What Do You Think Of Jordan Peterson?
Side Score: 18
Side Score: 26
Peterson is an intellectual strategist, so his arguments tend to be oriented more toward accomplishing his social objectives than advancing a rigorous argument. He is skilled at controlling the trajectory and focus of discourse, and that makes it easier to advance arguments that seem more reasonable.
The legislation he is referencing concerns a broader social issue, but his narrow focus on one aspect of that legislation makes his position seem more credible. He is generally conservative and therefore opposed to alternative gender concepts, but he avoids having to substantiate that position by shifting the focus to freedom of speech. This is strategically sound and he's an effective debater, but it makes much of his commentary rather evasive and disingenuous (and therefore, to me, uninteresting).
The anchor and the other professor both seem intuitively aware of this but ill-equipped to counter and control the discussion. Peterson controls the ground entirely throughout this exchange.
It has never been the case before
Yes it has you deranged hypocrite. It is no longer considered acceptable for white people to call black people niggers. In Europe people are literally imprisoned for making fun of the Holocaust.
The great irony here is that, when the OP wrote that most Conservatives pretend to be intelligent, I have no doubt he had your lengthy shitposts in mind.
In this case, Peterson is referring to a Canadian Law that he does not oppose, which is against Holocaust denial.
He favours free speech regarding some things, but not others, which -- like yourself -- makes him the textbook definition of a hypocrite. If he is going to base a defence entirely on the notion of freedom of speech then bringing up examples of censored speech which he himself endorses obviously contradicts the basis of his own argument. It is like saying, "Freedom of speech for the ideas I support, but no freedom of speech for the ideas I do not support."
It’s a relevant example of speech law in his country
It is very disingenuous to pretend that the Holocaust had anything to do with his argument. Obviously it didn't. The argument was about the use of alternate pronouns for transgenders. That absolutely has got fuck all to do with the Holocaust. As explained in the OP and again in my first paragraph of this reply, using examples of censored speech was a stupid thing to do when the basis of his argument was: "I should be allowed to say whatever I want because freedom of speech allows me that right."
You are born male or female
There are only two genders
Naturally there are two genders, but advancements in surgical procedures and drug therapies have blurred the lines between these genders. Pretending we still live in a time before these surgeries were possible is not reasonable. If someone has the body and face of a woman, but retains male genitalia then labelling that person either male or female is not the simple matter you are pretending it to be.
I refuse to pander to someone's psychosis.
I wouldn't expect you to. You are far too busy dealing with your own.
I think I agree with your reasoning on the issue of Peterson. What the transgender professor is pushing is both insane and unachievable and I believe harms the transgender agenda which as I understand it is more or less equal rights. If they want to alienate straight people like me who are pro gay rights and pro transgender rights they've found a perfect way to do it. By pushing this nonsense the transgender professor and everyone else pushing it is harming their cause and have given the right wing some raw meat to chew on.
That being said Peterson is still a douchebag and being served up an easy win on a kooky side issue doesn't change that.