I once met the woman responsible for diversity in my company. Needless to say I was happy that the conversation only lasted about 5 mins because I couldn't handle all the bs she was trying to convince me about equality
The guy at the end sums it up perfectly: “Political correctness is used to stop people from speaking freely...It’s got absolutely nothing to do with communication and tolerance.”
PC is a club that they use to beat their political enemies with. The left, anti Trumpers, have made it clear, if we reelect Trump they'll burn it down.
@@thepeadair Jordan Peterson is much more intelligent than to vote for an imbecile idiot like Trump. Jordon Peterson is neither right wing nor left wing. He's his own common sense wing. He says things that appeal to left or right because it is common sense. And PC has become perverse and stupid now. People have the right to free speech but not to consequences. Sure, talk nonsense and people with common sense will ignore you. Done. Like how it was. But the cancel culture is now at a crazy extreme because of a minority vocal few that are easily dictating social norms and speech. Have a bad day and lashed out? You're done for life.
Al E Gator, I am a female & this female commentator talks incessantly. Do you see Jordan Peterson watching her like she's in an animal study? If a guy puts his hand on my knee and I don't want his hand on my knee, I will say "get your hand off my knee". Simple.
And objects to challenging the point on which her entire argument is based - Lady, if the premise of your entire argument is wrong and you are unable to defend it, why are we obligated to hear the rest of it?
@@ts8404 Your the one that needs to educate yourself. There is no more point of feminism according to my "studies" if this this is the way we are talking.
Why don’t u address something she actually said instead of making an ad hominem attack against her which by the way thousands of other comments already have
Why is she considered a thinker ? Poor speech patterns , lots of " like " and " you knows " .Christ, can't anyone going a woman with a real intellect ? Embarrasing for women .
I suppose it does no good to bother with them. Of course, he's explained that it requires patience and nothing is gained by shouting or talking over the person.
He really isn't. He's not saying anything different about "individual sovereignty" than Ayn Rand did 70 years ago, and she was a genuinely awful person. But he claims to draw heavily on Heidegger while fundamentally misconstruing and at time fabricating the 19th Century German philosopher's ideas. Yes, he puts on a good show and remains calm while most opponents combust as he spouts his pseudo-intellectual tripe, but he's another in a long line of libertarian "thinkers" who's ideas wilt when put under the light of evidence.
amillerinADKs hit the nail on the head. In addition to your point, it’s not *what* Dr. Peterson says that’s an issue, it’s *who* follows him. They’re self proclaimed practitioners of free speech but the second you mention a single liberal view point you’re a fascist. Having a fan base that doesn’t question a word of what you say is equally dangerous to being a “post modern neomarxist.”
Luis Ruiz Following anyone blindly is likely to lead to poor vision. It's better to use your own eyes to see where the truth lies, even if you're not blessed with 20/20 vision.
Jordan: *polite, concise, well articulated points* Woman in pink : *questions ignored, buzzwords, self righteous* Dude in blue : *came down from his acid trip just long enough to tell us about it*
Best line: Sophie Walker: See the thing about Bill C-16 was that it wasn't even about pronouns, it was about keeping trans people safe. Jordan Peterson. No. It was about pronouns.
It's to keep them safe from their own emotions because they know that any small, tiny, miniscule "insult" can send them off the deep end and then suicide happens.
By the way the bill isn't even a long read, so just go ahead and read it. You will see that neither me or anyone else who objects to Jordans strange insistence are wrong.
At the 8 min mark, I laughed and thought, I’d love to know what’s going through Jordan’s mind right now as he was staring at her. It looks like he’s thinking, she’s so stupid, where do I being?
@Almost Free he's simply talking sense and facts and doesn't have that belitteling annoying attitude like ben shapiro... well ofc it's dull because he doesn't get emotional like most people with his POV would in these situations in todays internet culture everything has to be a roast of some sort in political talkshows otherwise it's not interesting enough
I like how he avoids using flowery words, to sound more intelligent or higher class. He's probably the only one on these panels who is actually interested in connecting thoughts with as many people as possible. Everyone else is obsessed with sounding smart or "inclusive"
Compared to other well-known public intellectuals his knowledge is very poor on many of the topics he chooses to talk about. I'm not a Marxist, but I find it a bit weird that he knows so little about it, but still chooses to talk a lot about it. there are a lot more terms he struggles with.
@@ujmm That is the pro forma response by groups that fail to intellectually defend their ideology. There is little to no evidence that Peterson is not well-versed in topics he’s called upon to speak. What he is a master at is employing common sense in a way even laymen can understand.
All these media places put up a crazy lady to talk with a man of logic and i'm guessing because they know people like to watch outrageous stances; JP has very sensible positions on the issue and freedom of speech is one of those things that even if you hate that people would say some things you still prefer they can say them than those rights be violated and speech government censored. Just because I can say things I know some people would take personal offense to doesn't mean that I will say those things, but I guess just to be sure we'd better just ban things the current goalpost says are things in this moment that we shouldn't say.
Player Review when you repress something, it doesn’t go away. It comes back with an explosive vengeance. Let people express themselves, as long as they aren’t making threats or harassments. It is good for the safety and sovereignty of everyone.
@@geoffreyokrongly916 Definitely true on your point. It is good to have voices representing different views in public discourse and certainly should not advocate for deplatforming views that don't perfectly align with our own obviously biased and generally subjective viewpoints. It is also healthy for us to entertain the viewpoints instead of being so fixed and firm, because this is one of the ways we evolve as a species. That said, keep it real preferably agree with my viewpoints, because I agree with myself that my views and opinions are great ones.
It’s like he’s the sober dude at a party, listening to drunk fucks blab on but trying to make a point regardless of their inability to follow along. It’s embarrassing how difficult it is for people to keep up. I feel pity but give thanks for his commitment to sharing these important points and having these conversations, regardless of how frustrating they must be.
@@ryanbailey3176 That's what you do when you know you're the only sensible one in the room. You feel satisfied even without having the opportunity to talk.
Intelligence doesn't mean you're actually correct... A truly open person who values intelligence and reason will listen carefully to everyone, especially those with opposing views and data, so that he can either reinforce, defend, or even modify his position.
...most educated you mean. A high IQ is worth dick in sociopolitical debate if you're not highly educated, experienced & well read. It's good that politicians have the authority instead of rock stars, as they're the ones who show up for the drudgery of duty to the citizenry in good times and bad, while socialites & rock stars show up for the attention & their own enjoyment.
I once met the woman responsible for diversity in my company. Needless to say I was happy that the conversation only lasted about 5 mins because I couldn't handle all the bs she was trying to convince me about equality
@@scottbreon9448 btw, what is the difference between forced diversity and just diversity? there is none. once you declare that diversity is an objective, then it becomes inevitable that you force it on employees in the recruitment process. Companies should just be equal opportunity employers and that's it; no bias towards or against anyone.
Wish I could see Jordan Peterson's response. This isn't about students "protesting" but rather people disrupting and preventing speakers from speaking. Some colleges prevent (conservative) speakers from appearing under the guise that they can't protect them. Silly. So for her to view this as a free speech issue for the agitators is nonsense
It is pure pilpul; the art of bullshit talking to derail the convo. Her arguments are full of logical fallacies, greatest being "JP should start addressing issues of free speech violations...", completely disregarding his whole point
Her goal on that panel was to try and prevent Jordan from talking. But she can't say that. She has to have some other kind of point. When you don't even know what your point is, it is impossible to properly communicate it.
When you are having a conversation with a work colleague at a BBQ and his wife who has had too much wine, ingratiates herself into your conversation and starts giving a drunken, blundering view on something she knows nothing about.
SCOOPS TRAINING GROUP You could always employ a 'Cleaning Lady' ... Though I doubt that is a Politically Correct term, these days. At least you would be creating a job for someone, and not having to clean your room yourself, you would be able to use your time more productively. Or so it would be anticipated providing you do not have a proclivity towards inactivity/laziness. As for me, I like everything neat and tidy. Whether it is a result of 2 decades of Military service or some kind of OCD I do not know. Perhaps it is both. As we are meant to be moving, I have to go now. There are things more things I have to do before I die. John Farnham - Sadie (High Quality) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1qZ8Amj7r2w.html Enjoy! COMMENT REFERENCE: SCOOPS TRAINING GROUP.2019062961844
kyari and avril Spartan the show is not one long interview, they then go to somthing else then they talk then go to somthing else. so the talking is chopped. so giving it to you in clips is correct. you can watch the full show online at demand 5
"Shows on Channel 5, 5USA, 5STAR and 5Spike are all subject to licensing agreements, which only allow us to make them available in the UK." I am not from the British Isles.
When the guy comes in at the end with the brazen self confidence and utter and total praise of and agreement for Peterson, it's as if the host directly pulled someone from the comment section into the video.
Matthew seems to think like a 13 year old bloke. A little naive, but overall trying to help and with his heart at the right place. That feminist though... Not sure if she lives in this world or has ever experienced real life, but she is so ideologically driven, it's quite scary and sad to watch at the same time...
-ItsKairi- Being ideologically driven is very scary, however while she may be just that, she is quite calm and has a lot more class than most extremists I’ve spoken with.
Jordan deals with the facts while that woman exists in a fairytale. Another sad and delusional feminist. Supporting these new stupid laws is supporting our own gagging. The scale of our gaging of will be ever increasing until it's worse than the movie 1984! We must reverse this movement before it's illegal to even mention it anymore.
Yes these crazy feminist types are just repeating stuff that they have heard that fits the ideology. It is divisive. When you listen to a sane feminist such as Christina Hoff Sommers, you get the point without the division and blatant sexism and racism.
I agree. He should have held his tongue. That being said, he's been making the same point about the same law going on two or three years now and I get the impression for him, it's almost reflexive. What she said was entirely false and I'm inclined to believe (from the other things she said) that she knew it.
This woman tried to say it's an attack on free speech to expel hecklers that interrupt at speaking events. That's not an attack on free speech, that's having some damn respect and honor at an event for not only the speaker, but the listeners. The hecklers are the ones trying to STOP the free speech. The point she makes is absurd.
Isaiah Dillard that's what she says because she's not the one being the target of the heckling. She would change her tune rapidly if someone tried to silence her with loud noises every time she tries to say something in the interview.
That Wisconsin bill is protecting the rights of the guest speaker whose free speech rights are being trampled upon by a prearranged, premeditated mob of political activists who only want their agenda and point of view and policies and opinions to be discussed and nobody else’s who have a differing or alternative or challenging set of ideas which challenge the activists’ archaic, always have failed throughout history ideologies.
You can still protest outside of an event and engage with any speaker you want in a dialogue inside the event. You just can’t go around blaring air horns and disrupt the event while the speaker is speaking, according to the Wisconsin bill. It’s not the same thing at all as compelled speech and the fact that she even mentioned that is so dumb that I have to sit down. She genuinely has no idea what she’s talking about.
Yes exactly. It's called the hecklers veto and it has zero to do with free speech other than denying others the right to hear opinions they've asked to hear. It always surprises me how clueless western elites have become. Their echo chambers are so full of hot air and arrogance, they've become incoherent.
It's an age old trick broadly recognized in domestic violence and other social dominance situations. Flip the script, turn the response to your action into you being victimized. They attempt to shut down speakers and scream about being silenced when you try to stop them just like an abuser plays the victim when their target inevitably responds to the abuse by yelling at them or fighting back.
I lovedrummin- Can you believe she's a Party Leader? She takes her ill formed beliefs and tries to make them into policies that the rest of us have to follow, it's scary.
Where he has to face educated adults you see him running. In Europe at least half of the population easily tears him a new one for every point he tries to make. One doesn't get far here with stupid claims like his.
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 source please? I've only ever seen him kill in debates or discussions about political correctness, the only credible criticism that sticks out to me was when Russel Brand stated that his views could be interpreted as uncompassionate, or cold to people who perhaps can not defend themselves.
Geez, these people are frustratingly inept. At least Petersen can simplify his ideas to digestible and understandable anecdotes. These people ramble like loons and make themselves look stupid.
YOUFREAKINNERD Peterson looked like he wanted to burst out laughing at her rambling. She is so embarrassing, how on earth does she have a voice on TV. Jordan is brilliant, the blonde bloke at the end of the table ain’t bad either 👍🏻
This is a daytime late morning show. These people are hardly the A team of British television. This show is most famous for being trolled by a caller who keeps ringing in and saying his ex wife a bitch.
The judicial system "talks about rape" every day, just like it's supposed to. But like most people of her ilk, she seems unable to fathom that courts and laws exist or that rape cases are processed every day. By "talking about rape" she really means there needs to be constant public hysteria about a phantom rape epidemic that for some reason the courts never hear about and the police are unable to take any action on. As usual, all of our cultural systems we've developed for centuries for dealing with ancient and perennial social problems like murder, rape and theft are mysteriously inert, and only the Anointed Left can save the rest of us from our foolish selves, while simultaneously drawing as much attention to themselves as is humanly possible. But really though she's just an aging, flat-chested, rather witchy-looking woman who few men would ever desire to "rape," and it is these types of women who are constantly obsessed with "rape culture"--the undesirable ones. This is a psychological phenomenon that should be studied and thoroughly proven. I am quite certain that it could be. If you think saying that is mean, consider that women as abjectly foolish as this one deserve to have the motives for their socially destructive rhetoric brought out into the open, just as we would treat a diminutive, balding, out-of-shape white man who mysteriously hates young black athletes. This era of people's motives never being exposed needs to end; treating people as if they were all purely well-intentioned and don't have any unconscious motives for their actions is just stupid as hell. Like it's "rude" to suggest that people are mostly out for themselves and that most of them are extremely biased. We need to grow up.
The irony. It was political correctness that STOPPED people taking about the mass raping of children in Rotherham, Rochdale etc. and also stopped the police from properly addressing the issues sooner! She really is talking nonsense.
Jordan is a wordsmith with a temperament of a saint. You can see the hard work he has put in over the course of his life to acquire that skillset. Mad props to him.
I know, right! She have some good points to make but they were completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion. I don't think she had a clue what Jordan had been talking about.
I don’t see how you reached that conclusion. What she is, is an example of someone who puts ideology before rationality and this is present within all political affiliations. I’m getting the sense that it is, ironically, also present in you, considering the glibness of your dig at “leftist mindsets.” Come on, Scott, you can do better than this
@@64MilestotheGallon True it is present in all mindsets, but it is undoubtedly more prevalent in leftist mindsets, where dogma is ever more important than facts. This in itself is hugely ironic because in the main it is leftists who decry religion most vigorously for that very thing. I strongly suspect that religion is the biggest obstacle to leftism because it leaves no room for further dogma.
As a traditional finn theres very few things I hate, but heres the top 5: communism, mosquitoes, conversations in the morning, political correctness and weak modern men. Gosh world would be a paradise without those
Jordan Peterson is the reason RU-vid isn’t completely useless, without it I still wouldn’t know this man even existed, here in Belgium I never heard his name in the media and that’s outrageous.
En als je over hem leest in HLN proberen ze hem neer te zetten als extreem rechts...is echt pijnlijk om te zien! Als je zou weten hoeveel mensen zonder hun gedachtegang te horen of beweegredenen waarvan ik echt dat dat zijn ‘evil’ waren. Zoals een Tom Van Grieken. Na uren podcast en debatten,interviews te horen besefte ik echt dat hij heel redelijk is en helemaal niet zo extreem als de mainstream media ervan maakte
"I'm going to be polite, by silencing those who I deem unworthy of the right to talk due to my own biases and personal beliefs" Literally the mindset of modern "activists" and those claiming to be leftists. Confusing or willfully glorifying opinions as fact is what is killing off free speech.
Seems like they keep switching the subject so Peterson can't respond fully. Peterson quiet and composed as always. Great responses when he had the chance to actually respond.
They switch the subject because they can't respond on the subject Peterson has just addressed, because there is no counter to it, and yet they still refuse to admit that they are flummoxed. Just like the Cathy Newman interview, where she just stumbled and mumbled and then just completely changed the point. Because she could not bring up any point to counter his common sense and logic. So, the tactic is to change to another topic, hope he can't carry on his streak of bringing up facts, logic, evidence and common sense. The problem they face is that he does it pretty much every time, and so you see this switching of topics after every response he gives.
That's exactly what they're doing, but I'll bet they'll claim they're just trying to discuss multiple topics in a limited time. But you know that would be a lie because they'll spend a lot of time on specific talking points when it appears it helps their agenda, and quickly change the subject right when Peterson discredits their argument. They'll just claim coincidence, but statistically that's unlikely.
+Goblin Isac Your right! it feels so awkward watching him sit through some of these talking points knowing he's ready to respond with facts and absolutely prove them wrong, then they cut him off. Peterson should be the main focus, not the others adding their two cents every time! Its also strange how he ended up on a show like this. It seems like one of those cheesy morning breakfast shows but I could be wrong.
M J Grasscutter yeah but that didn’t surprise me .. popular tactic among mainstream journalists .. we cannot outsmart him, so we’re gonna shut him up..
Sefzilla1982 but it is basically what it is. Jordan knows what he’s talking about. Like him, I don’t buy this whole tolerance stuff, it’s more a means of dictating people how they have to speak and how they have to behave. True tolerance isn’t achieved by addressing a person by this or that pronoun, even less so when mandated by law! You can very well accept transgender people without accepting this bill..
It's ensuring that if an offense (that's a criminal offense not butthurt) is committed against a person it takes into account their gender identity, and whether the crime is based on predjudice.
As someone who watched 'Love Thy Neighbour, as a teenage white boy, I found it very funny indeed. The ludicrous banter between Eddy and Bill was countered by the sensible utterances of the wives Joan and Barbie. If anything, the show highlighted the silliness of racism, not encouraged it. The British and Irish have produced the best in comedy throughout my life. I'm Australian. I'd feel pride in all of those comedies of the 60's and 70's and 80's.
Yep, and note how the men seemed dafter than the women! A common theme in sitcoms going way back. Goodness knows what 'Love Thy Neighbour' the PC crowd watch and start railing against - it certainly can't be what I viewed back then.
He honestly is not trying to win. Look at him. He wants them to have an intelligent logical reply or even make some sort of good point so bad. It rarely ever happens though.
@@DarknessValor True, Peterson has his faults, though I would extend that to every public figure, and quite frankly, every human being. No one is perfect, his flaws are simply magnified due to his large base.
Thank god for that guy at the end. He spoke clearly and forcefully, and he compacted the real argument in simple terms (just like Jordan taught him) He went to a lecture and was clearly smitten with him.
Absolutely agree. He gave a perfect definition of 'political correctness', right off the top of his head, without prior warning of being asked to define it. His definition is brilliant. Political correctness exists to suppress free speech.
Peterson looks at phenomenons and develops conclusions, the way it should be. She has conclusions and finds evidence to justify it. Her starting point is biased
@@kipperrepublic2644 he doesn’t argue creationism lmfao Peterson is Christian because he believes that acting as if god is real improves his life and makes him a better person. He believes that god is metaphorically real, not literally real. And as an atheist myself that’s a perfectly valid reason to be religious
So, in this woman's world, you make the law and pass it first, with minimal inquiry, and then wait for consequences? No wonder she didn't make it into Parliament.
As Maxine waters once said “no one reads the whole bill. We’ll read it after it’s passed” This is what happens when you insist women can only value themselves by working. You get a portion of them doing as little work as possible at the expense of the world around her...all so that she can feel a little better about herself when she goes to bed single and childless at 40. The insult is that the people pushing this horseshit narrative actually claim to care about women and their ability to pursue happiness.
Love Jordan. He outmatches anyone he comes up against and for one good reason - he has sooooooooo much more knowledge. You can’t beat him. Just accept what is scientific fact even if you feel they are non pc. That’s your problem not human natures. Well done, Jordan.
Was everyone paying attention? Sophie Walker just said we have to stop intellectualizing in order to protect "the status quo". Think about what she means by that for a minute, to stop intellectualizing. To intellectualize a point, it has to be correct and factual - and this is something we should reject? Pretty sure this is how Ancient Rome began to collapse from the inside.
I think what she means is to talk so much around something that we aren't really talking about the thing itself. Intellectualizing is a form of avoidance.
It's how all Empires collapsed from the inside. Emotions outranking facts, sex outranking marriage, education outranking spirituality and wealth outranking community. Watch "The Four Horsemen" documentary. Very interesting.
Did she seriously just say that hecklers (who are silencing people via drowned out noise) getting suspended is a wrong and a violation of freedom of speech? INSANITY AT ITS FINEST!
man0z - Not really. If I explain Pythagoras theorem to a witch doctor from a remote Amazonian tribe, who's never heard the English language, it doesn't mean I'm trying to deceive them. It's just that their structure of education, up to that point, has not equipped them to understand me. It's the same with the psychology and sociology that Jordan Peterson discusses. A base level of understanding is required, otherwise the listener can easily lose track. Not a reflection on their general intellect either.
The tool interviewer is a low grade ''celebrity'' relegated to day time television because every tv station knows he'd not get the viewership in prime time.
He is very smart but the actual concepts he is speaking about are really not that difficult to understand if you're not concerned with pushing your marxist agenda at all costs.
jf8346 why be sexist? Makes no sense. Make fun of the woman in the video, as an individual, if you want. Plenty of things you could comment on, about what she was saying. And you could even insult her intelligence, as an individual. But don’t relate everything one woman says to ‘women’. That’s pure sexism, and doesn’t help anything. Doesn’t help your argument either. Normal people don’t relate everything to the groups people are part of. That’s a road leading to tribalism; not something you want.
You saw a point in that shit? I was sitting there for 4 minutes waiting for a goddamn point to even poke its head up near the horizon. In the women's argument i mean lmao. Maybe im just biased in how im hearing her because of my toxic masculinity.
These feminist British women won’t shut up - Cathy Newman, Jo Coburn, Ayesha Hazarika, and this bimbo. They just keep droning on about the same nonsensical point and never run out of bullshit to spew somehow.
She demonstrated why fewer women get to write front page news; she's incoherent and ramblings like that deserve to be buried on page 40; on the front page they will reduce circulation and drive the paper into bankruptcy. I don't buy a paper to read incoherent ramblings.
_"Women and journalism survey"_ ... well that won't have been biased at all will it? Wonder if they were _selective_ about the publications they chose... _"Let's look at the Republican bill to outlaw heckling... "_ - ah yes, a _Republican_ bill - that means it's evil. No mention of the fact the bill was proposed because Left-Wing University students were consistently silencing Right-Wing speakers while Left-Wing speakers remained unheckled. It does nothing to stop students freedom of speech, but only prevents them from using a mob to silence those trying to speak.
TheNightBadger As an self-described center-leftist, I thought that was a particularly low-blow. I can cite any number of instances where center-right/right-wing speakers either have been severely heckled, or, as in one (malicious) instance, the entire event was brought to a hault, because some group of radical feminists pulled a fire alarm in the same building an event discussing, amongst other things, the alarming levels of male suicide, was taking place. So whilst radical feminists are allowed their events to be free from harassment, those events that aim to, say, discuss men related issues such as male suicide; male victims of domestic violence, and legal injustices; and so forth, are not ... hardly freedom of speech ... That it was a Republican bill, I find myself somewhat torn on; but freedom of speach is a double edged sword: you can't have freedom of speach purely protecting your views, and your views alone; that is not how freedom of speech works, and never will work. Take the Count Dankula affair: even I, who know many Jews, including one amazing lady (sadly now since passed), who escaped the Holocaust by sheer luck, but lost many members of her family, and friends, because of that gastly moment in history, thought it went too far. It was a joke, pure and simple. I saw it as a joke, but what wasn't was the fact he, potentially, faced jail time was ridiculous. Even the £800 fine was too much ... As much as I don't entirely agree with Dr. David Starkey, I agree with him in that laws regarding freedom of speech needs to be drawn as narrowly as possible: to paraphrase him, he cited a case where a (in)famous Holocaust denier was nearly, if not actually, imprisoned. In the meanwhile, a famous academic, using all the available German archival material for that time utterly demolished all that man's arguments based /solely on what the documents written, and created, by the Nazis themselves/. Thus, instead of, say, imprisoning the likes of Alex Jones, one can take his lunatic arguments, and, taking the empirical evidence to hand, utterly demolish them. Only when the evidence points to an actually criminal act has been committed, where people have been killed, injured, or directly & personally threatened, based on the actions of an individual (ala David Duke), then that is when criminal law must be applied ... As my microbiology lecturer told me, the best natural disinfectant is sunlight. UV radiation breaks down the genetic material of even viruses like HIV and Ebola. In other words, if we want to demolish the most obscene ideologies and ideologes out there, slamming them in jail isn't always necessary, nor the right thing to do. By shining a bright spotlight on them, even if it does give them the potential 'oxygen of publicity', and show how utterly ridiculous their arguments are, it also give the opportunity to utterly demolish their arguments in ways the court system cannot. To use an example of how badly free speech legislation can go wrong, look at the Canadian example of Bill C16; I understand the notion of what it was intended behind it: to be more inclusive towards the use of pronouns when referring to medically transitioning/transitioned transgenders. However, as Dr. Peterson warned, what it intended, and the potential outcomes of the Bill, was, and is, two different things. The danger was always going to be 'legislative creep', as the definition of being transgender is rapidly expanding, to included pronouns for genders that have no empirical evidence to support, aside from, as is likely, the psychology of gender expression. Hence, there is no an actual empirical evidence anything other than the two genders, and whilst etiquette demands one being polite when dealing individuals whom consider themselves agender/non-binary, etc., they do not require protective legislation per-se, for legislation has this unfortunate habit of being used, and has been used, for purposes other than what it was intended for ... Thus, whilst the most extreme forms of speech needs to be seen for what it is, that still leaves a large room in which nuance needs to be applied, and apply it we must, least we fall down the rabbit hole of 'all [freedoms of speech] are equal, but some [freedoms of speech] are more equal than others ...' ...
Nika D Indeed, I agree with your comment; as long as it is both respected, and applied, on both sides of any political debate, then there is some hope. I don't have qualms over it being a Republican bill, per-se (there have been, and always will be, Republicans I like; John McCain is one, despite, at least imho, him being often ... vexious ...), but rather it strikes me as midly amusing, if not downright ironic, that, whilst it is normal for those advocating for free speach to nominally come from my side of the aisle, it took a Republican to draft a bill actually to ensure that repeats of all the left-wing protests may not be quite as frequent, nor as violent, as they have been ... [Edit: I also agree ... young students need to be exposed to both sides of a contentious issue (such as your examples of pro -2A vs pro-gun control; pro Roe vs Wade vs anti; and so forth): schools and universities should be challenging environments; colleges, in particular, ought to be crucibles, in which preconceptions are broken down in the pursuit of smelting and forging truth & knowledge. Even in topics such as English Literature, the aim ought to be to foster the ability for critical thinking, and not simply regurgitate whatever political biases your lecturer believes in ... Likewise, when it comes to the important moral and philosophical questions of the day, to hold it in a debate format, where each speaker not only understands, but respects, the opposing one, despite of the differences in thought, is, to my mind, key. As odd as that may sound, mutual respect, despite disagreeing, is actually far more conducive, and dare I say, more enlightening, than two idealogues bashing other, with intellectual language just a proxy for insults ... Instead, what we need are more college instructors who are prepared to challenge their students thinking, without necessarily including personal insults, and/or teach from an absolutist point of view; from my standpoint, teaching is bloody hard, especially when, say, a student is struggling, not because they are lazy, or stupid, but rather needs the kind of tutorial support I imagine Dr. Peterson provides. One, obviously, has to avoid pandering to whims of the students, but at the same time, do everything to foster their intellectual growth ... Hence I am glad there are, abet only in bite size chunks, of Dr. Peterson's actual university lectures on RU-vid. He strikes me as an excellent educator, in that he teaches, rather than talks at, his students. Oh to be in his classes, based on those videos alone ... ]
Love how she actually add to Peterson's point about identity politics without realisering what she saying. And that shes trying to make a point when shes already wrong at the beginning (when Peterson tries to correct her)
He articulates his points very well and makes perfect sense to any logical person. She just sounds like she doesn't have a clue. This is literally what happens every time he debates someone. Why do they even try?
clevermesays Not that I agree with the women But you probably don’t know Something being 1)“Possibly impossible” Meaning the impossibility is possible Or 2)“impossibly possible” Meaning the possibility is Impossible (for emphasis and making a strong case for something being impossible) “Nothing is impossible except for Allaahh having a partner” “Nothing” falls under the (1 it is possibly impossible “Partnership of Allaahh” falls under(2 impossibly possible Therfore anything is possible for Allaahh الله والله على كل شى قدير Not that I think the women even knows this 😂 And Obviously Peterson admits he doesn’t know much about Islam
لا=Nothing (both are negations) اله=(who’s partnership is Impossible Therefore worthy of worship) الا=Except الله=Allaahh Nothing is impossible except Allaahh having a partner لا اله الا الله Literal translation of it is “There is no one worthy of worship except Allaahh” This is the common teaching of All The Prophets from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad peace be upon them All. This is The Muslim CrEED regarding which Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him said “ who ever proclaims this CREED he will be save d from HeLL FIRE
Why ISLAM??? For a religion or any ideology to be true it must be 1.Mathematically consistent 2. Scientifically consistent 3. Philosophically consistent Therefore consistently accurate ((Truth)) 1. How is Islam mathematically consistent? Answer: The fundamental belief in Islam is ((The ONENESS ☝️ of Allaahh) Mathematically that is 1=1 1 is 1 Not 3 like Trinity (1=3) Or Atheism (1=0) Or other ideologies (1=X) Or Satanism (0=1) Therefore only Islam is mathematically consistent ☑️ 2. How is Islam scientifically consistent? Answer: Quran talks about many Scientific Facts e.g Embryology, Big Bang, quarks, photons etc... But mainly it talks about an ancient house(structure) Known as The kaba and Allaahh commands the Muslims to orbit around it ((( وليطوفوا بالبيت العتيق )))22:29 Atomic structure=Kaba NEUTRON = kaba ELECTRON=people orbiting for purification from negativity(sins) PROTONS= people in prostration facing it Mentioned in a Hadith(narration) of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him: A person is closest to Allaahh in the state of Sajidah(prostration) Thefore in complete positive MoDE(proton effect) And so scientifically consistent throughout history from generation to generation till today Muslims perform Hajj. 3.How is it philosophically consistent?? Answer: Science and philosophy or any other ideology Fails to answer The Question (How can something some from Nothing???) a scientific impossibility The fundamental CREED taught by all the Prophets Adam, Noah, Abraham,Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them All) was لا اله الا الله There is No GOD (worthy of worship) except Allaahh -translation) PROPHET Muhammad peace be upon Him said who ever testifies his faith in this he Will enter the Heaven (To the effect) Now Word for Word In Depth Analysis لا=Nothing(both are negations) اله=(who’s partnership is Impossible Therefore worthy of worship) الا=Except الله=Allaahh “Nothing is impossible except for Allaahh having a partner” So.. Anything is possible for Allaahh ((والله علي كل شئ قدير) This is the answer to the scientific impossibility Further ANALYSIS.. “Nothing” is either 1. Impossible 2. Misplacement of something 3. A value of something (0) If 2.(misplacement of something then it could be anything especially 💀 DEATH Except Allaahh) Because If Death was in it’s place we would all be dead (Everything would seize to exist) 0 multiplied by anything =0 But Death is an inevitable REALITY (Can’t be NOTHING) & Since Allaahh is (The Infinitely INDEPENDENT (((1))) He is above and beyond Time, Space And MaTTER 1/0 is impossible (check your calculator) Result will always be 1 (Infinitely (undefined independent 1) Now if 3. (Value of something) It is The DEVIL 👿 SataN was rejected by Allaahh So has NO value or worth (👁🗨)zero Since everything has a common denominator of 1 Satan is also a being that exists 0/1=0 Therefore Satan can’t Be Nothing rather is something. Who is worth nothing.(mathematically 0) and it serves a Purpose therefore exists. So we can conclude with confidence that without the 1 everything is 0 but with the 1 nothing is 0. And since everything exists therefore the existence of nothing is impossible.
I think they confused tolerance with *acceptance.* Tolerance isn't very difficult. In fact every single person you don't attack, even if you don't agree with them (and condemn their behavior), is someone you tolerate. If you tolerate someone, you don't agree with their behavior (dislike it often). You just choose not to discriminate. That's not what progressives want. Progressives want acceptance. If you have absolutely no problem with someone's life choices and wish thia person luck - you are *accepting* that. Not tolerating.
Jordan Peterson is an incredibly articulate man and brilliant psychologist. It's a shame the interviewers (1) kept interrupting him, and (2) oversimplified his views every now and then. Nuances matter.
5:20 Sophie is wrong. It's not that we sometimes say "wrong things" that we offend other people. It's that there are times when we say the "right things" and still offend some people. I'm a terribly short guy (5'3"), but when I am told that I have low chance of making it to NBA because of my height, I have to admit this is just simply true regardless of its offensiveness (the only NBA player shorter than me was Muggsy Bogues). I can't shut other people's true words just because it could offend me, right? The problem with enforcing PC without context is that they can be used malevolently to shut inconvenient truths. But some of the social and political problems require us to talk about inconvenient truths. That is the problem Jordan Peterson is stating that in colleges, we are supposed to pursue truths but that exact purpose is being challenged by bills that enforce PC without context. Everyone could ignore truths but no one can ignore the consequences of doing that.
Jordan Peterson is pure class through and through. His patience, manner of speaking and explaining himself. Hell, even his suits. Easily one of the most important people of this century so far
Yes sir! What we need is MORAL CORRECTNESS, not 'political correctness'. But modern Western society is not yet quite ready to go that route. May the Lord God help us.
