.e if they get denied jobs on grounds of gender it's not a law that says you have to use these pronouns
all the law did was add trans people to a to a list in a law that already protected other minorities in canada
he either lied or was too stupid to understand what the law was and ran with it, probably too stupid given everything else he says
he's a normal conservative and is exactly in line with other conservatives he has not put forward anything that isn't already part of every conservatives book, he's not swimming against any tide, this is just marketing nonsense
he also does not take criticism very well, using threats of violence against critics and just these last few days crying because being called a climate change denier sounds too much like holocaust denier, boys a typical snowflake
Last edited:
What an interesting choice of right-wing drivel Mr. Liberal.
Silva explained why Peterson was a dummy in regards to that law, but let's pretend that the law did in fact force you to use people's preferred pronouns under threat of prosecution. If you choose to address a trans-woman you run into on a daily basis as a man, how do you think that affects them? Does your right to freedom of speech (honestly, I don't think pronouns have anything to do with freedom of speech, but whatever) trump their rights? Why should they have to acquiesce bigots, while bigots are free to be shitty to them? If you consciously and consistently misgender trans people, you are discriminating against them, and there should definitely be laws in place to deal with that.
people who want to misgender others on purpose don't like being called cnuts, it's PC gone mad stu
I think you’re confusing it with health and safety
Where's the part that isn't true?
Are you? What if you just don't buy the idea that someone can decide their gender? It isn't an objective truth, in fact it's a massive grey area and a point of huge controversy. Can you really make laws based on that? Not saying I'm one of them, but there are people who genuinely do not agree that just because you feel like a woman you can become one. So why would they address them as one, and basically in their eyes go against biology and what they believe in?
Which part is true?
A lot people don't believe trans people. A lot people also don't buy the idea that races are equal. Or that sodomy should be allowed. Or that women should be allowed to vote. Or that Jews should be allowed to live. These people should have no place in a decent society.
I'd say all the part you bolded is true, and far from being "right wing drivel" I'd say it's a pretty widely held mainstream belief. I'd say it's why most people find SJW types ridiculous and think they are best ignored.
it is a commonly held belief, it's also a right wing talking point, like "everyone should have healthcare" is a left wing talking point, sure everyone believes it, but you should know it's implications and how people mean it differently
It's not a 'liberal movement'. Right wingers talk shite and make poor arguments - people call them out on it and eventually ignore them/tell them to shut up. That's not a movement.
Stay off Youtube for a bit and you'll see these SJWs are pretty fecking few and far between. That's why it's right-wing drivel - it's grossly exaggerated.
I don't think they're the same tbh. If I had to guess, I'd say it would still be the dominant viewpoint for a large amount of the population rather than a minority, and one grounded in biology and fact unlike any of the ones you posted which centre more around warped personal opinions. That doesn't mean just because they're the majority that they're right, or that opinions can't change over time however, but I think to dismiss it as a legitimate viewpoint and one without reason other than "they're a transphobic bigot" is a bit harsh.
it's not grounded in biology or fact, even if you're an arsehole who thinks there is only sex and gender is made up over 100 million intersex people on the planet don't fit into the male/female sex category
transgender people have been vindicated by the last 3 decades of research in psychology and biology, it's also amazing that you're appealing to majority opinions when arguing that people shouldn't be shut down, i hope you understand the irony there
and yes, anyone who purposefully misgenders someone they know to be a trans man or trans woman is a transphobic dipshit, there are no other qualifiers there, if you know someone is trans and go out of your way to deny them that you're a transphobe and a cnut
Last edited:
Everyone talks shite and makes poor arguments, on both sides. And the divide is getting bigger between the two because no-one will listen to anyone else, because of the part you bolded initially.
It's only few and far between because they're still the minority. Most people know their opinions are silly, and the media play on this by amplifying them in an effort to get clicks from the right. And vice versa, rinse and repeat.
So it's not a liberal movement. Glad we cleared that up.
It's grounded in a lot more science than being a racist, or a sexist, or an anti-Semite etc. I don't agree with it, but I can understand why someone would have an issue with being asked to as they see it, pretend to ignore science. It's like the abortion argument. I'm pro-choice, but I get why the pro-lifers are so angry. If you genuinely believe babies are being murdered, you'd try and do something about it. If that's genuinely your viewpoint, I get why they wouldn't be fine just ignoring biology.
There's twats on both sides. It's definitely more a trait of the left though to shout down those who disagree with them.
Yes? It's pretty much accepted by the wider scientific community that some people are born "in the wrong body" so to speak, and most experts in the field agree that it's not a mental illness. It's widely accepted that the best treatment is transitioning. The controversy, as far as I can see, doesn't stem from actual experts, but lay persons and self-proclaimed experts on the topic (like that pediatrician that some decided to treat as an authority because she had a doctorate and railed against trans people).
But in any case, when you have laws in place that allows people to transition and legally change their gender, it stands to reason that you should afford them the same protections as everyone else.
it's grounded on the same reactionary politics that other discrimination is based on, nil science, there's a reason why the same people who promote jordan petersons transphobia also promote charles murrays racism about black people being stupid
All I'm saying is I get why some people would not want to be compelled to abide by laws which force this on them if it contrasts their own beliefs. If you're not a dick, you'd do it anyway out of politeness, and these things usually change over time anyway. And if you are a dick, and you refuse to call a trans woman a she, then just don't talk to that person. Do what you usually do when you're offended by something, just ignore the twat and move on.
It's based in at least some biology though, which is why I have a problem labelling every one of them a bigot. No doubt many of them are, but many will be looking at the scientific facts and reaching their judgement. This is why I said it is still a subjective issue and shouldn't have laws made about it, we're still a huge way away from a consensus.
if they insist on misgendering someone who they know for a fact is either transitioning or has transitioned they are a bigot and a cnut
at that point it's not analogous to a debate, i.e pro choice but more analogous to the people who stand outside abortion clinics shouting at women who walk in
The fecking state of this.
Did you ever hear about Fox News? Sinclair Broadcasting Groups? The Koch Brothers?
But yes, 'shouting down those who disagree' is a lefty trait. If you draw that conclusion from participating in Redcafe debates, I'd suggest signing up on Stormfront, 4chan and r/The_Donald and see how you like it over there.
That's the issue though, isn't it. What matters more, the trans persons feelings or that persons own personal beliefs? Say it's someone's personal belief that the number 5 comes between 4 and 6. But if someone was to say that fact hurts their feelings and so they should ignore everything they know about numbers, should they do so? Where do feelings become more important than facts? It's an interesting question.
there's literally an ongoing scandal in the UK about the police disproportionately targeting leftist activist groups and using the tactic of getting female activists pregnant before abandoning them
Ah yes, calling someone who disagrees with you a Nazi. Thank you for proving my point.
no one said the bigot isn't allowed to be a bigot, but you're going to be a bigot i'm going to call you a cnut and if you don't like it shut the feck up snowflake
That's your right, I just don't think it's justified in all cases
Boo hoo we have a snowflake here.
in jordan petersons case it's very justified, he's a misogynist, transphobic, racist cnut who can't handle criticism because he's a giant fecking baby
Finished?
I believe Peterson misinterpreted the Canada trans bill (not sure it's name) by claiming that if you were to make a mistake and call someone who is trans by the wrong pronoun (she, zhe, him etc) then you get fined or prosecuted. That is not the case, thus criticism of Peterson for not understanding the law he criticized is justifiable.