Thread: Jordan Peterson and gender pronouns

I've been keeping up with the psychology professor at the University of Toronto, Dr. Jordan Peterson, whose job is on the line because he is very publuc about his refusal to adopt compelled speach, a form of non-free speach which has been shot down in the United States as unconstitutional.

Its late and I might go into a summary of events tomorrow, but the main thing he is fighting against are laws stating that it is illegal to refer to (trans especially non-binary trans) people by pronouns outside of the pronouns that are their preferred pronouns. This may sound like a rather trivial point but its implications are terrifying, and free speach is so important, that we must not allow it to be chioped away in the least.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else on this forum had followed the events so far or had any thoughts. I just watched the "panel discussion" that was held November 19, and of interest to me is how little our Constitution values freedom of speech compared to the USA, although I had already know that to some degree. I also fond concerning the invasion of our Universities by feminism and social justice warriors whose aim is to indoctrinate youth so that they will infest the workforce with their radical social marxism.

Check out Janice Fiamango / Studio Brûlée on YouTube . Prof. Fiamengo had been sounding off about feminism and SJW's as well. Our laws in Canada are one big factual ambiguity. If you feel like going down a rabbit hole, check out detaxcanada.org
Read up on common law and admirality law. The USA had it's legal ambiguities as well but different. Now I'm not saying don't pay your taxes but you are allowed to now that it is illigal if you do. There are over ten thousand factual ambiguities in the canadian income tax act.

Wow, thanks for the heads up. I am in the USA and didn't know about this. I just watched this video:

Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech

and, at the end of it, Dr. Peterson talks about a soon-to-happen debate which I think is this video which is very recent but I have not yet watched:

JB Peterson Debate on Bill C-16 19th Nov 2016

My preferred pronoun is "Your Holiness", although I also accept "myxzlplthnit".

Nah, just kidding. I'm ok with your/him/his, except when the object of a verb in past perfect tense with a germanic (rather than latin) root. In those cases, I insist on 'tim'. Getting this wrong oppresses me.

What I was able to glass off this debate was Peterson is coming from a position that pronouns or non binary verbal identifiers are...
UN healthy by letting some people identify them selves with shitty titles that could be detrimental to their recovery as head cases. He's not the best guy to debate this with his job on the line but he's the guy we got. At no time did the other 2 feminist opponents say that these laws would not take away the freedom of speech .

I would recommend everyone one with a strong stomach to watch this. Peterson had to abide by the laws he is protesting in this debate. Take lots of smoke breaks so your head doesn't explode.
Good Luck and vote Romulan.

Yes, I actually got a sense that he was a bit flustered, as his livelihood is on the line. Also, he was forced into a game where the deck is stacked against him. It was a Psychology professor going up against 2 law professors on the application of the law, when he wanted the debate to be more on the ethical implications of said law.
I think he did well though despite being flustered. He stuck to what he knew and did not try to debate the specifics of the law. When his concerns were being dismissed, he was able to give the example of his own experience for how the law had played out so far and the culture of fear these restrictions had created. But yes, a big point of hos is how he doesn't feel like pandering to a patient's every whim is the best thing for that patient.
If you ever want to watch something on the lighter side, search the vodeo where he attempts to have a conversation with activist students at a rally that he held earlier.

I have been following this and watching various videos. Basically the special snowflakes want to impose 31 new fancy rainbow colored pronouns into the English language and make it POLICY AND LAW for people to use these pronouns in government, academics and the workplace. Basically, you have to somehow find out how some gender fluid snowflake is identifying on that given day before you address it.

We already have perfectly good gender-neutral pronouns in the English language. "They/them/Their".

One snowflake held a sign that read "My pronouns are not up for debate". This is the problem with social justice warriors who want to change law and policy. THERE IS NO DEBATE. It's them being authoritarian and crying victim at every step.

Watch carefully as they say pronouns are about SAFETY and will SAVE LIVES. Yes, social justice warriors make every issue about life safety because they know life-safety issues can ground airplanes, empty buildings and result in massive investigations and changes to laws and policies. And they play the life safety card very well - they know it works and they know how to use it.

Basically, they claim if society doesn't use their pronouns, trannies everywhere will be hurling themselves off of bridge decks, thus, it's a life safety issue.

They. Them. Their.

There's the three fucking pronouns they're getting out of me.

People need to push back against this snowflake rainbow unicorn bullshit hard and fast.

They. Them. Their. That's it.