pavonis - Lol that does sound like some south park shit. Although the most frequent episodes seem to play into the recent liberal propaganda it's hard to pinpoint so I'm open minded and aware that there has been a lot of ebb and flow over the years. I can withhold any hard feelings based on the fact that you can't judge a show of this ongoing magnitude based on such a short window and the level of under meaning they sometimes fall upon. I just hope they haven't been pressured to "cave" in light of the overbearing weight of going against the grain.
I believe all of this is actually a huge, elaborate hoax that Parker and Stone have constructed and they'll reveal it in a few years. I think every SJW interviewed ever is a plant by the hoaxers.
That is basically it. If "they" weren't reading, "they" wouldn't know what to say. He listened and responded. They just lectured. They didn't listen to a word he said. That was not a debate.
The fact that this is a debate, it's terrifying! Im Cuban, and have some knowledge of this type of talk, preaching EQUALITY while trying to crush and completely ignore the opposing structure. Its chaos in the making. My hat goes off to Mr. Peterson.
Sadly in Canada, most people don't even want to know what it's really like in Cuba. It is just a relatively cheap tropical vacation, so it's best not to know and spend your 2 weeks on the beach feeling guilty. Our current Prime Minister sure was a fan of Castro based upon his comments following Fidel's death. I find it all both embarrassing and dangerous.
@@CarlosGarcia-cp2lc it's not finger pointing, it's a sad observation that the once progressive western society is going in the direction of a failed state like Cuba. Pointing out an obvious fact is not an attack of any people. Don't be so psychotically fragile minded.
21:00 That lesbian is not actually putting forth any arguments against what Dr. Peterson is saying; she is merely smearing him and comparing him to "bad people." That's not an argument.
Adis Jamak is there any other heroes in modern society of ours? Fame, actions and politics expire and will be forgotten, but the knowledge of humanity and inner works of human mind is forever and a gateway to TRUE enlightment (mainly acceptance of EVERYone, accepting own and humanitys flaws and weaknesses, accepting and giving critcism even from the opposing side, and many others)
pretty sure ayn meant the right to be an individual, which is denied in totalitarian regimes. not the right of the individual to make outrages demands based on individual preference.
Rick Lane thank you for sharing that comment and, thus demonstrating that sarcastic comments are an ineffective form of argument. We haven’t dismissed the contributions of Galileo to science because some of his work has been proven wrong or imperfect. Neither should we dismiss the philosophical work of Ayn Rand due to the imperfections and over-dramatization of some of her work. Over the last 100 years, we have seen all the evidence we need to see that the core of her philosophy and beliefs are solid. It’s sad to think of all the lives that have been lost, and continue to be sacrificed to Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism and Communism.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." ~Friedrich Nietzsche
Absolutely...when a baby comes out of the womb you see a girl or a boy...THAT'S IT!!! It's only when you get exposed to cancerous ideals that people think there is anything else.
He explicitly states that they're not mutually exclusive. But at some point you have to make a determination. That's how science works. 98% is a pretty high correlation.
Sonya Trejo it's not simply bimodal, it's binary, with a few aberrations. There are not two modes of distribution, rather two values into which over 98% of all data points fall. He didn't articulate perfectly, but his point is still as valid.
You can have a bi-modal distribution over a spectrum. He's absurd for making these mutually exclusive. You have evidence of this when concerned with sex or are you just talking out of your ass to sell your bullshit?
Read the other comments. He clearly stated they are not statistically mutually exclusive. His point was that the distribution is almost completely binary, not spread out over s large spectrum with an array of equally valid and commonly observed values, and he's right. He's a psychometrician, he's forgotten more about statistical analysis than you'll ever know.
I can't deny I stereotyped her based on her appearance. She did nothing to deviate from that stereotype at all. Using "science" on subjective ideas, subjectively. (Apparently "Science" must denounce stuff. She said so several times)
Cody Evans Isn't it amazing how their lifestyle determines their hairstyle? LOL. Does she go to First Choice Haircutters and ask for the Lesbo Special?
She's the kid on the playground who wants to join your game just to shit on your rules and destroy your sandcastle. And when you kick her out again she'll run to mommy and cry until the adults tell you you have to let her play with you. Self centered, spoiled and filled with resentment.
I don't see it as a waste of potential at all. These people must be found out and (verbally) eviscerated in a public forum so that thinking people can see them for what they are. Jordan is trying to save all of us from a tyrannical, socialist regime-in-the-making, so I'm damn glad we have someone like him with the balls and brains to stand up to the PC mafia.
Second woman bashes Peterson for not including peer reviewed scientific studies in his talks... Goes on to virtue signal and not provide actual scientific evidence beyond saying it exists. She is quite lucky he didn't include scientific findings/consensuses on gender in his argument. She would look quite foolish.
Her "peer reviewed" studies were all done in the social sciences/Gender Studies, which has been shown that the peer review process might as well not exist compared to STEM sciences. She knows that the studies she referred to would be easily refuted. It's a typical Leftist tactic to present their flawed studies as "facts" sans evidence to give them the semblance of legitimacy.
A witch hunt except it was the witches who were doing the hunting. Peterson was great. It took 3 of the witches and even then they could not bring him down. His intellect surpassed all three of them!
Abdulrahman Alhomayany | You do realize that couldn't is a contraction of could not and that contractions aren't obrigatory in the English grammar, right?
He edited it to say 'could not' it used to say 'could', check the comment's date. Also it's 'obligatory,' and l is nowhere near r so it's either you don't know how to spell it or you use a Dvorak keyboard, correct?
1- Forgive me for not noticing that his comment was edited. 2- My keyboard is of the usual model, I just had a brain fart. It happens when English is one's second language, and I also don't have that tight of a grasp on adverbs yet. Again, my apologies.
These are the first comments I've ever read on youtube that actually give me hope. I was afraid I was the only one wondering if it could even be put into words how terrifying those women's opinions of what should or should not be legal truly are.
Women fight with words, not force, so to them mean words are the same as getting punched in the face and should thus be banned and stopped by any means.
I can't even understand what the short haired lady is saying because she's trying to cushion every sentence with as much complex terminology as possible to make her arguments seem more credible. All I got out of her ramblings were even doubting her stance and voicing your dissagrerments should be considered hate speech.
I just paused the video to see if anyone else was thinking that. That's one of the things i really appreciate about Peterson. He can take big ideas and scale them down to a claim that a 5th grader could understand. Or he can take a children's book message and turn it into a discussion for a college class.
Lucas Elliott I wrote down something she said as a response to the Scandinavian real world experiment of flattening the gender socioeconomic curve that Peterson mentioned: we cannot say that the real-world case of Scandinavia is legitimate because "...we weren't able to do studies that manipulate the chromosomal and hormonal environment." See I don't usually stop and write shit down from RU-vid videos, but I had to write this down to make sure I heard this right. What this extreme PC propagandist literally wants (or their endgame) is to be able to genetically modify chromosomes and hormones that make men men and women women. First of all, I thought there was no "biological differences" in sex and gender? So why would that be necessary or relevant? Second of all, this is an argument that is akin to mental gymnastics of a three year old throwing a tantrum and excuses after losing a game of basketball to his friend Jimmy. "I lost because basketball is a sport that is rigged to make it easier for people named Jimmy. Until Jimmy changes to Timmy this is not fair and I'm still the best!"
(a) She (it?) is _not_ a lady. I don't know what she is, but "lady" is not it. (b) I couldn't manage to listen to more than a few sentences of her extended whine, as her unbelievably irritating voice (nails on a blackboard? chainsaws?) made listening too painful to bear.
Peterson gives a logical train of thought (agree or disagree with him) ... The Dr. at the right most podium then follows with talking points and a convoluted, insufferable strings of statements that basically can be summed up as "I'm right and this guy is just mean" Rarely did she offer an actual argument for anything.
Peterson has amazing, well thought out, coherent arguments articulated in plain, easy to understand speech. He also comes across as humble. It cannot be said for the lady with short hair.
What amazes me is that with the exception of Dr. Jordan Peterson none of the other people involved attempted to backup their claims with anything remotely considered fact based evidence
No it's all emotional based they don't have any factual based in it which is why a lot of people who associate themselves with these groups don't want to debate this topic because they just don't have the information and formation and the level of intellect To articulate or explain their beliefs because it's all opinionated it's not factual that's why their whole basis is based off of what you decide to call yourself depends on what you want not on what you are so there's no foundation in it because it's all up in the air there's no solidification in the concept
Dr. Peterson, I studied social constructivism at an ivy league university and even based much of a controversial thesis on the work of David Noble. That said, even with that undergrad background from the 90s and many years practicing law in a "progressive" fashion I suppose, I find your expressed views to be the most cogent, honest, and useful expressions. I will add that I find your views epistemologically useful for thinkers of any political stripe. Just because you have the courage to speak plainly does not mean you manufacture ignorance or hate speech--quite the contrary. I find you, a Canadian, to be expressing US values much better than many, most, or all speakers in my nation. Thank you.
So why is it when you hear someone say, "I self-identify as an attack helicopter", people automatically say they are mocking those that self-identify as something other than their birth gender. Yet instead of being accepting that this person is an attack helicopter they are denied their self-identity because others don't accept them at face value. This is a contradiction in view and attitude. If we are to accept some pronouns, we need to accept all of them. If you don't accept some but others, then there is no reason I should accept those you choose are valid.
You Must Conform! - Leftist dogma. The Left always violates their own beliefs, when it suits their goals. They are the superlative hypocrites, who gleefully proclaim they are for people's rights, while demanding that people's rights be violated... Without double standards the Left would have no standards at all.
i like how bryson and the other professor are speaking in very mechanical rehersed tones. peterson is speaking from a place of complex intellect, because hes not speaking like a robot. hes speaking like a person who has dedicated hundreds if not thousands of hours breaking down and analyzing his own personal convictions and thoughts. the others have essays memorized geez loooeezz
Rehearsed, exactly, that's why I'll never listen to a human being reading from a script. They didn't even take the time and effort to memorize it, and that's the only thing I need to point out in what you said.
33:58 - 34:26 Didn't she basically make an argument, presumably unintentional, that all social sciences are bullshit and can't reach valid conclusions because they are part of complex systems? Basically that what is being tested for can't be tested for independent of any other changes in society? Because it sounds to me like she is saying no valid conclusions can ever be drawn for complex systems that can't be completely controlled. Edit: Also, even if that is a little beyond what she is arguing, just taking her conclusion that you can't do scientific study on gender/sex I'm pretty sure that undermines her own position because then she can't have a valid scientific position on gender/sex relations if she threw the entire field under the bus.
It might be me, but I didn't hear a single word of scientific argument in her (standing at a podium) speech. It was pure babble from start to finish. The "prefer to discuss with someone knowledgeable about the law" woman fails to grasp the entire point of the law, which is to give effect, in this case, to a policy. The law is not the end in itself.
Nullpointer Imagine how sad it must be to actually be THAT idiot? And somehow, someone that idiotic has managed to go through life. I truly don’t get it. That women is actually A LAWYER!? And the bob haircut lori. as well!? Are there any cereal brands in Canada that come with a surprise law degree inside? I don’t grasp it at all!
The best part of that quote is that she assumes that people give a shit that people are professors. I don’t care about titles just about the arguments that are made.
Jose Manuel Mon Castillo the point nullpointer is making is that just because you have a degree doesn’t mean your arguments are valid. Which was clearly proving in this debate
None of them cared either. They just read their written speeches, collected a check, and then went back to their social bubbles where they mocked Jordan for "not understanding".
No, my dream is to wipe stupidity from the earth. That's why I got into teaching. It's working pretty well. For my students anyway. I can't speak for others.
Bela Tarr Only real subjects can be taught though. Womens studies is propagandised at best. and left wing politics is not too carefully scrutinised either. But sure, attack everyone around you with slurs and invective, it makes your arguments so compelling. or familiar.
Bela Tarr It is a challenge to have to type all those extra characters that comprise my chosen pronoun, er, I mean name. but it makes everything a bit clearer. especially if you are throwing insults around. I believe you can be prosecuted for hate speech these days, be careful, you may upset a "special group". It is probably enough for them to feel you meant them, then bang goes your job, and your complacency.
The whole Marxist establishment is up against doc p and it still isn't fair because they cannot defeat him. He's coming from a place of love and truth. They are coming from a place of fear and hate.
My god this debate did not age well 2016: it won't be illegal to misgender someone. 2017: it's probably illegal to show a video from a year ago where a guy asks wether or not it's illegal to refer to a man as "he".
She keeps bringing it back around to common decency and respect. I've had friends and acquaintances from all walks of life. If I had a friend, someone I was close to or respected who wished to be referred to outside of the gender binary, i'd of course oblige. The issue is requiring by law for people to use words that aren't their own, infringing heavily on free speech. Just the principle of it, not so that we may continue carrying on with hate speech. Plus methods such as this so early on before awareness of these things can be spread will only worsen the opposition people of this spectrum may face.
much of the good bits were left out IMO. My favorite part was when Jordan called out the professor who was busily eluding to her authority as the head of an organization and the weight of the scientific consensus behind her opinion lended to her argument by her frequently saying the words peer review and use of tribal rhetoric by challenging her to a second debate on the science surrounding the subject. How quickly the moderators stepped in to say that this was a debate about the law and not intended to comment on the science... after this woman implied jordan was "anti science" continually. Funny when you think about it in the context of the entire debate. The social context of the law is off topic of the debate- except when discussing conflation of his argument with the right to call his students racial slurs, and the science is off topic unless we are implying jordan is a science denier. If we listened to the undertones of their case they'd like to sneak past the listener... "jordan is a racist transphibobic science denier!". Feels good.
English is not my native language but usually I understand the most. Not in this case. Cryptic traces of a very new (i didn't wanna say hand made) science, enumerations of aggressive accusations, references to irrelevant events in the past, pathetic whine out of the victim's corner and in the end a cheap attempt to butter up the audience. Wow, very impressive. In the opposite corner a very reasonable man who takes up every question instead of babbling prefabricated bullshit. And I grasped every word he said. I hope for him and in the end for all mankind that we are gonna get through this mess. There are several minorities (some of them are not as "minor" as the one in this debate) that are successfully exploiting their (former?) victim role and drive the ball further into the opponent's half after every battle they won (this analogy is clearly european). The power or at least the impact of those minorities is growing to a - in my humble opinion - very dangerous threat. And no, I'm not from the right wing. I voted left or green since I was allowed to vote and this was 42 years ago.
Vasu Srivastava, you are right, I just wanted to make clear that there are people on the political left who don't go for shouting different opinions down. But this is just where I came from. Sadly the left and green in Europe shifted from militant advocats for social and enviromental subjects to a strange combination of political correctness and mainstream obedience to capitalism. This time I really wonder what to vote. Almost as difficult as Trump vs. Clinton or Devil against Beelzebub.
Mugoletti, probably time to change your vote don't you think? As you say these babbling, whining minorities are starting to pose a very dangerous threat!!! Let us not wake up too late.
@@elmango705 Ich wähle inzwischen AfD, und zwar exakt aus dem selben Grund, aus dem ich ab den 80ern die Grünen wählte. Sie stellen sich quer. Was die Impfung angeht: Anfangs war es Skepsis, inzwischen ist es trotz der Erkenntnisse über unterdrückte Nebenwirkungen und mangelnde Hauptwirkung nur noch der Widerwille dagegen, mir etwas aufzwingen zu lassen. Was das angeht, passen AfD und frühere Grüne hervorragend zusammen. Jaja.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C.S. Lewis
Thank you for editing this! Based on the comments below I hope nothing substantive was edited out from either side, but it makes for much easier viewing!
19:00 _"And let's be clear. We have a unique difficulty here today in subjecting these claims to scholarly scrutiny. What kind of claims can you have in amateurish videos?"_ What the fuck has the quality of the video production got to do with Jordan Peterson's argument; does the idiot think that valid arguments only come from dusty, leather bound books, or expensive documentaries with lots of CGI infographics? Jordan Peterson's opposition are driven by sentimentality and think that shaming language is the same as a structured argument.
TREATING SOMEONE WITH "KINDNESS AND RESPECT" SHOULDN'T BE LEGISLATED! YOUR IDEA OF KINDNESS AND YOUR IDEA OF RESPECT MIGHT NOT BE SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEAS OF KINDNESS AND RESPECT! SO, don't try to use GOVERNMENT FORCE to CONTROL IT!
So, when I hear the professor on the end, all I can think of is 'pseudo-profound bullshit': journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html Once you learned to spot pseudo-profound bullshit you'll never hear politicians, SJWs or some religious leaders the same again.
Hey Rick Lane. Just wanted to point out you actually didn't say anything substantively in your reply. Just attempts at character assassination. If you want people to be more considerate of your position, try to only reply with substance. When you attempt to provide a rebuttal with substance, you completely miss the nail, like with Jordan Peterson arguing that Sex, gender, expression, and sexual orientation do not vary independently and predominantly follows a bimodal distribution. You're rebuttal is: "But it is a spectrum." JBP being wrong on that very minute aspect does nothing to discredit his position. I'd be willing to have this debate with you. Just give me his position and how you disagree with it, whether it's Gardner's MI theory, IQ (Although, the controversy around IQ seems to be predicated on Gardner's MI theory, so that would most likely end up being the same discussion), the variations already mentioned, opposing C-16, identity being negotiated, or whatever it is you militantly oppose. I see a lot of hate thrown at JBP, like him being an alt-righter, so I'm honestly curious where all of this hate is coming from. He's said things I've disagreed with, but my reaction isn't that he's a hateful pseudo-intellectual bigot. He's just an intelligent person with his own forms of bias's.
It's hilarious the short haired lady tried to use dr. Peterson's words against him, which back fired on her. She is scary and represents the exact issue going on. What ever happened to survival of the fittest...you want respect, you want to be called a certain thing then you earn that right. At the end of the day it's simple...you don't get to tell people how to act, feel or the things they can say based on your personal views. Reality check: some people are uncomfortable with the whole gender fluid movement, not because of who you are or what you do personally, because it's being imposed into all of our lives. What I'm seeing is a bunch of whiny adult babies who may not be secure in their own right to handle views controversial to their own.
These Leftists don't believe in earning things, like respect... They FEEL Entitled to it, and demand others give it to them, because they claim to be "victims". Imagine being so privileged that you feel you can demand things from other, while claiming to be a victim. Victims don't demand. Privileged people think it's their right to demand things of others...
The Trans community has to get better representation than this. I don't agree with their demands, but these spokes...persons are rambling and incoherent.
SJW: Professor Peterson provides no evidence. Science supports me. Peterson: (cites science) SJW: You can't examine this in the realm of science. People's FEELINGS
33:57 prof Mary Bryson: _"Science, about causality, about in essence sex being linked and producing gender requires us to move outside of the current realm. All that we have in this realm is quasi-experimentation, we can't actually do studies where we manipulate the chromosomal or hormonal environment. And so since we can't remove sexism and misogyny from the production of gender, we can't actually reach conclusions about what we take to be gender differences"_ I had to transcribe this beauty. WTF is she talking about? See how she dismisses the whole field of behavioural science and child psychology because it doesn't suit her utterly unscientific and unempirical conclusions. Science becomes _quasi_ (not really) science. Does she have knowledge of this _other realm_ , does she have empirical evidence from proper experimentation within it? No? Well, shut the fuck up then. _"Things might be the opposite in dimension V"_ is not a fucking argument. How about the behavioural studies on male and female new born babies and how they freely and without direction show preferences and make choices consistent with known differences between males and females? In what way is this experiment being tainted by discrimination and the hatred of women? Why would one be so invested in denying what 98% of the population experiences unless one represented the 2% who didn't experience it that way? I think this is all an elaborate strategy to legitimise as _not abnormal_ all the minority groups who want to see themselves represented equally to other groups in the government, media, arts and education despite only representing 2% of the population. If it is true, as I believe it to be, that Communism is the ancestor of Postmodernism and Social Justice and that the agenda is what it was always declared to be-to destabilise Western Capitalist societies through civil division and unrest by radicalising and weaponizing special interest groups against the establishment-then occupying the minds of academics with unravelling ridiculous and irrational statements to develop counter arguments is a very smart thing to do; you distract them from what the other hand is doing and exhaust them intellectually.
Is it just me or is she actually already contradicting her own ideological beliefs about gender fluidity here? If I understand her correct she says in order to actually study the production of gender in it's full potential, you need to get rid of the sexism and misogyny. And the way to get rid of those two is by manipulating chromosomal or hormonal environments. But that is not possible, hence full gender production can not be studied. Is it just me or is she actually saying that these biological factors are inherent sexist? And therefor actually providing the evidence that gender is biological and not socially constructed as you need to tweak the chromosomes and hormones in order to have gender produced to it's full potential?
thevarsity.ca/2016/12/03/ubc-prof-mary-bryson-receives-violent-threats-after-debate-on-gender-neutral-pronouns/ After this debate and receiving much-deserved hate mail because she makes a mockery of academia, she and the media frame the hate mail homophobia and mysogyny
JP: "Free speech is the most important aspect of our functional civilization. It is extremely dangerous to limit it." Everyone Else: "why can't you be nice to people!" It's like arguing with children...
Well, free speech may be the most important freedom we have. However, it's not the only freedom nor is it the only VALUE that we should debate and talk about. I'm afraid this has become a mess for us to deal with. I don't think JBP has made the public field better - it's not much worse, either. I think the left needed to back up a little bit BEFORE there was any debate and develop a public narrative that reflects our community values. Period. JBP went on the attack and the left did what the left normally does. They just spout policy, policy, and more policy. I really wish that before ANY well-meaning liberal or leftist disputant would appear with JBP (or any time they had to talk in public!), they would seek the help of a master theater arts coach! JBP delivers in such a way that he MOVES people emotionally. The other speakers talked - just like academicians (boring!). Like what I say or not. I was known as a good teacher. Why? If the students aren't "moved" emotionally, they'll have a more difficult time "getting it" - (what they need to get).
"How hard is it to treat these people with respect and dignity?" For me, at least, it is constitutionally impossible to treat with respect someone for whom I have no respect. I'm sixty years old. The inability to perform such self-denying behaviours has been part of my mental makeup for the whole of my adult life. If a lack of respect shows, then tough. You earn it you get it. I can, however, treat most people with courtesy. Lawyers should be very careful with their choice of words. Lawyers as educators more so.
what he says from 1:35-3:10min is so true and so spot on. Very well put. Ill write it down and translate it to my language, so i can use it the next time sb dares to say limiting speech is not a big issue
I would strongly encourage you to go ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WovFPz79a-s.html and watch the full version of the debate. Some of Peterson's most interesting moments are on the cutting room floor here.
One against many! Shame on U of T! This is not a debate but a public defamation! Public shaming or even bullying! And they all lost! Law professor who says only in extreme violent case yet, Dr. Peterson is being ostracized publicly warned several time and now they may be going after his clinical license! Then you have a woman who is a preacher rather than representing any scientific community! Then we got this moderator who just read other oppositional questions and not moderate!
45:03 "I think we might be straying a little away from the question" (Obvious, ham-handed attempt to intercept an excellent point he was making at the time) 45:09 "No we're not because that question, that question involved my clinical practice, I'm not straying a bit..." [BOOYA]
You know someone doesn't have much of an argument when they spend almost their whole time trying to Impugn the person they are speaking with instead of using logic, reason, examples, and an understanding of all sides of the argument.
as sensitive as I am in general, sincerely, I am a white straight male. if people want to use offensive adjectives to describe or insult me all day long, it is better than the alternative. although these descriptions would be painful I would gladly take it..FREE SPEECH is that important! the true price of freedom is living with things we don't always enjoy or agree with. on top of that legislating any "FREE FROM FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS" will and would hamper, although altruistic in conception, what it was designed to do in long game. I can't believe this is being so heavily focused on considering the very serious human rights violations occuring around the world right this second. these arguments, imo, is a sign of how wanton and intemperate our modern society has become.. The issues in this debate is definitely worth a conversation but compared to poverty, imperial geopolitics and thermo nuclear war?? really?? pronouns should probably be secondary imo.
45:10 I love how he agrees with her point at first because his remark was about himself, and only challenges once he considered the question... he's as objective with his own thoughts as he is with everyone elses, if not more.
