jordan peterson

It's for the ladies' eyes only 

He could definitely turn out to be an insurgent sociopath with nefarious plans. You know he has an underage asian gimp in his basement that he only feeds the most expensive cat food (because he's gotten nicer in his old age). Don't succumb to his charms. Knives out. If he invites you back to his mansion for tea and a friendly, competitive academic debate, wear a wire and bring bear mace. Have your wits about you and for the love of god do not mention white privilege, he will be cooking your spleen with high end stainless steel cookware while Frasier plays in the background.  

  On 2/4/2018 at 1:03 AM, hello spiral said:

It's for the ladies' eyes only

 

you slag

Edited February 4, 2018 by cwmbrancity

  On 2/3/2018 at 8:17 PM, agaricus said:

might be worth watching.. still not all that familiar with the C-16 bill or canadian law. thinking about watching this later..

 

 

 

Why don't you read the bill? It's short: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/first-reading

The first reading highlights the amendments to be made.

 

Here's some of the thinking behind it from the politicians: https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/

 

That video - so Peterson spends the first 10 minutes he has not on topic, but instead blithers on about how free speech is under attack (especially in academia), at forum hosted by a university that is not only public, but is streamed live over the internet for anyone with internet access to watch.

 

Zaphod: agreed. Imma peace out and watch more of Comrade Detective.

  On 2/4/2018 at 12:22 AM, hello spiral said:

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Jordan Peterson. The insight is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of the degeneration of western civilization most of the jokes will go over a typical recipients head. There's also Jordan's chauvinistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterization - his personal PhIloSoPhY draws exclusively from psychology literature, Carl Jung for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these ramblings, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about CULTURAL MARXISM. As a consequence, people who dislike Jordan Peterson truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the self-help in Jordan's existential catchphrase "Clean Your Room!" which itself is a cryptic reference to Molyneux's epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those post-modern simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Peterson's genius unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Carl Jung tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only - And even they have to demonstrate that they're willing to have 5 children of my own and no professional ambition beforehand.

 

A++

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

 

    Quote

Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?

 

The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

 

As one human rights tribunal said: “Gender …may be the most significant factor in a person’s identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender.”^[1] The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainant’s self-identification as a trans woman.

 

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.

 

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 don’t know which pronoun is preferred.^[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

Edited February 4, 2018 by roasty

 

whoever came up with this thing is an absolute ignoramus

i think J Rock is spilling over into other threads somehow. 

Bring the dank JP memes to this thread

lol

  On 2/4/2018 at 8:42 AM, roasty said:

should have been "one hour later"

after all to a large extent it's really those frenchies' fault, if they had made an actual effort to write fucking straight and clear (i don't buy that counterargument that their ideas require overly complex language to be properly expressed), then a lot of alt-right clown superstars like peterson wouldn't have come into public existence to begin with. if people like chumpsky can't get through them, then teenage/20s youtube watchers have no chance and will simply snap to popularized and poor interpretations and misreadings instead.

 

perhaps a better way to approach this is through a more practical and empirical social constructionism, you get pretty much to the same point but avoid a lot of the convoluted and poorly written french stuff.

  On 2/4/2018 at 5:14 AM, roasty said:

 

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

 

    Quote

Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?

The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

As one human rights tribunal said: “Gender …may be the most significant factor in a person’s identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender.”^[1] The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainant’s self-identification as a trans woman.

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.

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 don’t know which pronoun is preferred.^[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

So like any other minority, they are getting some long overdue protection in areas of employment or services provided.

 

Here’s a good explanation of why Sniveling Peterson (I can call him whatever I want, it’s my right!!1!1!) is wrong about “criminalizing pronoun misus”).

 

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

  On 2/4/2018 at 11:10 AM, eugene said:

after all to a large extent it's really those frenchies' fault, if they had made an actual effort to write fucking straight and clear (i don't buy that counterargument that their ideas require overly complex language to be properly expressed), then a lot of alt-right clown superstars like peterson wouldn't have come into public existence to begin with. if people like chumpsky can't get through them, then teenage/20s youtube watchers have no chance and will simply snap to popularized and poor interpretations and misreadings instead.

 

perhaps a better way to approach this is through a more practical and empirical social constructionism, you get pretty much to the same point but avoid a lot of the convoluted and poorly written french stuff.

Meh, the original fellas like Foucault and Derrida aren’t that difficult to decipher. Some of the later postmodernist stuff is truly awful though.

    Quote

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

 

This part is perhaps a little vague. Using language we can all agree on, like he/she, seems tenable. What's not reasonable is compelling people to use made-up language like zie zim zir zis zieself sie sie hir hirs hirself ey em eir eirs eirself ve ver vis vers verself tey ter tem ters terself e em eir eirs emself for gender-neutral pronouns

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by roasty

if youre past your mid 20s and need a college professor to come and change your life around via self help books and lectures on youtube youre too far gone. Best to just accept your fate

Most people are trapped by the intellectualism and by mere objects and definitions of the mind. Post modernism is just another weak shit cultural trend that does not conduce to further evolution. The things that really matters are work, sacrifice, good diet, unselfishness, good habits,  responsability, effort and the development of useful will and selfobservation. Most things outside those ones are unpractical philosophy, egoic mental presuntuosity, imaginaon, cheap art, etc.. most of them temporary wastes of energy that conclude in nothing trascendental. Stop reading modern posers like this guy, Camus, Foucault or Nietzche, which tend to be just selfish individualists that think too much and do too litlle, mostly dominated by his thoughs. Read more ancient and pristine philoshophic books. Read Vivekananda

  On 2/4/2018 at 2:48 PM, roasty said:

 

    Quote

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

This part is perhaps a little vague. Using language we can all agree on, like he/she, seems tenable. What's not reasonable is compelling people to use made-up language like zie zim zir zis zieself sie sie hir hirs hirself ey em eir eirs eirself ve ver vis vers verself tey ter tem ters terself e em eir eirs emself for gender-neutral pronouns

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Again, it’s all in the context of discrimination in employment or publicly provided services. It’s like any other minority. Part of the gender identity is the pronoun (as I understand it). In your personal life (as a Canadian, we don’t set the laws for the world yet) you are not compelled to call them anything. Nor will you suffer criminal charges unless it’s under very certain circumstances (advocating genocide for example).

It’s truly much ado about nothing from good ol’ J “ballz o’ bling” Peterson

 

Edit: sorry, I keep using minority (as they are generally the targets of discrimination). That is of course, inaccurate - these provisions apply to all equally. Thus Jizzle Pederbun cannot be discriminated against in his employment for being a Christian White Male (the hugely persecuted class that they are).

It's true as a non-Canadian I don't really have a dog in this fight, just enjoying the memes for most part

 

  On 2/4/2018 at 5:25 PM, roasty said:

It's true as a non-Canadian I don't really have a dog in this fight, just enjoying the memes for most part

 

 

 

flol

the Catholic version is much more rapey

I just peeped his twitter and it's repugnant. it's mostly 1. self-promotion, 2. thin-skinned polemical responses to criticism, or 3. stoking cultural and political division. I've written him off.

 

he really shouldn't have made the decision to go from a professor and therapist actually helping and educating people (for which there is at least some non-partisan rigor to go by) to trying to rake in the bucks and fame as a "public thinker" (where naked partisanship and personal bias is all that matters). makes you wonder how many other secretly toxic people there are in educator/mentor positions out there.

Imagine your dad went through a mid-life crisis, and read a copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. And then at the dinner table he's bangning on about how he defines his life through struggle because his mortgage rates are going up.

 

That's the Jordan Peterson experience.

Edited February 5, 2018 by WeAreOceans

  On 2/5/2018 at 2:21 AM, WeAreOceans said:

Imagine your dad went through a mid-life crisis, and read a copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. And then at the dinner table he's bangning on about how he defines his life through struggle because his mortgage rates are going up.

 

That's the Jordan Peterson experience.