Free Speech: SJWs, Bill C-16, and Prof. Peterson

Post Reply New Topic

While this may primarily be a Canadian issue, many supporters of Professor Peterson in the U.S. and other nations are supporting him for being one of the few educated professionals willing to risk his career to stand up to what they see as a rise of SJW culture and things such as censorship, free speech control, and other forms of growing oppression by the radical left. Right now in Canada, a new law known as Bill C-16 is being debated to be included into Canadian law.

Background Information:

Bill C-16 is:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to ... minal_Code

At this current time, the primary detractor of sorts of the opposition to the bill is Prof. Jordan Peterson.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

Peterson has already debated on matters such as gender identity, gender roles, biological sex, etc. before, such as this video from last year:



Recently he gained a lot of attention over the internet for this particular video that was recorded at University of Toronto:



In the video, a group of stereotypical 'SJWs' approach him and use a variety of hyperbole, strawmen, ad hominen and other logical fallacies to construct poor yet aggressively pushed arguments which Peterson tries to rationally and calmly respond to, before his patience is tested.

Earlier that day, he presented this public speech:



As you can see, several of the people who approached and argued with him later were rudely interrupting his speech using white noise from a loud speaker system, ironically trying to silence a speech on free speech.

Since these videos, along with the views expressed in some of his many youtube videos and lectures on the matter, he has since received at least 2 cease and desist letters from the UofT who claim he has made offensive and discriminatory comments against other students.

Some of these videos here provide an investigation into the matter and show some of the very students who argued with Peterson with outlandish claims such as the presence of 'Neo Nazi's' and 'White Supremacists' who are 'violent', were showing dishonesty, exaggerating, or were even in attendance at Peterson's speeches themselves. A friend of one of the 'SJWs' is shown in the second video even starting a fight themselves, with their 2 friends later claiming their friend was assaulted. It's likely they're the ones who reported him for discrimination:





The new university policies of here and multiple other Canadian organizations and services nation-wide has begun new rules and regulations that are more align with Bill C-16, according to Peterson.

While some professionalism and regulation over free speech is necessary in institutions such as academia, etc. Peterson objects to just how far it is going and has said the new University policies go against his personal values.

He sees Bill C-16 and its consequences on himself and Canada as a whole as the very beginning of the radical left beginning to censor and control society.

He claims he is being penalized because he refuses to refer to a student with 'They/Them/Xe/Xer/etc.' pronouns, so he is being punished not for what he says, but instead what he chooses not to say.

After receiving the letters, he met with the Dean and asked if a special forum/debate could be arranged with professionals which was to be live-cast on Youtube today, and assumably posted as a regular video on his channel soon afterwards.

All of this information can be found in his most recent Youtube videos.

Discussion?

Protecting gender identity and expression is actually in line with protecting free speech. I don't see why Bill C16 would threaten free speech.

Do you include enforcement of pronoun usage in "protecting gender identity"?

My chief concern with "hate crime" laws is that they're frequently applied without consideration of mens rea. Besides, the motive behind an action has little bearing on the result beyond informing it.

Laws regarding pronoun usage would be part of a nanny state and difficult to enforce without becoming big brother. While it's polite to call someone what they wish to be called, disregarding this considerate behavior is not criminal.

I think this is merely non-discrimination, which seems fine. There may need to be some concern for how to balance needs and issues, but... not discriminating generally seems alright. Most applications of non-discriminating should be non-controversial. Regardless of how out of the norm certain people are, we should actively try to integrate them into our society and make it easier for them to find places where they can contribute and be productive members of society.

Non-discrimination which is already technically codified. There might need to be a precedent set legally in order for it to be set in stone, but most civil rights laws include "discrimination by sex". The US Supreme Court already ruled that this means, for example, that one cannot discriminate against a woman for not acting feminine enough - which would extend to transgender people who are not "acting the right gender".



The danger in this instance is that there is, as yet, no established definitive test to determine if someone is transgender (would be brilliant if there was, it'd put the whole subject to bed). Would it technically be considered a "hate crime" to take part in research into environmental causes under the bill?

What Peterson is objecting to, and where I find myself agreeing with him, is the rules that are being applied at his university regarding "correct" pronouns. I'm struggling to find justification for demanding the use of pronouns other than the extant ones according to whatever transgender people identify as, i.e. "he" and "she", let alone enforcing them with the support of legislation. His fear that force could be used to control speech is entirely justifiable.

How else do you call out bad behavior?

I find it sickening the way, when people of color are finally starting to organize to challenge the system and overcome things like the school-to-prison pipeline and mass incarceration which have disproportionately affected people of color, that now white people are being presented as the true victims of all this when the system really works to their benefit.

It almost sounds like you're saying people of color shouldn't organize and fight for their rights and equality, because that "hurts" white people.

The bill seems very sensible from the way it is described in the OP. While I can see some possible objections, these would be common to all hate-crime laws or protected group laws. There seems no reason to particularly worry about protection of gender expression leading to the end of free speech but not racial or sexual protection.

The people in the videos confronting this professor are being unreasonable and unfair. I would like to know his specific objections to this bill. If it's that he fears being forced to use certain pronouns, are there actually any provisions in the bill which would support this?

I watched a few minutes and couldn't take anymore. He seems like a thin-skinned bully type who thinks he can be a prick just because he thinks he is on the winning side of an argument. The "SJW's" are not looking so great either here, but I suspect maturity to increase with age and they are younger than him.

Personally, I think I already interjected some evidence of what my views on the matter are while trying to remain as neutral as possible, but what I say below will make my own opinions clear as day.

It's a little jarring for me though that it appears some are abusing it in that any simple declaration of "I'm not interested in referring to you as 'They/Them/Xe/Xer/Xim' pronouns because it conflicts with my personal beliefs" could be considered a grounds of discrimination and be used to take legal action against.

I do think the students are being unfair to have reported him aleady if all he has done so far is the behavior he's displayed.

But then, we don't know the full story and for all we know he could be refusing to use alternative pronouns on a daily basis.

Also, it appears when someone is reported for mis-conduct, there is very little inquiry into the matter as Peterson was surprised at both of the cease and desist letters and his career has been risked because of a few naysayers.

Perhaps in a lot of institutional situations, namely the one's in Canada, this might be considered normal.

It's his responsibility to know the universities policies by now and to follow them.

Which is a part of a bigger problem - that any report by a student against a teacher, the students word is always valued over the educators.

I wonder if this should be the case?



I disagree on the thin-skinned thing.

It appears he took a lot of personal attacks and still attempted to maintain composure.

Implying his views are align with Neo-Nazism, of being a racist ("not accommodating to people of color"), his lectures all being a waste of time ("Do you really think you're worth that much?"), implying he's an advocate of violence because he 'allowed' it at his protest, and denoting him as 'the enemy' because he doesn't use the camera person's pronouns in a matter of a few minutes is a lot to take in, especially without giving him much breathing room to speak-up about his own opinions.

As someone who can usually take a lot I'd be quite angry at that point.

For their sake, I do hope the SJW's maturity increases.



Indeed.

Another thing to me is that this does appear ideologically based.

Most institutions are tailored so that teachers and professionals present information neutrally without any major influence of their own personal views.

Academia rarely conflicts with an individual teachers own personal beliefs and values.

Academia policies are within reason and allow a teacher to teach no matter race, sexuality, political views, etc. so long as they keep that stuff out of academia and so long as they are qualified for the job.

I could very well be a far-right Neo-Nazi but still teach as long as I never let it influence my work.

To an extant, teachers must conform to fit the policies in place.

A teacher that supports nudism must wear clothes to work, a teacher must fit the dress code but perhaps in special cases such as religion, some negotiation may be allowed. A teacher must put aside whatever views they have to treat students equally and by achievement and not by race, gender, etc.

But where is the line drawn?

Biological sex is reasonable to me. 'They/Them' is within reason but pushing things. Anything beyond that is too far.

In the past few years I have not only seen many new gender identities emerge, but pronouns as well. Some are based on archaic pronouns inspired by Latin, Native American languages, Greek, etc. This over-complicates things and does put far too much control on free-speech, especially if one can be now legally penalized because I didnt refer to that AndroFeeFiFoFum gendered person as 'Ze/Zer'.

Or would you support the opposite, that to some reasonable extent teachers should be allowed to interject political views, religious views, etc. more into academia without legal repercussions?

Anyway, here is the public debate forum Peterson took part in:

I think everyone involves needs to be reasonable, and for the most part I think SJWs are amongst the most reasonable people out there. They understand that pronouns are difficult and just want people to try their best. Obviously there will always be exceptions, but for example, this is a widely-shared "how to talk to trans people" graphic which downplays the importance of accidental misgendering.

Formatted so people can see the image:



I find that comic quite the contrary.

Lots of trying to control the other person's behavior and ad hominem insults.

Note: When I say 'you' below I am referring to the writer of the comic.

Here's my response to each point:

"You are not the one being asked to evaluate this person's gender identity of preferred teminology"

To an extent, when you ask someone to refer to you as a certain pronoun, it is inevitable they have their own thoughts on the matter, because it is the other person's choice whether or not they choose to wish to refer to you as those pronouns because they may hold different views than you, namely that they do not believe in alternative genders aside from male and female (including transmen and transwomen).

"(Also, I have not witnessed a version of this where the other person's argument is actually correct)"

Fair enough. But that's just the writer's experiences.

"We know you will. Everyone does at first."

No, for many they always accidentally use the wrong pronoun at least sometimes due to a lifetime of cultural conditioning to only believe in and consider two genders based on biological sex. So please don't get frustrated if you begin to grow impatient with your friend because they can't undo 18-60 years of cultural conditioning just to refer to you, a single non-binary person in their otherwise binary gendered social life, as your correct pronoun.

"But it's boring to be reminded upfront about how difficult and inconvenient genders are to you"

For all I know, you're the first person who's told me of your alternative gender identity.

It's a fair enough point to raise, even if it's 'boring'.

And for all we know, you very well could be one of the tiny minority of alternative gendered individuals who take great offense to accidentally being referred to as the wrong pronoun once or twice.

"So I can decide immediately not to waste my time with an ignorant a55høle like you"

Ad Hominen. A person is not an 'ignorant a55høle' because they disagree with LGBT or Genderqueerness.

Not going to be friends with someone simply because they disagree with you politically/religiously/etc.? Personally insulting them?

Good riddance, then. You're not worth befriending, either, with that attitude.

It's entirely possible to disagree with a friend's views yet still respect them as a person.

But I guess there's nothing wrong if you don't like the idea of being an exception (e.g. your friend is homophobic but otherwise accepts you and only you if you're gay because they're your best friend).

That's fair enough, insulting them or mentally making them out as an enemy/antagonizer of sorts in your head isn't.

Personally I would refer to someone as whatever pronoun they wish if they're a good friend of mine, but only due to the fact they're an exception for me. That's just my stance on the matter and it can't be changed.

It is difficult enough for people to be flexible in their already set beliefs.

I wouldn't think it'd be asking too much if I had a homophobic friend who only respected me (I'm Bisexual) but very few other LGBT people, but that's just my opinion.

The rest of the comic?

Fair enough.

I'm all for trans rights and respecting the proper pronouns, but when it comes to made up words like "xe" and stuff like that, there is where I draw the line.

I will call you they or them if you so desire, but I'm not going to use made up words. It's either a masculine, a feminine or a neutral pronoun, nothing more.

Here's another fantastic interview with Jordan Peterson:

http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-t ... -peterson/

This guy is a national hero -- Canadians should be very proud. Canada is a lot father down the road of totalitarian Leftism that the US, so he is desperately needed there.

"I was also quite profoundly influenced by [Alexsandr] Solzhenitsyn’s book The Gulag Archipelago. People say that real Marxism has never been tried – not in the Soviet Union, in China, in Cambodia, in Korea, that wasn’t real Marxism. I find that argument specious, appalling, ignorant, and maybe also malevolent all at the same time. Specious because Solzhenitsyn demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the horrors [of the Soviet system] were a logical consequence of the doctrines embedded within Marxist thinking. I think Dostoyevsky saw what was coming and Nietzsche wrote about it extensively in the 1880s, laying out the propositions that are encapsulated in Marxist doctrine, and warning that millions of people would die in the 20th century because of it."

It doesn't really threaten free speech, this is just people crying because they prefer to openly discriminate against certain groups of people consequence free.

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechcons ... he-suburbs

I feel the need to note that the guy mentions trying to make fake news designed for liberal consumption, but they never took the bait--before long someone would research the source and discover it was fake and attention in the fake article would fizzle out, it wouldn't catch on and be perpetuated like fake news was by the alt-right crowd. I know confirmation bias is something we are all vulnerable too, but I think this shows that some people are more prone to confirmation bias than others, that some people actually habitually question the source of information coming at them even if that information confirms their previously held beliefs and others are not so committed to the truth.