Social U of T Professor Attcks PC Culture, Rejects Genderless Pronouns and the Black Liberation Collective

Yep, but there's been quite a lot of resistance, likely because it's become so transparent. It seems like the prospect of a pendulum swing that rejects progressivism is just as probable as progressivism gaining more power. Obviously I can't predict the future, but it seems like things could go in many directions, and the rise of conservatism (even a bastardized, modern version) seems likely, which is why I remain optimistic.

Yeah I agree with that assessment.
 
I watched the House of Commons today, and there was significant pushback, includingConservative opposition party's own amended motion which uses the term Muslim-hate vs the Motion 103 vague , subjective term of Islamophobia.

I was amazed at how the term "racism" and religious discrimination (along with Islamophobia) were used interchangeably. These are the leaders of Canada.

IMO there is a shocking intellectual gap between the MPs from the Conservative party and the MPs from the liberal party. It is alarming and should be a warning of the future in store without drastic action on the part of all right-thinking Canadians. The Liberal arguments were shallow, narcissistic and emotion/anecdote-driven.

There was also a clear divide between rural, western provinces (which are more Christian) and Ontario (as well as some parts of Quebec). I really have a difficult time thinking tensions won't continue to increase with Ontario's growing Muslim population and very biased Islam-first political aims in government.

Also, there was this one southeast-Asian-descent MP from East Vancouver I believe. She brought up Trump and his influence on increased right-wing extremism in Canada. It was pathetic the smearing going on, almost alluding to "outing" Trump supporters in Canada (very really). The level of naiiivety of individuals like this MP is shocking and tell-tale of the hate-media ones like her must surely feed on. At one point in a later speech she said something like "this idea trumps the other-" stopping herself with such a look of disgust and outrage and then said, "I so hate that word, I can't stand using it (paraphrase)". I mean, can you imagine if this was tolerated when Obama was in power and Canadian MPs took to expressly, hatefully referring to him with dripping disgust? Absolutely shameful.

I can't stress it enough, we each need to pray and get our hearts and lives right. The future will suffer greatly otherwise.

'racism' 'hate' 'X-phobia' etc are political/orwellian terms in such a context. They are designed to shift thought towards emotional rather than logic/rationality. The 'progressives' (which are more and more obviously Marxist inspired, with tribalist tagalongs) are pushing agendas the same way everyone else is, except that they rely most heavily on emotional manipulation and deceptive language to avoid logic.

You can't take anything they say at face value, because the political language is designed to mask their political objectives. Cloaking it in emotional 'feelies'
 
'racism' 'hate' 'X-phobia' etc are political/orwellian terms in such a context. They are designed to shift thought towards emotional rather than logic/rationality. The 'progressives' (which are more and more obviously Marxist inspired, with tribalist tagalongs) are pushing agendas the same way everyone else is, except that they rely most heavily on emotional manipulation and deceptive language to avoid logic.

You can't take anything they say at face value, because the political language is designed to mask their political objectives. Cloaking it in emotional 'feelies'

I agree 100%.
 
Stupidly named video. I guess the maker of this video didn't realize the opponent is playing devils advocate, since the university didn't find anyone to debate Peterson.
Good video nevertheless.

 
I'm a little more optimistic that things will not get out of hand, but the hypocrisy of intent is in full view.

I just can't imagine a law being passed that gives Islam preferential treatment over other religions, it's too early for that. They need to further destroy Western values and social cohesion for that to happen and for people to go along with it.

Right, they're too far behind to play such a strong hand successfully this early in the game. The Jews have the holocaust on their side, Muslims have what, 6 dead people in Quebec? That's not enough to make people ignore such a blatant double-standard.

The fact that they're trying is something to keep in mind though, we can call this the first shove of the vending machine, it won't fall over yet, but they're trying to topple it.
So what do you think is the strategy and end game here? Who is pulling these strings? The Muslim Brotherhood?
 
So what do you think is the strategy and end game here? Who is pulling these strings? The Muslim Brotherhood?

It's not necessarily a single entity, it could just be the general shift of the Overton window which occurs semi-naturally. Despite my characterization of this as a personification of sorts, sometimes these things are just an ebb and flow.

For instance, is Trudeau a feminist and champion of progressiveness because he has an agenda, or does he just believe these things because it suits him? Maybe it's what society ingrained in him? Maybe all of the above.

One can accept Cultural Marxism as a natural movement. It's something I remember asking @IDL- Is this some sinister movement with an agenda and a specific purpose, or is it the natural progression that results from what those in power believe? I don't really know, but I do know that society is moving in a certain direction -or trying to- and some of it is questionable.

Back to the topic at hand, whatever rules you make for one religion you need to apply it to all of them, and even this is a concession of sorts because the West adheres to Christian values more than it does Islamic ones.
 
It's not necessarily a single entity, it could just be the general shift of the Overton window which occurs semi-naturally. Despite my characterization of this as a personification of sorts, sometimes these things are just an ebb and flow.

For instance, is Trudeau a feminist and champion of progressiveness because he has an agenda, or does he just believe these things because it suits him? Maybe it's what society ingrained in him? Maybe all of the above.

One can accept Cultural Marxism as a natural movement. It's something I remember asking @IDL- Is this some sinister movement with an agenda and a specific purpose, or is it the natural progression that results from what those in power believe? I don't really know, but I do know that society is moving in a certain direction -or trying to- and some of it is questionable.

Back to the topic at hand, whatever rules you make for one religion you need to apply it to all of them, and even this is a concession of sorts because the West adheres to Christian values more than it does Islamic ones.
Well, you were referring to a "they" so who are "they"? Cultural Marxists and/or Muslims/Islamists?
 
Well, you were referring to a "they" so who are "they"? Cultural Marxists and/or Muslims/Islamists?

Like I said, it's just a figure of speech. It could be society. It could be the leaders. I don't know if there is a "they", per se.
 
Like I said, it's just a figure of speech. It could be society. It could be the leaders. I don't know if there is a "they", per se.
If you don't know who "they" are, then how do you know propose to know what "they" want?
 


This video is poorly argued. The whole point of "gender" as a label is to bundle together characteristics of a person that make them easier to understand. So regardless of sexuality, of a person consistently displays characteristics that are traditionally feminine - unless they are somehow misinformed about their participation in that category - for all intents and purposes they belong to the female gender.

The "they don't necessarily belong to that category" argument is an argument by assertion that tries to slip the conflation of gender and sex by the viewer uncritically, and obviously the Koala analogy is a false one.

People trying to find the knock-down argument against gender fluidity (something I'm also interesting in doing) need to do better than repeat the same things over and over.
 
Last edited:
He goes over the talks with Peterson early on this podcast.




Okay, so it seems Harris is still sticking to his guns on the definition of truth, and is ardent in the fact that scientific truth is the only way to go, the only way to approach things for the conversation to happen. He goes back to his micronarrative examples to talk about the epistemology of the word "truth", even mentions it despite Peterson taking a more ontological approach which Harris again cannot conceptualize. He concedes he should have moved on, but you can see his mind is too rigid to conform to such a measure, and reveals some contingencies have to be in place for them to move forward in conversation. A part of him doesn't want to deal with Peterson though from the looks of things.

The things Harris speaks on makes sense, and is very true "objectively" speaking. However the conversation of morality has to be approached holistically, it is to encompassing and vast to compress in order to make complete sense. He has to be open minded about the conversation if he wishes to learn something he can think about and later challenge on.
 
Last edited:
If you don't know who "they" are, then how do you know propose to know what "they" want?

Because "their agenda" is evident as seen through the rise of progressive ideology. Whether or not this rise is just by happenstance, or if it's manufactured, I'm not entirely sure, but it's obviousness is, well, obvious.
 
Because "their agenda" is evident as seen through the rise of progressive ideology. Whether or not this rise is just by happenstance, or if it's manufactured, I'm not entirely sure, but it's obviousness is, well, obvious.
I don't really think "their agenda" is evident. I mean, how could it be if you even don't know exactly who "they" are? And what is "their" agenda anyway?
 
Progressiveness is evident.
Well that much is obvious but what is this proverbial vending machine of yours referring to?
Right, they're too far behind to play such a strong hand successfully this early in the game. The Jews have the holocaust on their side, Muslims have what, 6 dead people in Quebec? That's not enough to make people ignore such a blatant double-standard.

The fact that they're trying is something to keep in mind though, we can call this the first shove of the vending machine, it won't fall over yet, but they're trying to topple it.
 
The vending machine is traditional Western and non-progressive values. Isn't that evident?
No not really, since in many ways progressives have advanced Western values like equal rights. And actually you say you're referring to progressives but in your earlier post you were actually talking about Muslims.
Right, they're too far behind to play such a strong hand successfully this early in the game. The Jews have the holocaust on their side, Muslims have what, 6 dead people in Quebec? That's not enough to make people ignore such a blatant double-standard.

The fact that they're trying is something to keep in mind though, we can call this the first shove of the vending machine, it won't fall over yet, but they're trying to topple it.
So...its Muslim progressives? Muslims are progressive now?
 
No not really, since in many ways progressives have advanced Western values like equal rights. And actually you say you're referring to progressives but in your earlier post you were actually talking about Muslims.

So...its Muslim progressives? Muslims are progressive now?

It seems like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Progressiveness in no way advances liberalism because it's exactly illiberal. If you disagree we have reached an impasse that I don't want to debate. And no, Islam is not a progressive value, but the defense of Islamic tenets, including giving it special rights, is; If you recall, we were discussing a motion to give Islam special rights. Again, I have no interest in debating such an obvious statement.

Equal rights was achieved long before progressiveness arrived, which actually advocates for inequality, racism, and blatant discrimination.
 
It seems like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Progressiveness in no way advances liberalism because it's exactly illiberal. If you disagree we have reached an impasse that I don't want to debate. And no, Islam is not a progressive value, but the defense of Islamic tenets, including giving it special rights, is; If you recall, we were discussing a motion to give Islam special rights. Again, I have no interest in debating such an obvious statement.

Equal rights was achieved long before progressiveness arrived, which actually advocates for inequality, racism, and blatant discrimination.
I would say the people who fought for equal rights were progressives themselves, since progressive is basically a relative term that would aptly describe those individuals who fought against what could be described as the conservative status quo of their time.

But at that point I guess its just semantics or whatever.
 
I would say the people who fought for equal rights were progressives themselves, since progressive is basically a relative term that would aptly describe those individuals who fought against what could be described as the conservative status quo of their time.

But at that point I guess its just semantics or whatever.

It's completely semantics. I agree with those who fought for equal rights, and I agree with them still. Everyone should be afforded the same rights. This is different than what we are seeing today.
 
Back
Top