12 Reasons Why No One Should Ever Listen to Jordan Peterson Ever Again

12 Reasons Why No One Should Ever Listen to Jordan Peterson Ever Again


Kommentar

Dette er en kommentar. Kommentaren gir uttrykk for skribentens holdning.

Jordan B. Peterson (JBP), a professor at the University of Toronto, became world famous after his free speech protest against Bill C-16 that allegedly forced public servants to use people’s preferred pronouns or face a steep fine and possible jail time. Since then, he has become a respected “public intellectual” and a best-selling author twice over for his academic magnum opus Maps of Meaning and his self-help book 12 Rules for Life, telling young men the world over to “clean [their rooms]” before trying to save the world.

But JBP is dangerously incompetent at best or an unscrupulous hack at worst. Here are 12 reasons (with references) why no one should ever listen to Jordan B. Peterson ever again:

  1. Let’s start with the event that made him famous: his protest against Bill C-16 – a bill that proposed to add gender identity and orientation to what is colloquially referred to as “protected classes” in the Canadian Human Rights act.“If they fine me, I won’t pay it. If they put me in jail, I’ll go on a hunger strike. I’m not doing this. And that’s that. I’m not using the words that other people require me to use. Especially if they’re made up by radical left-wing ideologues.”

    JBP characterized the law as forced speech and formulated his protests as a fight for freedom of expression and against forceful suppression and control of speech.

    But the amendment to the law meant that it would become illegal to deny someone a job or a house or discriminate against them in the workplace on the basis of the gender they outwardly express or identify with, just as it is illegal to do so on the basis of religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc.. It did also amend the Criminal Code, but that only pertains to hate motivated crimes and hate-speech, not misidentifying someone as JBP was prone to claim (1). To be crystal clear, Canadians cannot be jailed or fined for using the wrong gender pronouns. Since it passed over two years ago, exactly zero people have been jailed or fined because of the law amendment.

    JBP’s horrible misrepresentation of Bill C-16 notably contributed to hate and antagonism against (and confusion about) trans- and non-binary people.

    I could write this entire article about this point alone, because he’s said a lot more crazy shit about Bill C-16, but suffice it to say that JBP has either not bothered to read the amendment, severely misunderstood its legal implications and/or was intentionally misrepresenting its contents. His reckless and dangerous incompetence (or unscrupulousness) should disqualify him from public discourse alone.

    But wait, there’s more!

  2. If you have paid any attention to JBP, you might have heard him talk about the dangers of “postmodern neo-Marxism”. Not only is he unable to clearly define what he means with this, but as many have pointed out, it’s an inherently self-contradictory term. A huge part of postmodernism was and is critical of the kind of grand-narratives that Marxist theory – with its claim that class struggle and economic inequality shape history –  is about (2).It is also dangerously close to the nazi dog-whistle “cultural marxism” that was popularised by Anders Behring Breivik, which itself is a rehash of the literal nazi dog-whistle “kulturbolshewismus” (Cultural Bolshevism) used by the literal fucking nazis in nazi-fucking-Germany (3). Again, he is either incompetent as fuck or uncaring about the implications of his words.
  3. Although JBP will happily rant away about the evils of postmodernism at any opportunity, he does not understand it at all and severely misrepresents what the most influential postmodernists (Foucault, Derrida, etc) actually thought, meant and wrote (4). This is somewhat ironic considering that his own philosophy can be argued to be postmodern in nature (5). 
  4. Although JBP will happily rant away about the evils of Marxism at any opportunity, he does not understand it at all and severely misrepresents Marxist theory. Which is to be expected from someone who is on record admitting to never having read any Marxist theory ever. 
  5. In a debate against Marxist philosopher, Slavoj Žižek, he only read the Communist Manifesto in preparation (6), which is little more than a call-to-action pamphlet and contains no actual theory. In his 30 minutes opening remark, he laid out problems he claimed to have found in this Communist “Pamphlet” and allegedly thus in Marxism, which is akin to debating a PHD-level subject after only having read the course descriptions of university classes on the issue without ever having attended any of them. 
  6. In his Magnum Opus, Maps of Meaning, a bunch of his own sources directly contradicts the very claims he uses them to make. He also deliberately or unwittingly ignores the historical context of several the examples he uses to argue for his universal archetypes, a context that directly undercuts the point he is trying to make (7). 
  7. In a VICE interview, while discussing women in the workplace, JBP equates wearing makeup (for women) with sexual provocativeness and sexual displays (8), claiming (amongst other things) that the reason women wear red lipstick is because the lips turn red during sexual arousal. While there is certainly a solid anthropological argument here for the cultural origins of makeup, this is insanely reductionistic and is completely removed from the contemporary context, where it is culturally expected of women to wear at least some amount of makeup in public. Women even put on makeup in all-female prisons, and there are reported cases of female inmates exchanging sexual favours for beauty products, the reverse of wearing makeup to get laid. 
  8. In the same interview, he expresses doubt about whether men and women can coexist in the workplace at all. 
  9. JBP is sometimes derogatorily nicknamed the Lobster King, because in his writing he sometimes uses the natural hierarchy emergent in lobsters to argue in favour of hierarchies in humans. In his infamous interview with Cathy Newman (9), he explains “there is this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western Patriarchy – and that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable – and I use the lobster as an example. Because we devolved from lobsters in evolutionary history about 350 million years ago (common ancestor), and lobsters exist in hierarchies and have a nervous system attuned to hierarchies, [a nervous system that is very similar to ours]. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction.”This is such a massive strawman that it is (almost) funny. No serious academic, politician or intellectual has ever claimed that all hierarchies are socio-cultural constructions. What feminists, SJWs, and even anarchists are railing against aren’t all hierarchies ever, but unjust hierarchies, specifically hierarchies based on race, gender, economics, etc.. As YouTuber ContraPoints points (heh) out in her video on JBP, you can use his argument, “the same way he uses it, to justify literally any hierarchy or authority, no matter how unjust.”
  10. JBP’s is almost impossible to pin down on any political subject. For all the criticism Cathy Newman got for misrepresenting JBP’s beliefs and for putting words in his mouth, I do feel sympathy with her. Because her interview is a nice case study for JBP’s particular style of intellectually dishonest rhetoric: he will often say something that is uncontroversial and true, while also implying something controversial. But when confronted on this he will retreat or attack you for misrepresenting him. For example, some people might feel I misrepresent his thoughts on women in the workplace from reason 8, because he never explicitly says that women and men cannot work together. But that is what he heavily seems to imply: “we don’t know the rules [for working together]”, “[the relationships between men and women] are deteriorating rapidly”, “we don’t know if men and women can work together successfully in the workplace”.He frequently, heavily seems to imply horrendous shit, and he is either dog-whistling as fuck or to much of a coward to say what he honestly believes.

     

  11. JBP uses his platform to actively laud and promote his daughter’s ludicrous all-meat (yes, all-meat and only meat) diet as having cured his depression and her depression and arthritis. This claim that has no scientific basis whatsoever¸ and there is plenty of research that shows that this can lead to severe vitamin deficiencies, such as scurvy. This is not just insanely irresponsible, but very dangerous to boot.I mean, I am glad they feel better-and-all, but keep that shit away from your humongous and very influential public platform, for fuck’s sake!

     

  12. There is a YouTube channel called PragerU, an American far-right propaganda channel that lies about and misrepresents everything from feminism, to economics to racial tensions. It has videos with literal white-fucking-nationalists, and I generally use the channel and their guest hosts to know who is not worth listening to.JBP has no less than two videos on this channel. In one of them, he calls universities propaganda tools that “indoctrinate your children” into dangerous “far-left” ideologies, and that you should let your children go there. Which is ironic, because he himself is a university professor.

And with that, I thank you for your attention. I could have gone on even longer, but this has been 12 reasons for why no one should ever listen to JBP ever again.

Written by Emil Olai

Sources:

  1. https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/
  2. https://medium.com/@charlietaylor105/on-petersons-postmodern-neo-marxism-b33f6f425066
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuEccEYvaE&t=2s (“Defending Postmodernism: An Open Letter to Jordan B. Peterson”)

  5. Same as above, timestamp 47:13.

  6. Slavoj Žižek

  7. https://medium.com/s/story/jordan-peterson-is-a-very-poor-researcher-whose-own-sources-contradict-his-claims-464633558b75
  8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9dZSlUjVls
  9. https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=1580

76 Comments

    1. JP is exactly the shifter described in this article & his réthorique though appealing to the delusional rugged individualists (those who believe in the great “I” & casually dismiss the impact of the group & the necessity of the group in generating individual success or achievement) won’t amount to much except for misguided energy…

      1. The irony here is his criticism of bill C-16 is intrinsically individualist and especially individualist (subjective in fact) in court proceedings that have followed it. There are now at least two legal precedents in Canada that could indict people for failing to properly care-take for the subjectively determined identity of an individual and especially a member of a recognized minority due to perceived systemic discrimination in Canada. It doesn’t get much more individualist than that.

    2. Say what you want, but it seems nobody here actually refuted these points, and can’t. Because they’re true. And all the angry comments won’t make the facts go away no matter how hard you try.

      1. Refute what points? All these points are «well, he’s wrong» with no reasoning. It doesn’t mention anything provable at all. Refute unproven words? How?

      2. His first point is bogus because the bill believes there is some kind of hate speech. Hate speech is just speech someone dislikes. The bill would categorize most Christian teachings of homosexuality being a sin as hate speech.saying that self identity is not valid proof of one’s gender is not hate speech. Believing people are not the experts on themselves is not hate speech.

    3. Interesting. Peterson is from Alberta, Canada, as am I and we are of the same generation. Alberta has a state education system and almost no private schools or universities because the teachers are unionised and paid well and the facilities are excellent. The universities were well funded and the fees were negligible. I got a small scholarship which he would also have received which paid them in their entirety, about $200. The phone system is government owned with free unlimited local calls. Electricity is entirely hydro-electric from dams on public land. Health care is provided by the state. The province has one of the largest supplies of oil and gas in the world. There was virtually no unemployment and no homelessness. There is a social security system run by the province. It has vast prairies for grain and cattle production. There are immense public National Parks and local public parks with playing fields, ice skating rinks and tennis courts free for all. The government has typically been far right. The population is almost all white European and largely fundamentalist Christian.
      There was a lot of antisemitism, anti-French and general racist sentiment. The indigenous people live on reservations in relative poverty with their children historically removed from their families to be integrated into white society, unsuccessfully, resukring in a high youth suicide rate.
      Peterson is just like many of the kids I grew up with who lived a good life and frankly had little or no interest in or concern for social justice or much if anything beyond playing sports and getting a job and family. This is his background and be is a hypocrite to talk about post-modern Marxism because be benefited from social policies which made him what he is, wealthy, privileged and unfeeling.

    4. Dude is salty as fuck, he Wright with he’s feeling gs more then questioning ingen the thi gs he actually don’t know.

  1. You have no idea what you are talking about. Basically you gave twelve reasons why no one should take you seriously.

  2. Complete garbage misrepresentation of JBP. Very disappointed in the slanted and shoddy writing in this article.

      1. i have disproven around half of his points in this article. The writer has a clear misunderstanding of what he has said/why it is wrong/evidence to back it up. For example, in point eleven the writer claims there is no scientific evidence to back up what JBP said. Which if he had researched this would be disproven.

      1. Why is it that when anyone defends Jordan, people have to insult them and pretend they are just part of the cult.

        1. L. Ron Hubbard has saved a lot of people from depression too. Are we to take L. Ron Hubbard seriously?

  3. 7 comments answering your 12 reasoning say it all.
    What else is there left to say other than the glaring truth that you’re truly a miserable human being.

    1. Nobody answered anything, and neither did you.

      If you disagree so much with this author, perhaps show where you do it, and perhaps show where the author is wrong about Peterson.

  4. Well summed up. It is clear from all the comments decrying your article, which clearly did not have to be read, only further price for point. The cult doesn’t object to its exploitation and gas lighting by it’s leader, instead they rationalise ways to «love» it and through that, the leader. When this is pointed out, the followers lash out for their figurehead being attacked. Some cults gave been known to call for beheadings over alleged insults to their dead Messiah. This is no different.

    1. This is not neccessarily meant to be an informative article, but rather an opinion piece that presents the writer’s opinions. We are all entitled to have our own opinions.

      1. But when his opinion is that Jordan doesn’t know anything about C-16, Marxism, Postmodernism, and he grossly misrepresents a lot of what Jordan has said, then that opinion sucks.

        1. Jordan doesn’t know anything about Marxism, he even admitted in a debate with Zizek to have read only the pamplet, the Manifesto, and in his rhtoric we realize he knows nothing. To begin with the USSR was State Capitalism by self admission, Lenin stated by 1918, the Bolsheviks perpetrated a coup sponsored by foreign oligarchs to remove the Romanovs, it was not a socialist revolution, they tricked their followers. HE also has no clue what post-modernism means, and so don’t you, because if you knew, you’d know he’s full of hot air, he juxtaposes 2 sort of opposing ideologies as if they’re working together in modern society, and they’re not in confluence, they’re not together, they’re separate & distinct ideologies which are not possible to combine … One thing is an opinion without any fundament, like yours, another one is an opinion which picks supporting research or evidence like the author’s, so so far, you seem like a very inexperienced person, who has read little or nothing who needs some humility, and not following blindily an arrogant narcissit as JP.

        2. Did you ever read Bill C16? Probably not and the writer is correct, it never mentions free speech, controlled speech or pronouns. JP is getting hysterical over nothing.

  5. He’s warped so many promising brains with his convoluted rhetoric he’s essentially the 21st century mental fascist cult. I can’t express how much I loathe him, but there’s always plenty of drooling slackjawed dogs yapping at his feet because he told them to clean their room and exactly what they want to hear- that they are important.

    1. That’s pretty much where I stand.
      I can’t help but feel like peterson was a freud wannabe. Glad he got the cult of self-validating morons he was looking for.

  6. How anyone can have so much hate for a man that helps so many is utterly incomprehensible to me. At the core his message, that is very well received by men and boys, is basically to get your shit together. How can this be bad?

    1. His work is an obstacle of one of the key necessities in Marxist theory outlined by Karl Marx in the communist manifesto, which is to destroy the family.
      You can’t successfully create a system of state slavery with your peasants having their priorities aligned with anybody else’s interests but the state.

  7. gotta say the comments cant take shit , yeah you dont make much of 12 reasons like literally 3 points similar (marxisms one) youre right about his refusals to use pronouns is dumb people are literally ignoring the all meat bullshit theory . 10th point isnt much of a point more like fact

    1. he refused using the pronouns if it was mandated by law that he had to use them, he said he would use them if someone came up to him and asked him personally.

  8. Just looking at your list of references is enough to figure out your academic preparedness to comment on the matter. None whatsoever. There are things you can claim JP is incompetent to argue, but I don’t seem to find them on your list. Say, e.g. climate change. And I’d cut the angry profanities if I were you. They don’t help your case, quite the opposite, in fact.

  9. I just came to read and to confirm that freedom of speech still exists, cause l just read a ton of non-facts-based-shit that hasnt been taken down, congratulations, you are the proof even idiots are able to express their opinions. (hope you didnt spend too much time trying to think while writing this article, it sucks).

  10. I recently heard JBP discuss how non-monogamy increases violent crime rates and heralds the downfall of civilizations. It’s an interesting argument, but he didn’t show any of his work. The most docile and empathetic apes are Bonobo chimps. They’re also polyamorous. Perhaps he’s getting his data from lobster cohabitation. Like most unenlightened pseudo-intellectuals, he stops after correlation, because causation requires exhaustive effort.

  11. Emily Olai,

    You sound just like my teenage son used to sound when I would tell him «clean your room». (think incompletely developed frontal lobe, second toddlerhood etc.) Not a bad kid necessarily, just immature and uninformed. ;-)

  12. i like how your article is based on not listen to him… that’s telling, i assume that’s because you know if anyone actually does they will find he is a reasonable and articulate human being… doesn’t mean he’s right about everything but he’s well worth listening to.

  13. Great! I started questioning JBP when I saw some really messed up videos he posted about child upbringing. Like, could he really be so stupid to believe a child would fall asleep faster by being bribed with presents? And now reading this, I think he really is an imposter. And I think he harms a lot of people, pretending to be someone who really cares about others.

  14. Alright, what? You’re saying that every nasty person nit-picking from his personal views, is his responsibility. That’s not how the world works. The problem with people who take Jordan Peterson’s statements or opinions word for word, is largely in the poor uneducated American population. It’s true he’s revered by poor right wing Americans and why? Because they largely are raised on religion rather than education. What was religion created to do? Control people through fear. If you’re na adult able to think for yourself and think critically (which every educational institution should teach you) you might be able to see this man’s points and perhaps allow him his own opinions whether you agree or not.

  15. AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
    LMFAOROFL!!!!
    Oh man!!! Talk about incompetent writing!!! You seem to not understand his points. That’s OK. Maybe when you grow up!!

  16. JP has a lot in common with Kenneth Copeland. Yelling nonsense at a hypnotized crowd that take his every word as gospel.

  17. Jordan Peterson is an incredibly intelligent, insightful and logical person. He attracts vitriol from those who are unable to accept that someone may have a different opinion, i.e. socialists and Marxists who are ironically the epitome of fascism and first to shut down free speech.

  18. «It did also amend the Criminal Code, but that only pertains to hate motivated crimes and hate-speech, not misidentifying someone as JBP was prone to claim (1).»

    This is overtly incorrect, read case law, especially A.B. v. C.D. and E.F., 2019 BCSC 604.
    And also read Bill Whatcott vs. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, page 4.

    There was also another case where Bill Whatcott referred to a trans woman as a «biological man», which is a factually true statement, but was still successfully sued $55,000 in the Human Rights Tribunal for it under section 318.

  19. I have listened to JP for 6 years and all his Harvard lectures and Univrsity of Toronto his biblical lectures and many more videos do not see the a writers faults but I see a man genially interesting and concerned to the well being of the human race that is not afraid to speak his mind on issues of our days. I am a neurosurgeon for 40 years and I have seen my share of inequities pain and suffering and the human spirit at its best and worst and find it difficult to criticize a man as Jordan Peteson

    1. The reason you find it difficult to criticize jordan peterson is probably because you agree with him. It would be difficult to critisize someone for being stuborn due to age (so this is not a critisism of you). While obviously some of jordan petersons message is good, (like his discussions on what makes it dificult to be a man), these talking points are not new. I feel like its also easy (although it could be bad) to judge a figure based off their audience. Why isnt jordan peterson’s audience full of moderates? Why is jordan petersons audience mainly male white christian nationalists?
      anyway i digress, my point being an undertone of neo-facsism can destroy a positive message extreemly easily.

  20. There are some good points here but your comments about carnivore diets are anti-science.

    «…and there is plenty of research that shows that this can lead to severe vitamin deficiencies, such as scurvy.»

    But you don’t mention any research. Meanwhile, meat has more than enough vitamin C to prevent scurvy for most people, so scurvy would normally not be an issue even without consuming organs (nose-to-tail carnivore diets) that are richer in vitamin C. Napoleon’s armies in Egypt had used meat of horses killed in battle to treat scurvy. Arctic explorers consumed penguins to prevent scurvy. There’s no nutrition that we need which isn’t present in animals’ bodies.

    There are thriving populations which eat carnivore or near-carnivore, some of these populations have a near total or total lack of diseases such as diabetes and cardio illnesses that are extremely common in industrialized populations.

    It is very common for someone to recover their health via carnivore diet. Some discussion groups for ex-vegans are heavily populated with accounts of solving health issues by eating carnivore either temporarily or long-term.

  21. Hello,

    I was willing to read it all but I stopped. Make sure to inform better how lobster nervous system works because it has almost nothing similar to our nervous system. That’s the thing about when someone tries to critize someone, make sure your points are all valid, and what you saying it’s indeed true and if its useful that kind of information that you willing to give.

  22. Emil, when will you print your retraction given you have proven yourself so wrong. Lets start with #1. Perhaps you should write an article on this but be sure to include the court case of a Canadian father in BC that deemed a father’s misgendering of his son constituted «family violence» under the Family Law Act. This is the ridiculous slippery slope that leads a well educated judge in the Canadian judicial system to view speech (misgendering) as «family violence» and in turn restrict parental rights and create the conditions in which the father can be jailed. You can also add Jeanette Cooper (Chicago mother) and Jeff Younger (Texas) to the list of parents that have lost parental rights over the trans and by association mis-gendering issue.

  23. 2-6. Has a problem with those philosophies because of how they behave, objective information on them not sure he has either.
    7-8. He’s a Clinical psychologist, doctor, and husband. I think you should be telling people to watch it instead or be more specific about things you disliked.
    10. Why would an intellectual be bound to a political belief.
    11. He has rarely recommended it to anyone
    12. You judged so much without knowing his stances on any of these. The feminism that manifests itself poorly he sees as dangerous, as they certainly have been for male youths. Has no problem with the idea at its core, but it is very easy to overstep. He isn’t saying stuff he was told to by the government on these platforms or in places of work :/, when he thinks of changes to the government its usually on the lines of «stop and don’t anything to it»(-me) and it isn’t reminiscent of propaganda .

  24. «Canadians can not be jailed or fined for using wrong gender pronoun.» Mistake. It’s not WRONG pronoun, that it is the RIGHT pronoun, youn can BE either male or female. You can only talk about CHOSEN pronoun. JBP refuses the law that makes it a legal problem if you use the RIGHT pronoun, if you say what is a fact that can be proven in a court of law.

    Law can’t be about what you like or choose or feel – but about facts. Like, can you be a Caucasian saying that you feel like African American and demand to enter university under minority quota, because that’s your preferred race, that’s how you choose to be addressed? Nonsense.

  25. I’m glad that this was posted. I can finally find something that I disagree on with Dr. Peterson. Nevertheless, that definitely doesn’t mean someone should never watch his videos again.
    Peterson states his views in such an inoffensive way with a somewhat solid justification behind it such that even if you disagree with him, it’s hard to hate him. If you do, I suggest strongly reflecting on yourself and why you believe what you believe.

    He’s human, of course he says the wrong thing sometimes. However, he says a lot of right things as well, and for me personally, there are a lot of things I can learn from him.

    I hope people who read this article without knowing much about Dr. Peterson are able to give him a chance, because even though a number of his views are disagreeable along with the fact that he misinterpreted bill c16, his values, morals and care for humanity seems to be unlike anything I’ve seen (if he’s acting, he’s a damn good actor). There is definitely at least one thing you can learn from this intelligent man.

    On another note, I hope he becomes more aware of the purpose of fashion, makeup and trends in this era, hahaha.

  26. In postmodernism I believe its becoming a society depending solely on unreliable news, misinformation, violence in children’s games (fortnite), schools having morem power than parents, a corrupt government, pharmaceutical companies, CDC, FDA, WHO, competing pressure groups (BLM, ANTIFA, LGBQT,} who all have their own agendas, ulterior motives (gay pride parade) exposing children to lewdness marching in the streets, naked while performing sexual acts, the removal of family values, and actually rebelling against tradition. They instill their preferences and beliefs liberalism and dependency on government, to oppress oothers and force them into a category or class labeled as «racist, homophobe, . Postmodernists gaslight AMERICANS and erase reality, so everything is a lie, a fantasy, and is subjective, made up by the human mind supported by whomever is paying or willing to wave their banner to the point that corporations who are not passionate about BLM, LGBQT, ME TOO movement feel forced to advertise usng rainbows or masked children (covid) so their businsses are not boycotted. THIS IS A NIGHTMARE. Remember the movie Logan’s Run? We nare headed there. The government is the WEALTHY and the middle class is literally WIPED OUT so we have the slaves dependent solely on the one who doles out the bread.

    Postmodernism – Postmodernism and relativism

    As a consequence, if someone is trying to persuade you of some idea which you do not believe, or contradicts what you believe, that person is trying to oppress you, or is a representative of some oppressive group. We are in a mess because as the cross ilegals in with the drugs, and brainwahin our kids through education this new Utopian lifestyle keeps us as slave.

  27. I agree on most points you make, and I don’t like him either. Clearly he jumped on the anti-sjw train, saying obvious things which most sensible people agree to, but then there’s not much after that. Simple psychology at best, often regurgitating the same simple concepts in his various videos, with different wording. I don’t understand how people can even donate to him willingly, given he’s already making hundreds of thousands every week.

    So, I agree at heart that he is a charismatic charlatan; however I would weigh some of the points you made with more caution:

    1. Bill c16 may not directly imply that which he says, and there may very well be 0 imprisoned to date for such issues. However:
    a.) This can set a dangerous legal precedent, and a simple re-interpretation of the Orwellian term «hate speech» and/or a modification of it, will mean you can go to jail for offending a trans/gay/les/bi. This has happened in Scotland and Norway, where «hate speech» means anything that could offend such groups. For example, one guy in Norway went to jail for a private reply to a trans person. As offensive as it may have been, no one is in jail for offending any other «normal» person (I have to use that term, since the law itself implies they are not a normal group and deserve a special attention). So, anyone can offend me as much as they want, and most they get is a ban from a server. But if I declare myself trans that same offence= jail time? Very dangerous, as you may also go to jail for an alleged «insult» you said, or someone said you said. Additionally, it may very well even be argued as offensive for trans that you still consider them men (perhaps arguing their chromosomes are and always be male), and again you could face jail time even just for that.
    The dangerous precedent is that all of this is against any constitution of developed countries. The law should be the same for everyone, period.

    7&8 – although he does generalise and I don’t agree with most that he says, there is an issue with mixing genders at work. The sexual attire between the sexes does create some problems, and often many men and women can take advantage of their sexual looks to gain an edge. This is quite undeniable, and I’m not sure what the best way to work around it is. Surely, just telling men to not be men is not really a viable long-term option. We do have very different drivers, it’s not a simple subject to elaborate on without writing a very long answer (and it’s already long). In short, he does his usual trick: he starts from a true concept (there may often be issues in mixing men and women in the workplace), gathers enough people to follow him based on that, but then he just simply implies -what you said-. I mean, also the alternative that you would have to make separate workplaces would be a huge complication…..

    12. While PragerU is clearly right, they do often argue their points in a civil way, and they often reference clear and debatable pieces of evidence to support their claims. I don’t agree with most of their angle generally, but I think you are a little bit too extreme in that point. I am far more concerned about YouTube auto-deleting my comments (with content such as this one). I know on my own skin they regularly do it when you argue against some points portrayed on mass medias, especially when you prove black on white why they are misrepresenting reality.

    For the rest I agree, he is a charlatan.

Legg igjen en kommentar

Din e-postadresse vil ikke bli publisert. Obligatoriske felt er merket med *

Dette nettstedet bruker Akismet for å redusere spam. Lær om hvordan dine kommentar-data prosesseres.