‘We’re teaching university students lies’ – An interview with Dr Jordan Peterson

[SlicerDM]

http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/we...ts-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/

A great article that details many points of people failing to understand why many things in our historical context has happened as well as touching on gender identity, Bill C-51 as well highlighting the flaws in Conservatism and Leftism


"One of the things that I’m trying to convince my students of is that if they had been in Germany in the 1930s, they would have been Nazis. Everyone thinks “Not me,” and that’s not right. It was mostly ordinary people who committed the atrocities that characterized Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union."

"Assigned identity is oppression. Assigned identity is the identity that’s assigned to you by the power structure – the patriarchy. The only reason the patriarchy assigns you a status is to oppress you. And so the language that frees you from that status is revolutionary language. So, as an example of revolutionary language, we’re going to blow out the gender identity categories, because the concept of woman is oppressive. The anti-patriarchy philosophy is predicated on the idea that all social structures are oppressive, and not much more than that. Then to assault the structure is to question its categorical schemes at every possible level of analysis. And the most fundamental one that the anti-patriarchy radicals have come up with is gender. It’s a piece of identity that children usually pick up on around two – it’s pretty fundamental. You could argue that there isn’t anything more fundamental. Though, I don’t know of anything that’s more fundamental, more basic, and that would have been regarded as more unquestionable, even five years ago".

"Not only that, isn’t there a leadership convention right now? Have any of the candidates commented on any of this? No. Why? Because they’re afraid. I think the fact that no one’s commented on it is an indication of how even for conservatives, especially in Canada, this demand for orthodoxy has gone so far that even Conservatives are afraid to be conservative. This stuff is not easy to understand. You might ask, ‘why can’t you just call people what they want to be called?’ Well, when someone questions your use of pronouns, it puts you on the spot. You don’t know why you use the pronouns you use. You use them because everyone else uses them – it’s a social convention. Then someone else says ‘it’s a mark of respect to use a pronoun, and it’s a mark of respect to use the pronoun of someone’s choice’. Those are large-scale philosophical assaults. If you’re not prepared for them, all you can do is stumble around, and your default is going to be ‘well, maybe we should be nice"


Sorry for my failure to use quotes, it's white belt level at the moment.

 

[Striderx5]

 

[IDL]

"There are bleak things going on. To start with, Bill C-16 writes social constructionism into the fabric of the law. Social constructionism is the doctrine that all human roles are socially constructed. They’re detached from the underlying biology and from the underlying objective world. So Bill C-16 contains an assault on biology and an implicit assault on the idea of objective reality. It’s also blatant in the Ontario Human Rights Commission policies and the Ontario Human Rights Act. It says identity is nothing but subjective. So a person can be male one day and female the next, or male one hour and female the next."

^^ They may call this 'liberation from objective reality'

For too long, we have been oppressed by reality. It is time to throw off our shackles!

 

[freaky]

""Not only that, isn’t there a leadership convention right now? Have any of the candidates commented on any of this? No. Why? Because they’re afraid."

No, because there's no need to talk about it. It's a moot point. Only SJW cares about what pronouns we use. If we mislabel your gender it doesn't mean we don't care about you or that we are sexist or whatever. Stop being butthurt over something so trivial. Can we just stay on topic at hand?

It's like we are having a conversation then all of a sudden you stop and say "what you mean you people" even though the comment was harmless or accidental. You've completely changed the subject and the atmosphere of the conversation from a normal friendly conversation into an argument over a very small misunderstanding. Usually ends up with YOU PEOPLE educating me on YOUR KINDS!!! Not what I wanted to converse in the first place. I may have had a neutral feeling towards you, but after your correction and "education" I'll have a negative image of YOU PEOPLES.

Imagine if they do this to an ESL person.

 

[IDL]

""Not only that, isn’t there a leadership convention right now? Have any of the candidates commented on any of this? No. Why? Because they’re afraid."

No, because there's no need to talk about it. It's a moot point. Only SJW cares about what pronouns we use. If we mislabel your gender it doesn't mean we don't care about you or that we are sexist or whatever. Stop being butthurt over something so trivial. Can we just stay on topic at hand?

It's like we are having a conversation then all of a sudden you stop and say "what you mean you people" even though the comment was harmless or accidental. You've completely changed the subject and the atmosphere of the conversation from a normal friendly conversation into an argument over a very small misunderstanding. Usually ends up with YOU PEOPLE educating me on YOUR KINDS!!! Not what I wanted to converse in the first place. I may have had a neutral feeling towards you, but after your correction and "education" I'll have a negative image of YOU PEOPLES.

Imagine if they do this to an ESL person.

It isn't only SJW's. It's being incorporated into law, in addition to being enforced by political correctness. SJW's are just the manufactured vanguard of a far larger authoritarian push under the guise of 'social justice'

 

[Pixelated Porn]

http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/we...ts-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/

A great article that details many points of people failing to understand why many things in our historical context has happened as well as touching on gender identity, Bill C-51 as well highlighting the flaws in Conservatism and Leftism


"One of the things that I’m trying to convince my students of is that if they had been in Germany in the 1930s, they would have been Nazis. Everyone thinks “Not me,” and that’s not right. It was mostly ordinary people who committed the atrocities that characterized Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union."

"Assigned identity is oppression. Assigned identity is the identity that’s assigned to you by the power structure – the patriarchy. The only reason the patriarchy assigns you a status is to oppress you. And so the language that frees you from that status is revolutionary language. So, as an example of revolutionary language, we’re going to blow out the gender identity categories, because the concept of woman is oppressive. The anti-patriarchy philosophy is predicated on the idea that all social structures are oppressive, and not much more than that. Then to assault the structure is to question its categorical schemes at every possible level of analysis. And the most fundamental one that the anti-patriarchy radicals have come up with is gender. It’s a piece of identity that children usually pick up on around two – it’s pretty fundamental. You could argue that there isn’t anything more fundamental. Though, I don’t know of anything that’s more fundamental, more basic, and that would have been regarded as more unquestionable, even five years ago".

"Not only that, isn’t there a leadership convention right now? Have any of the candidates commented on any of this? No. Why? Because they’re afraid. I think the fact that no one’s commented on it is an indication of how even for conservatives, especially in Canada, this demand for orthodoxy has gone so far that even Conservatives are afraid to be conservative. This stuff is not easy to understand. You might ask, ‘why can’t you just call people what they want to be called?’ Well, when someone questions your use of pronouns, it puts you on the spot. You don’t know why you use the pronouns you use. You use them because everyone else uses them – it’s a social convention. Then someone else says ‘it’s a mark of respect to use a pronoun, and it’s a mark of respect to use the pronoun of someone’s choice’. Those are large-scale philosophical assaults. If you’re not prepared for them, all you can do is stumble around, and your default is going to be ‘well, maybe we should be nice"


Sorry for my failure to use quotes, it's white belt level at the moment.

The Earth is flat because spheres make me shit myself. I want the recount Hillary!!!

PS Ask Bill if the cigar was just the tip or balls deep.

 

[sangreporsangre]

Then the intellectuals think ‘oh, those rednecks, they’re stupid.’ Trades people are NOT stupid. In fact, they tend to have a lot more sense than most of the intellectuals that I know, even though they’re not as good at articulating their arguments.

 

[Metusalemi]

That man is my new idol.

 

[vespasian]

Some interesting quotes:

One of the things that I’m trying to convince my students of is that if they had been in Germany in the 1930s, they would have been Nazis.

SJWs would have been Mao's Red Guards.

I tell my students this too, you can tell when you’re being educated because you’re horrified. So if its pleasant and safe, it’s like you’re not learning anything. People learn things the hard way.

Snowflakes are not learning anything.

They had to choose between social justice or freedom of expression. They chose social justice – which is equity, or equality of outcome – because that’s what they’re teaching.

 

[second sight]

http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/we...ts-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/

A great article that details many points of people failing to understand why many things in our historical context has happened as well as touching on gender identity, Bill C-51 as well highlighting the flaws in Conservatism and Leftism


"One of the things that I’m trying to convince my students of is that if they had been in Germany in the 1930s, they would have been Nazis. Everyone thinks “Not me,” and that’s not right. It was mostly ordinary people who committed the atrocities that characterized Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union."

"Assigned identity is oppression. Assigned identity is the identity that’s assigned to you by the power structure – the patriarchy. The only reason the patriarchy assigns you a status is to oppress you. And so the language that frees you from that status is revolutionary language. So, as an example of revolutionary language, we’re going to blow out the gender identity categories, because the concept of woman is oppressive. The anti-patriarchy philosophy is predicated on the idea that all social structures are oppressive, and not much more than that. Then to assault the structure is to question its categorical schemes at every possible level of analysis. And the most fundamental one that the anti-patriarchy radicals have come up with is gender. It’s a piece of identity that children usually pick up on around two – it’s pretty fundamental. You could argue that there isn’t anything more fundamental. Though, I don’t know of anything that’s more fundamental, more basic, and that would have been regarded as more unquestionable, even five years ago".

"Not only that, isn’t there a leadership convention right now? Have any of the candidates commented on any of this? No. Why? Because they’re afraid. I think the fact that no one’s commented on it is an indication of how even for conservatives, especially in Canada, this demand for orthodoxy has gone so far that even Conservatives are afraid to be conservative. This stuff is not easy to understand. You might ask, ‘why can’t you just call people what they want to be called?’ Well, when someone questions your use of pronouns, it puts you on the spot. You don’t know why you use the pronouns you use. You use them because everyone else uses them – it’s a social convention. Then someone else says ‘it’s a mark of respect to use a pronoun, and it’s a mark of respect to use the pronoun of someone’s choice’. Those are large-scale philosophical assaults. If you’re not prepared for them, all you can do is stumble around, and your default is going to be ‘well, maybe we should be nice"


Sorry for my failure to use quotes, it's white belt level at the moment.

did you see @Big Brown Clown s thread on this the other day, Rogan interview?

 

[Metusalemi]

Now the price you pay for drawing a line – especially with the politically correct material – is that you’re going to get tarred and feathered for bigotry. The social justice people are always on the side of compassion and ‘victim’s rights,’ so objecting to anything they do makes you instantly a perpetrator. There’s no place you can stand without being vilified, and that’s why it keeps creeping forward.

Isn’t that the logical outcome of the tactical application of Saul Alinsky?

That’s exactly right. The thing is if you replace compassion with resentment, then you understand the authoritarian left. They don’t have compassion, there is no compassion there. There’s no compassion at all. There is resentment, fundamentally.

 

[vespasian]

Now the price you pay for drawing a line – especially with the politically correct material – is that you’re going to get tarred and feathered for bigotry. The social justice people are always on the side of compassion and ‘victim’s rights,’ so objecting to anything they do makes you instantly a perpetrator. There’s no place you can stand without being vilified, and that’s why it keeps creeping forward.

Isn’t that the logical outcome of the tactical application of Saul Alinsky?

That’s exactly right. The thing is if you replace compassion with resentment, then you understand the authoritarian left. They don’t have compassion, there is no compassion there. There’s no compassion at all. There is resentment, fundamentally.

How do you define social justice warriors?

They’re the ones who weaponize compassion

 

[MadSquabbles500]

This is like the season finale of Westworld. Seriously the fuck is he rambling on about?

 

[Swing]

As someone whose grandfather fought in WW2 for Germany, I've asked myself if I would have been a Nazi. I doubt it. For one thing, my grandfather wasn't (at least not according to my grandmother). And for another, only like 10% of Germans were Nazis anyway.

I'd concede the general point that I'd obviously be a very different person depending on the time and place of my upbringing, but I think a lot of people take that idea a good bit too far. Like it's far from guaranteed that a white guy born in the US during the 1800s would have been pro-slavery.

 

[Wally Brando]

http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/we...ts-lies-an-interview-with-dr-jordan-peterson/

A great article that details many points of people failing to understand why many things in our historical context has happened as well as touching on gender identity, Bill C-51 as well highlighting the flaws in Conservatism and Leftism


"One of the things that I’m trying to convince my students of is that if they had been in Germany in the 1930s, they would have been Nazis. Everyone thinks “Not me,” and that’s not right. It was mostly ordinary people who committed the atrocities that characterized Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union."

"Assigned identity is oppression. Assigned identity is the identity that’s assigned to you by the power structure – the patriarchy. The only reason the patriarchy assigns you a status is to oppress you. And so the language that frees you from that status is revolutionary language. So, as an example of revolutionary language, we’re going to blow out the gender identity categories, because the concept of woman is oppressive. The anti-patriarchy philosophy is predicated on the idea that all social structures are oppressive, and not much more than that. Then to assault the structure is to question its categorical schemes at every possible level of analysis. And the most fundamental one that the anti-patriarchy radicals have come up with is gender. It’s a piece of identity that children usually pick up on around two – it’s pretty fundamental. You could argue that there isn’t anything more fundamental. Though, I don’t know of anything that’s more fundamental, more basic, and that would have been regarded as more unquestionable, even five years ago".

"Not only that, isn’t there a leadership convention right now? Have any of the candidates commented on any of this? No. Why? Because they’re afraid. I think the fact that no one’s commented on it is an indication of how even for conservatives, especially in Canada, this demand for orthodoxy has gone so far that even Conservatives are afraid to be conservative. This stuff is not easy to understand. You might ask, ‘why can’t you just call people what they want to be called?’ Well, when someone questions your use of pronouns, it puts you on the spot. You don’t know why you use the pronouns you use. You use them because everyone else uses them – it’s a social convention. Then someone else says ‘it’s a mark of respect to use a pronoun, and it’s a mark of respect to use the pronoun of someone’s choice’. Those are large-scale philosophical assaults. If you’re not prepared for them, all you can do is stumble around, and your default is going to be ‘well, maybe we should be nice"


Sorry for my failure to use quotes, it's white belt level at the moment.

Let me summarize this dumbshit: "Things were things in the past and I don't like change because it makes my small dick soft. Using a different pronoun than what you expected to use is the greatest challenge a person could face because it makes you think for a couple seconds more about it than you are used to."

The end.

 

[Wally Brando]

Lol this guy grew up in Fairview Alberta. 'Nuf said.

It's always sad when a professor can't gain any traction in the public eye through his academic achievements so they resort to being 'edgy' by spouting bigoted beliefs through the guise of academia.

 

[klnOmega]

" And the most fundamental one that the anti-patriarchy radicals have come up with is gender. It’s a piece of identity that children usually pick up on around two – it’s pretty fundamental. You could argue that there isn’t anything more fundamental. Though, I don’t know of anything that’s more fundamental, more basic, and that would have been regarded as more unquestionable, even five years ago".

Yep. I feel like Winston in 1984 a lot. Gender """science""" is full of blatant contradictions that you must accept as a form of doublethink, and critical theory tells you that the most basic of truths are false. Its 2+2=5.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

First noticeable flaw:
"The only reason the patriarchy assigns you a status is to oppress you."
... no...

 

[loyalyolayal]

Lol this guy grew up in Fairview Alberta. 'Nuf said.

It's always sad when a professor can't gain any traction in the public eye through his academic achievements so they resort to being 'edgy' by spouting bigoted beliefs through the guise of academia.

I didn't know common sense is "edgy".

 

[Bald1]

First noticeable flaw:
"The only reason the patriarchy assigns you a status is to oppress you."
... no...

Psst....that's exactly his point.

As in, that's the reason for the new pronouns sprung up. Ie, self assigned statuses vs of an oppressive status assigned by the patriarchy, because our social norms are a result of said oppressive patriarchy.

He has an odd stream of consciousness / conversational style of lecturing.