Need a plate of generic, insipid platitudes with a giant helping of bad science and misogyny?
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
1375 points (91.9% liked)
Memes
45660 readers
1094 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He was a university professor in Canada. He stepped into the media light after Canada was set to pass a law criminalizing dead naming someone. Peterson became very outspoken against this law because it wasn't a law banning speech, it was a law enforcing you to use specific speech.
A video of some trans students confronting him went viral, which thrust him into popularity. It's an interesting video, I suggest everyone watch it. After that, the law was put in place, and Peterson got in trouble with the university, and (quit? Was fired? I forget which).
There are two notable events after the first that everyone here is talking about. Due to the media attention, Peterson sought out therapy and was prescribed benzos, which he quickly became addicted to. He kinda fell out of the media light for a bit, and it turns out he was not going through withdrawal very well, so he and his family flew to Russia, where they induced a coma and he was able to come off of the benzos. I know that he did a podcast with his daughter where they go through exactly what happened, if you're curious as yo his experience (though I'm sure there's a summary on wiki or something)
The second event is that (one of?) his licenses was pulled by a college board of some sort after he criticized Trudeau on twitter over something, and he was ordered to go to "social media reeducation" training. He took them to court over it and the judge ruled that yes, the board's ruling was an infringement on his free speech, but since they're a private board they can withhold his license until they see fit.
And that sums up everything as neutrally as I can get.
Wow, that summary is disingenuous to the point of insanity. There was no law that criminalizes dead naming someone in Canada nor has anyone tried to pass one. The law he opposed was adding gender expression to the list of protected grounds for discrimination. Bigots like JP tried to make it seem like this was a ridiculous anti free speech law, but it gives the same protections to trans people as gays and other minorities. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
He was also asked to take the training because he kept calling doctors who help trans people "butchers" and that's a fucked up thing to call your fellow mental health professionals. He didn't oppose the ruling on the grounds it was restricting his free speech, he opposed it because he said he "wasn't acting in a professional capacity" but that's bullshit. The court said he can't have it both ways, both being recognised and introduced as an expert due to his credentials, then say that nothing he says is done in a professional context. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-court-rules-against-jordan-peterson-upholds-social-media-training-order-1.6530615
Absolutely ridiculous that your summary is basically "he fights for free speech and everyone hates him for it" when the reality is that he's a hypocritical bigot who thinks there should be no consequences to saying offensive things in public. I also love that you managed to blame Trudeau for stifling JP's free speech when nothing even close to that ever happened.
Sorry, I said dead name but I meant pronouns. From your very link:
This was, from what I know of it, the way it enforces people to use specific speech, which is what he didnt like. Its not banning speech, it's enforcement of using correct speech. There are no protections for gay people along the lines of forced speech, that I know of.
I'm not being disingenuous, I purposely left out my personal feelings on the matter and just reiterated actions taken.
I looked into the judges' actual ruling some more, and it was a combination of things. I'd heard the college reacted to his tweets based on criticism towards Trudeau, and it is, but also included tweets about Paige and the plus sized model on sports illustrated (or one of the sports mags).
His claim was that the college board was overstepping their bounds and shouldn't suspend his license due to what he says outside of the profession, and the board claimed that because he says on social media that his qualifications for speaking about his opinions are because he's a phychiatrist, that he is speaking in a professional manner. The judge said that while it does impact his free speech in a small way, he can't both claim to be speaking outside of his profession and tell people he has these opinions because he's a psychologist at the same time.
I never said anywhere in my post that he is fighting for free speech, just that that was the reason he says he spoke up in the first place, and nowhere in my post did I say everyone hates him, nor did I give my personal take on the hatred he receives online. Your response, which is filled with personal feelings, whether right or wrong, is heavily opinionated. Mine was just laying out actions.
And I didn't blame Trudeau for anything, I just said those tweets are what the collage board responded too. And I was correct, I just didn't know it included the other tweets I listed here as well.
I get that you hate the guy, but maybe work on your reading comprehension? To take what I wrote and boil it down to what you did is wild.
The law doesn't create anything for trans people that doesn't exist for gays. If you repeatedly call someone using male pronouns when they repeatedly ask to be called by female pronouns that's being insulting on purpose. This is very similar to using slurs or insults with any other protected minority, if you call a brown skinned person an "Indian" repeatedly when they tell you they're Philippino you'd get into the exact same trouble. It's not new. Purposefully being an asshole to minorities is, in many situations, illegal especially when you have a position of authority.
I've read what your said and I don't think I've been unfair. I feel your presentation of facts was narrow and omitted a lot of important nuance. I feel it created a narrative that is flawed at best and dangerously dishonest at worst. I do agree that my statements are more biased, I don't like JP and I think he's a predatory con man, I'm not claiming to be neutral. I also agree that on the surface your presentation of information is more neutral, but your choices on what to include and what to omit create a strong but more subtle bias, and I don't believe this was entirely accidental.
I don't think you're being unfair, I think you are confusing straight up facts with no opinion bias whatsoever as positive, when in fact it's just neutral. I didn't put anything that sheds a positive or negative light on him on purpose. The fact that you are so angry and hateful towards him that you can't see anything but glowing positives from what I wrote is a you problem.
I didn't say you were claiming to be neutral, I said your perception of what neutral is is skewed. You get mad at me for not using a single opinionated word or descriptor both good and bad,, and list angrily a bunch of negative words and descriptors that you're mad I left out, then tell me yeah I'm more neutral than you are but I should be less neutral and more negative?
Seriously, it's not healthy or intelligent to be so skewed you can't tell the difference.
If you're trying to claim that a series of carefully selected "neutral" facts don't create a narrative then you're either being purposefully obtuse or extremely naive.
I note that you haven't aknowledged that bill C-16 doesn't create any protections for trans people that don't already exist for other minorities and I think that says a lot about this conversation.
Lastly, when reality paints a deeply negative picture of someone, "neutral facts" must reflect that reality. Painting a bad person in a "neutral" light is not being unbiased. If I said of the unibomber that he was "an esoteric reclusive mathematician who was eventually arrested due to his anti-technology views" that's a bunch of neutral facts, but it's deeply biased to paint a terrorist murderer in a "neutral light". Unbiased facts must reflect the murderous reality of his actions.
You do you, call me what you want, rail against what I've written and have a great day. :)