Rather than left or right, I would support a university environment where all are free to air their ideas, and we can have a discussion. Now granted, there are some ideas, like hate speech, which I would rather not allow to be expressed. But we already have laws regarding that. They don't need to be tightened further. I don't want the left to be reduced to this. I a a proud leftist, and I disagree with this PC culture. The left used to stand for equal rights, freedom of speech, freedom from (actual) oppression... what are these "leftists" doing now? The left needs to reclaim itself.
I know the example I am providing here is something that is taking place in the UK, but I think it extends to the US. It turns out that in 4 out of 5 British universities, free speech no longer exists. And the accepted language isn't exactly rich in 'leftist' words ... Now, if you had said that, most of the time, the 'leftist' are found in the arts/languages sections and the 'more more money for me' are in the law/commerce sections, I would have agreed immediately.
jonas brave The left has no interest in arguing , because they will lose. Therefore, they seek to silence, because, they really think they have a right to never lose, even when by facts, logic and even internal consistency, they are dead fucking wrong..
The people who criticize Dr. Peterson in the comments below just based on what he's expressing here would be well served to go to his channel and start listening to some of his lectures on philosophy, psychology, ideology, and how these ideas work in history and social contexts. His insights transcend the extremes of any ideology. The various polarizing extremes of ideology that are dominating modern civic discourse have deep roots in human and social group psychology, which has been a dominant theme in his various lectures, as I have interpreted them. People, as a general rule, have almost no understanding of basic psychology, and by extension, have no real control over themselves and what they think. And I would suggest that people are already at a point in social conditioning that they have been wired to act in an dictated manner, without even realizing it. And since they act in a way that they have been programmed to feel is "doing the right thing", it's an ego reward and feeds that behavior to react. And that's a big piece of what is going on in modern discourse, the majority are acting as reactionaries. They are actively seeking things out to react to, typically in a negative manner. It's viscous cycle and it's not only extremely unhealthy for social systems, it's likely just as unhealthy for the individual. I've said it over and over, if people want to improve the world, or political systems, or whatever, the best thing they could do is get a basic handle of human psychology and their own psychology. Until people understand how their own mind works, they can never solve anything outside of it, and will continue to be manipulated by insidious external forces they aren't even aware of. Dr. Peterson analyzes philosophy, psychology, history, social systems, etc, and the ways they intersect with critically deep insight. Before you dismiss him based on one lecture, do yourself a favor and listen to more of his work. The best lectures on philosophy I've listened to are by Dr. Peterson. If a professor of psychology and philosophy can be accused of hate speech by studying and breaking down ideas from all possible angles, we are heading down a dark road. Thank you, Dr. Peterson for taking on this serious issue. You set a positive example of what a good professor should be. A brave man is one who challenges the people who signs his paychecks.
***** I believe that anybody reasonable who is informed about the experiences of gender minorities should call for your head, at least metaphorically. You should not be given a prestigious podium for spreading these ideas. I would not support your literal execution, but I would celebrate your firing, and I would root for your opponent if someone decided to try suing.
***** Have the number of people calling for your head, their reasonableness, or their arguments, been at all surprising to you? Would you have predicted the current likes to dislikes ratio on your video, for example?
Thank you, James Wentz, for demonstrating exactly what we're dealing with. These are the sorts of people that Dr Peterson has stated his intent to "arm."
***** If, having watched and understood Ronnie's response, you accept his critiques, and apologise for the ways in which your lecture propagated harmful misconceptions, I will accept that you do in fact deserve your authority. Very few people in your position would admit to being wrong in these ways. You are wrong, and dangerously so, and Ronnie has clearly outlined most of the specific ways in which you are wrong. Make the necessary adjustments and apologise for emboldening people like James Wentz above, and maybe I'll apologise for calling for your head.
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ― John G. Diefenbaker
If we don't have free speech, we don't live in a free society. If there is a language police in Canada, we are living in a totalitarian society. Have we forgotten the ideas of the enlightenment? Was it that long ago? I guess you have free speech in Canada, as long as you agree with the government.
He's not being dramatic. This law will make it illegal to openly question the validity of so-called progressive gender ideology. For example, as Dr. Peterson pointed out, the proposition that gender and sex are fundamentally different from one another. Anything less than indulging the often neurotic whims of "non-binary, gender fluid" people who don't even have gender dysphoria (look up truscum) will also constitute criminal discrimination under the law. Discussing the possibility of illness for people who have perfectly healthy bodies but are dysphoric and compelled to surgically alter said healthy body and ingest sex hormones (often with unsatisfactory results) will also be a crime. Discussing therapy as a legitimate form of treatment rather than highly invasive and irreversible surgery and physically harmful hormone regimens will be illegal. So, yes. Free speech is indeed under attack as is freedom. It's no longer enough to disagree with the above views. They're being criminalized.
ZeroAffectation I think he's on the other side, though, saying people's ability to express themselves infringes on his rights and makes Canada a totalitarian regime.
I think this piece of news is relevant to part of this conversation. The American Psychological Association has just made it very clear that same-sex attraction and related gender-identity issues are A MATTER OF CHOICE NOT BIOLOGY. APA now accepts the research that people aren't ''born that way'' This significantly changes things because this is no longer a matter of civil rights, as genuine biological characteristics as race, sex, etc, are; it's a matter of protecting unfounded political claims of special-interest groups, and criminally persecuting those who question such decisions, even while APA itself proves legitimacy for criticism. www.lifesitenews.com/news/psychology-researcher-lesbian-blows-the-doors-off-born-gay-theory?
I have just read ALL of the 345 comments. 99 per cent of them are supportive and grateful for your Part I video, and look forward to Parts II and III. Keep it up.
And that is truly the saddest comment I've read here. While I would not go so far to say there is any hate or malice in anything he says, I think it does illustrate a great deal of ignorance toward various minorities as well a certain amount of hyperbole regarding the unintended consequences of the legislation.
Do you think even one of those supportive and grateful comments was by somebody who is not cisgender? The majority pat each other on the back for their willingness to disrespect minorities...
***** Members of the gender majorities (cismen and ciswomen), and members of the gender minorities (transmen, transwomen, androgynes, intersex people, demi-boys and demi-girls, etc) naturally have a differing perspective on matters of gender, just like members of ethnic majorities naturally have a differing perspective on matters of ethnicity than members of ethnic minorities. If somebody made a video saying that First Nations identities are fraudulent and defending white people's right to pretend they're the original occupants of this land, and the comments section was mostly European people congratulating them on their bravery for speaking out, except for a few (mostly First Nations people) who objected, who would be the racist in that scenario?
I know you have no idea what I know about politically correct legislation... or what I know about who is trying to push said legislation through. I know a lot. But you must not, if you think it is good legislation.
Dr. Peterson: As a gay man, I think you're awesome. Don't stop fighting the good fight for free speech - and don't let these establishment ideologues try to bully you into submission. Thank you.
By all means: I would point to the case of One vs. Olesen in the United States. The trial resulted in the Supreme Court deciding in favour of a gay-interest magazine which faced censorship when contemporary society (this was 1958) was very much opposed to gay rights. Political correctness is nothing more than ideological censorship, the very same kind that was used to censor a magazine because it represented "obscene" views. In that respect, when given the option of siding with the censor or the free speech rebel (if I may call you that,) I believe it is incumbent on minorities like myself to defend free speech as the negative effects of free speech are far more limited in comparison to the negative effects of censorship.
Stop the Self Censorship, Take Gad Saad as an example, he adds more to the controversy. We have to fight political correctness, and the majority is with you.
I had to quit my job last year because of these issues (I'm a psychotherapist and suddenly was inundated with mentally fragile teens stating they were transgender). I have been waiting for your thoughts on this matter and greatly appreciate your willingness to speak out - I kid you not - I listen to your lectures day and night the last few months - my daughter listens to them too and passes them on to her friends - the reason I love your lectures is because you seem to be a dying breed - you speak your mind - your freedom do do so has literally been keeping me from going insane - you have been preserving my coherence - and what you said about being made into a tool for ideologues really nailed this dilemma - we are no longer valued for thinking but instead for offering our own minds up in the service of what? I will pass this on to others.
As I observed it with the kids who came to me, they were all quite fragile psychologically, and that fragility was compounded by the transition of adolescence. They were experiencing profound inner chaos and confusion and transgender became a new and promising category inside which they could find structure and meaning for their suffering. To me transgender expression isn't so much a mental disorder but a sign that an individual has potentially repackaged perhaps another disorder (anxiety, autistic spectrum issues perhaps, dissociative disorders) inside this new category. Almost all psychological disorders alter or prevent normative development - a diagnosis of transgenderism can greatly distract an individual from an underlying condition that makes normative life expectaions difficult to achieve. In some sense I understand how powerful this new category is for people who find comfort within it - it's just not a very deep or effective way to really heal the underlying condition. It's more likely to help people by giving them access to a community or tribe that shares their values to some degree. I would prefer atypical kids not be diverted into that category, but rather face the pain of maturation and come through it stronger rather than more dependent. But these impression, clinical in nature, have literally been tossed out the window due to trans activism. Clinicians must comply or they will be out of compliance with the law. Like Jordan, I just couldn't sit with kids and call them by their new pronouns, it felt like I was being forced to lie, it felt tyrannical. And I knew the kids would never trust me if they saw me cower and bend to their dictates. With all other mentally ill folk who try to manipulate those who help them this can be addressed clinically. It's part of the treatment to address how the individual who feels out of control tries to control others so as to reach some equilibrium. But with transgender treatment the client's underlying pathology is never addressed, it's simply not allowed. I had one teen, who I adored, she was sorta a female version of Jim Carrey, tell me that her group of friends, all some category of queer, walked around the school and they were "the masters of the universe!" They were also cutting their bodies on a routine bases and swimming in suicidal ideation - the girl came to me because her girlfriend had just killed herself and now she thought she should too. These kids were 13. Our poor children - I remember being sad now and again - and I had real problems - but nobody ever discussed suicide as an option. All the kids I met with knew people or went to school with someone who had threaten or committed suicide. Anyway - I just realized I couldn't keep on with the teens as sooner or later one of mine would do it and I just knew it would destroy me on some level - the transgender kids have significantly higher rates of suicide. Sorry to go on and on - I obviously have been really upset and working overtime for the last few years trying to make sense of what has been happening in the field of clinical psychology.
Thank you. I'm not a sir, lol, but I'll take the attribution as a compliment. I've written volumes to myself trying to untangle what has happened , but it's really been our hero, Prof Peterson, who has helped me piece it all together. In an existential sense we are being systematically mandated to lie about the way in which we perceive reality. This is basically a kind of enforced psychic death, we are being asked to relinquish the very authority of our own senses. For many of us, the awareness that this is the best of us is more than evident. Many of us who have stuggled to face hard realities head on, to wrangle with the depths of life, experience political correctness is a kind of crucifixion - it is the death of our own perceptions. Hopefully we will rise up. I believe it possible.
Trying to make people who want to change their sex not do so is futile. Why can't people do what they want with their bodies and alter it how they so choose?
My concern is conflating actions that mentally fragile people may take with the actual question of people who are not the gender their body physically expresses. Yes, someone who is feeling some form of mental fragility will cast about for a rationale, for a solution; but that in no way means that what they find is not an actual solution for someone else. I personally know several women who spent decades - one was 50, the other 70 - living as men, until they finally felt able to make the transition to the gender that aligned with how they truly felt. tl;dr version: don't toss the baby out with the bathwater.
I work in tech, and for the past 5-6 years now I've witnessed what was once an industry very much dominated by classically liberal thought become overrun with social justice warriors. People self sensor in the office, are afraid to show public affection of *any* kind (pats on the back or compliments about appearance are fireable offenses at big tech companies now), and are terrified to say anything as someone's always out to get you in trouble. This video was remarkable, but I could hear the terror in your voice. Don't be afraid, I've shared this video with a small group of like minded folks in the office and they're blown away. Thanks so much Dr. Peterson, there's more of us out there and while we're too afraid to speak, we do have your back.
I think that if you're in disagreement with this video, ask yourself if you're in disagreement with some of the professor's ideas about LGBT rights, leftism, marxism or if you're in disagreement with what he was actually talking about [which is easy to miss if you're triggered]. I think a lot of people are missing the forest for the trees here. The professor has some ideas that shine through - ideas that you may or may not agree with. That isn't the topic; that isn't the issue. He's using this particular bill and these particular ideas as a TOOL to illustrate a growing problem: that the left has, for the better part of 50 years, been on the assault of the freedoms of sharing ideas and of speech, and they aren't slowing down. It has become socially acceptable to shred people's privacy, reputation and career over a disagreement of values that are very new and not well considered in some cases. One can go to the extreme and argue "Would it be acceptable under the professors argument, then, to show up to work in full Nazi regalia and expect to keep their jobs or not have anyone outraged?" I expect that most people would agree that wouldn't be socially acceptable, and that such a person losing their job would be justified. What is a problem, however, is that the left continues to widen the scope of what is "not acceptable" at break-neck pace. They also have an army of social justice warriors who are the modern equivalent of "the muscle," silencing critics and dissenters with the new age of personal and professional attacks. This has also somehow become acceptable. Dissent and debate AREN'T ALLOWED in much of the company of left [or right, for that matter, but the right at least gets a lot of shit about it] ideologists. Whether you're educated on a subject or not, your opinion is often only welcome if you are in congruence with their ideals. If you aren't, the company often gets very hostile. IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO BE ANGRY! It's your and my right to get upset about ideas that we don't agree with. It's your and my right to keep the company of people who share our values. It is NOT the right of anyone to project their value structure onto me, expect me to adhere to it and then to attack me if I don't. The professor is concerned about the scope widening with regard to those expectations and the effect that it's having on a fair discourse and employment in academia [and now, suddenly, legal implications as well]. Like it or not, there ARE reasonable arguments that support the patriarchy. There ARE reasonable arguments that transgenderism is a mental disorder by modern definitions. There ARE reasonable arguments that marxism is a dangerous and "murderous" [his words, not mine] ideology. Whether you agree with the propositions and arguments or not, it is suddenly risking personal safety, career and even freedom to even DISCUSS THESE IDEAS in all but careful company. If you're a smart debater, you could argue that this has been the status quo for some time for the right [e.g. it isn't socially acceptable to talk about Eugenics, Facism, IQ/Race correlations, for example], but unlike the right, the left seems to be ever-expanding the list of what isn't politically correct, then imposing that will with a vigor and wrath that's been long reserved for only the most heinous opinions and actions. That's a problem. It might surprise you to hear after reading this that I'm a social liberal, and support many of the progressive movements that I admit have 'fair' arguments against. This isn't about my opinion, though, or Dr. Petersons. It's about all of us, our freedom, and it is important.
"They also have an army of social justice warriors who are the modern equivalent of "the muscle," silencing critics and dissenters with the new age of personal and professional attacks. " This "muscle" is reminiscent of the Brown Shirts, the Komsomnolets, or Mao's Red Guard. Most of my family lived in the Soviet Union for seventy years and I am well aware of how the Komsomnol operated.
Ken P, uh, sorry to interrupt with something unrelated, but you might want to check the spelling on "komsomol" and all derivative words. There's no "n" after second "m". I've seen you make this typo in other posts on here. As someone with a similar background I couldn't ignore it. Sorry to bother you, have a nice day!
Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Professor Peterson, you are doing the right thing, with determination and courage. You have my solidarity, profound admiration and my prayers. You will win this battle and make difference.
How is biological sex assigned at birth? That is also a political statement. Im not assigned female, I AM female, based on biological science. This stuff is very messy and Im very glad a professor is talking about this.
Geoff Stone but that is the entire point. What transgenderism does is say a girl=pink, boy is blue. Suppose I liked only 'boy' things (I did a lot), transgenderism says one is then a transman. Its just using one gender stereotype but then put on the opposite sex. How is that progressive? Isnt it more progressive to do away with gender altogether? This also will free women, as we are most oppressed by gender socialisation. And its not only colors and toys, but everyday sexism, violence against women. I btw didnt get a pink blanket, nor a pink room. Genderrroles and norms these days have become way more strict.
Geoff Stone and another thing to ponder. Why does certain behavior and identification make one a man or a woman? Why cant transwomen be just transgender men? Or gender non conforming men. Why do they have to be woman. What makes a woman? I say biology does.
Geoff Stone I like the way you think! Going to watch your video. If youre in this debate and you have a different opinion from the trans activists you'll get attacked a lot. Its a battlefield, which perhaps you may have noticed yourself. So I assumed you were giving me a battle as well :). I see you have found some paradoxes in transgenderism. Ive found them too. Great.
Not a silent majority. Just a majority. From whom some minority groups are asking for a little courtesy, and being told that makes them ideologically identical to Stalin and Mao.
TheSharpeful It's exactly what's happening here. Look at the likes/dislikes. The majority are supportive, and many of them loudly so. Meanwhile a few nonbinary and trans people are objecting because the lecture teaches people that it's okay to invalidate them, but they're being largely drowned out by cis people who think that the gender minorities A) aren't real and B) aren't really being mistreated. It's a fight between people who think it's all bullshit, and people who are living it. The former massively outnumber the latter, sadly... which is why protection under law can be justified. The "silent" majority wasn't about to start treating nonbinary people with respect.
***** "It's exactly what's happening here. Look at the likes/dislikes." Thank god so many people still have common sense. "Meanwhile a few nonbinary and trans people are objecting because the lecture teaches people that it's okay to invalidate them" No, the lecture does not "teach" anything like that. "but they're being largely drowned out by cis people" You mean, there are people who disagree? Why I never... surely we should get together and push a law to criminalize that! Oh... wait. "The former massively outnumber the latter, sadly... which is why protection under law can be justified" Everyone is already protected under the law you moron! What you want is to protect certain peoples subjective "feelings" with the law. If you don't understand how completely ass backwards, subjective, harmful (and actually oppressive for once) that is then there is no hope for you. Know this... you sjw types keep pushing your PC orwellian shit onto society, there will be a violent backlash against you when enough people get fed up. Consider this a semi-friendly warning :)
Michael it's not gender minorities who are objecting. You shouldn't lump them all together. It's mostly white cis SJWs with savior complexes. I personally know a trans woman, for example, who doesn't buy into any of this crap and would likely agree with most of what Jordan has to say. And to your other point, I imagine that Jordan wouldn't support the current over-reaching "protections" for racial/religious minorities either. Almost everything he said applies more generally. People are not so fragile as you seem to think and mean comments certainly don't "invalidate" anyone. We don't need criminalize everything that can possibly be interpreted as slightly hurtful or dismissive. My trans friend says she resents the way that everyone is afraid to talk to her at the risk of accidentally causing offence. And she points out that real transphobes are never going to change their minds merely by being silenced by such rules. What we need is open and honest dialogue, not Orwellian thought policing.
This was really interesting. Thanks for the comprehensive overview of social justice activities in Canada. Let me know if you're willing to come on my channel for a live stream sometime and talk about this subject.
+Jordan B Peterson Maybe a general talk about social justice and its effects on Canadian free speech--and by extension the western world--and the controversy of you refusing to let ideologues dictate what language and pronouns to use. Just something simple and unpretentious to introduce you to my viewers, because I think a lot of them would enjoy the deeper analysis that you provide on these and other issues.
I read about you in the TO marxist papers two days ago. It had a picture of a student holding a sign that said "we're watching you, Dr. Peterson" or something like that. Yeah, seeing that still gives me the creeps.
Yes, it does matter actually. I don't see any authoritarianism coming from the right these days. I'm non-partisan, though I think I had a more leftist slant before it started going off the deep end. Conservatism is trying desperately to hold onto the status quo now. We are losing our culture, family structure and society to all these wacko progressive ideals. Progressivism is trying to dismantle everything about western civilization that made it the most successful.
Zenn Temple Music Well said!! I never saw it from the perspective that they are acting this way due to "Nihilistic Narcissism", but you are absolutely correct. Where is the consistency in their beliefs found...look at me narcissistic virtue signaling. I have cousins in Germany who are female and they've never have been so afraid to be in public, must be their inherent "Islamophobia".
For me it is very obvious that Dr. Peterson is not imposing any of his thoughts on anyone but is looking for a serious and information-based discussion. I applaud you sir! Respect from Germany!
Hello Dr. Peterson. Long time fan of your work. First time commenting. Thank you so much for all your lectures. I am eternally grateful for the insights your words have provided me with over the past several years. I just wanted to commend you for your bravery. I live in the states and I see some of the things you've layed out here first hand. It is truly terrifying. Seeing you stand up for reason and rationality here has given me hope, though. I know it's scary but you are truly doing the right thing. Best wishes my friend.
PS. I have no clue if this is of any interest to you but I just left a comment on Duncan Trussel's website referring him to you with a few links of your work. If you're not aware of him he's a comedian, spiritualist and podcaster closely associated with Joe Rogan. They often podcast together. Joe has gone to great lengths to highlight the same absurdity that you illustrated in this talk and I think he would be seriously interested in not only what you have to say on this subject but your work in general. Another commenter mentioned Gad Saad who works at Concordia University. I bet that if you reached out to him he could probably help you get on Joe's show. It's the most popular podcast on the internet and could serve as a tremendous signal boost for both your podcast and this particular message as well. Again, not sure if any of that is your cup of tea but I am sure that it would be achievable permitting it's something you would like to pursue. Think about it!
Professor Peterson, you are a hero of academia. You will always have my support, and the support of many others in education and other fields. Thank you for taking a stand.
Whatever happened to keeping a distinction between "offence" and "harm"? The fact that our society is based on hundreds (if not thousands) of years of established and coherent political philosophy, only to be cast aside in a few short decades by a radical few driven by pathological moral exculpation is truly terrifying.
bravo professor! thank God we have someone like you who could show us what's Really going on and the horrible consequences these actions will lead to. I just want to say that it's really really brave of you to speak against this madness and please go on we are with you. your student from Pakistan
Dr Peterson this upsets me hearing your struggle in your world of academia;I should imagine it must be some kind of hell for a knowing man to be surrounded by this toxic pc lefty ideology,enough to doubt your own sanity. I struggle living in one of the most extreme left parts of London where jeremy corbyn is graffiti on walls like some sort of God ,by young hipster liberal art student types ,its,utterly depressing and demoralizing and has made me tempted to join some right wing group just so I can freely express my opinions which aren't even that extreme,I feel I'm experiencing a similar thing it's just utterly devoid of balance or reasoning,I've been branded a racist a bigot a little Englander,narrow minded etc purely because of my vote to leave the EU I can feel the swellings of extreme right wing feelings which I try and temper with my love of humanity ,it's soul destroying to be in this situation,surrounded by the metropolitan elite who shut you down for anything that they consider politically incorrect ,you're right it is no different from nazism I even have this ridiculous idea of wanting to move to the deep south of America where I maybe would be amongst people who feel the same ,I long to be able to openly talk about my concerns ,but it's not different when in nazi Germany you had to watch what you said in front of neighbours and even friends in case you were reported for views that were anti government ,obviously that us an extreme example but it is utterly terrifying and I can't imagine having to deal with that in a place of work where your job is basically to express your thoughts ,all I cN think of is George Orwell - "the first duty of intelligent men, is,reinstatement of the obvious " please men like the you are sorely needed in society ,your intelligence and brilliant understanding of people and society is the only thing I feel that can counteract the liberal so called "intelligentsia " kill them with reasoning ,facts,history and,reality you've helped me so much make sense of this toxic ideology that permeates modern society and give me hope,you're the modern George Orwell ,you can see and feel things that a lot of people can't see or understand and that Is a lonely lonely place, you aren't alone
I first became aware of Jordan Peterson through various Agenda with Steve Paikin episodes and was immediately captivated by his brilliance. I have now watched some of his youtube videos as many as 20 times trying to fully digest the sum of knowledge he is bestowing humanity. Before I knew of Prof Peterson I admit that I looked down on most of the social sciences and humanities (my education is in mathematics). This was not because I felt the material was inferior - I myself have always enjoyed history and classical western literature for example - but rather because of the clear ideological bias that exists within academia in general and the humanities in particular. For a long time now I have also be concerned about the increasingly politically correct atmosphere growing within academia - safe spaces (*cringe*), post-modernism, and the marxist influence felt particularly strong within the social sciences. I think I remember you saying in one of your videos that you sometimes felt that students left university worse off than when they arrived. I unfortunately feel that this is true. It seems that all to often universities merely pump out ideologues. Worse still these people have been duped into believing that they are critical thinkers. As soon as I saw this video posted I couldn't help but watch and I commend you on speaking out about this. I will do my small part to share this video with others.
(1).Since we live on a ball. Why when you leave earth and go up in elevation to any height, does the horizon always rise's to match your eye level? ( I might not be educated as much as you may believe you are, but, when that sorta simple thing happens!! You can only contend you are on a flat plane.. If we live on a ball, the curvizon would always be dropping off.) (2). Why is water infinitely flat or running down and finding flat. ( I personally have never seen water have any kind of a curve, other than some retention at the end of a water goblet) Therefore one would have to once again contend that water is and always will be!! Flat like everybody's horizon standing still & being level with everybody on this motionless created once beautiful enclosed plane.... (3). I understand the amount of hate that the so-called higher educated class will have towards a fact that even they were lied to as well. I do however feel that at least some of the educated may with a little coaching & a kick in the ass here & there, they just might have enough time too UN-educate themselves!! Remember! Starting at the bottom and starting over!! Is the same thing! Basically its time to step off the created spinning NASA ball you have been out of control flying through space at speeds only the NASA can make up.
Reading the Gulag Archipelago while dealing with an awkward problem at work has made me have a revelation: broad, vague or poorly enforced rules are written with the intent of having an excuse whenever authority figures wish to apprehend or punish people, either because they are required to demonstrate their power or because said people have shown themselves to be their enemies. I think it's fair to say that the less clear and focused a rule is, the more people there are liable to - consciously or otherwise - break it, and to say, "They'll never actually enforce it," is only to enable their authoritarianism, for if that were really true then there'd be no reason to actually write it into law to begin with. Finally, the fact that authorities let people break a rule gives you no defense should you ever be accused of doing so yourself. "Everyone does it" and other claims of bias or prejudice are not an excuse and certainly would not be listened to should you happen to be part of an "unwanted" group. The end result is people living in fear.
Dr. Peterson, have you ever considered combining your powers with Prof. Gad Saad, who works in Montreal? I first heard him on the Joe Rogan Experience, which I hope to see you appear on as well someday. And do you see this PC nitpicking continuing much further into being written law? Will the general population rise and shut it down or will they be too busy playing on their pocket dopamine screens and eating Cheetos to care? I believe that it is too late, and that if the people at large were ever going to take initiative, they would have by now and if they ever do, it may be too late. I am sometimes depressed about the way things are and where they are going, especially the growing disillusion and schism between the sexes, but I am also excited to be alive in what seems to be a make-or-break moment in history. Thank you.
FINALLY someone that presents a logical, eloquent and objective argument that addresses this unfortunate reality. People are being dictated how to express themselves, what to say and not to say, what to fear and what to feel guilty of, either purposefully or unwittingly. The blind adoption of useless terms and communication guidelines by HR departments without a second thought or meaningful debate is worrisome, as they shape people's minds and attitudes in situations that were not an issue to being with. Most importantly, anyone raising a reasonable point of debate, is swiftly dealt with and given all kinds of labels, thereby contradicting the 'tolerance' ideology this all stems from. It´s madness and it seems we're being herded towards the least common denominator. Professor Peterson, thank you for taking the time and courage to speak out about this. I'm very interested as to the response of the University administrators in this matter.
Jordan, I am very sorry to hear about your experiences, but none of what you say surprises me. I have wrestled with some of your ideas, but overall l have found your lectures extremely useful in creating clarity to some of my own personal problems, and how they might reflect on wider society. Regardless of our own personal biasis, its so important to hear a pluarity of voices, especially if we have a genuine desire to seek the truth.
I just shut up and went to class without ever participating in discussion about political or social issues. As a economically conservative person who only accepts things based off of facts and reason, I see no point in debating with a mob of nonsensical people who yell in your face and have absolutely no chance of changing their views because they are based on nothing more than an ideology and pure emotion rather than coherent or independent thought.
Hello Professor Peterson. I am a friend of some of your appreciative students. I am also the Gregory Alan Elliott of Twitter Trial fame. Your video describes and explains the system/people who tried their cancerous best to use Political Correctness to throw me in jail in order to silence my online political opinions and observations. Thank you. I have just emailed information about you and your work to some of the most powerful and intelligent Freedom Of Speech activists and personalities on the planet. I won't list them here, but please keep an eye out for them. They are a valuable support network. Regards.
Thank you professor. I am college student in the USA and I constantly find myself afraid to say things in fear of having a mob after me for doing "wrongthink".
Free speech is a fundamental human right. Please continue to stand strong against #SJW cultist fascism. They are the mindless brownshirts of an elitist political/donor class that needs to be put in its place.
Of course it is, but it still limits. Remember that the next time you have an urge to yell 'fire!' in a movie theater. You would think at a time when we are finally starting to come to terms with the damage caused by bullying, we would understand the need for people to be treated with basic respect.
Not at all. I support his right to have his opinion and to express it. Where I draw the line is when he berates one of his trans students and tells them they "are sick and of course they cannot use the washroom that matches their gender because there is no such thing as gender spectrum."
Must be nice and reassuring Greg to have such a clear black and white view of the world. Too bad that view has no relation to the world we actually live in. Let me know when you return to Earth and we can talk about this world.
People are just so god damn soft these days, you're literally walking on egg shells around people who are so head strong on PC, and almost everything we do or say people will get TRIGGERED.
Many people nowadays have this ridiculous notion that they should to be able to go through an entire life without ever being offended. To those people I say, grow some F'ing skin.
having seen this absolute farce unfold first hand from here in B.C. and having seen Mr Peterson stand fast on the bridge of sanity proclaiming "you shall not pass", I feel ashaimed to have not already voiced my support and heart-felt greatfulness that someone is standing up for reality...... Mr P, You are a true hero and I only pray more people wake the hell up and see reality.
I honestly didn't think professors such as yourself existed in academia anymore. This is the kind of thoughtful discussion that leads to the type of discourse that should be held in high esteem in post secondary education. I too fear the totalitarian nature of these new laws and I'm especially frightened about the implications for my future children. Please keep up the good fight. Do not go quietly into the night!
Thank you for making this video! You have expressed very eloquently what many of us are thinking. Your logic and common sense approach to this whole subject is difficult to argue against. By the way, you are not the only one who would be ready to go to jail for speaking the truth to this generation. Literally millions of people wholly agree with you on all this. I keep asking myself, "How can intelligent people have come to believe such non-sense and promote it as undeniable truth?" I will be looking forward to Part 2! :)
We need more principled people like Peterson that will speak up and talk about the truth and stand up against the SJW and PC madness ! Thank you for being a rare beacon of truth and hope !
I understand your fears of radical activists, and extreme political correctness. I particularly agreed with your observations about people using "being good" as a pretence to have enemies to go after. Or seeking ways to find people to be bad/racist/horrible in order to perpetuate this dynamic of moral superiority. You articulated something I have felt but been able to put into words until I heard your's. So thank you very much. These political activities do seem very scary at times. The religious fanaticism of people to be ideologically pure and good too often goes far over board. It reminds me of religious fanatics doing things such as inquisitions or witch hunts to ferret out "bad people". I have been told things like LIP LINER is "cultural appropriation" and "problematic"... saying I didn't think it was was me being a "white supremacist, imperialist, pro-colonialism". I wonder if legislation like this will lead to black people wearing kimonos or white people with dreadlocks will become a criminal activity. However, in regards to gender I would like to recommend to you the book "Gender Trouble" by Judith Butler. I hope you do not reject this out of hand assuming it is in opposition to your position, and therefore unworthy of your attention. It is a very good book and something I found profound and illuminating. If nothing else reading it will allow you to understand the views of those you disagree with. I think it is often consider a "seminal text" of gender studies type people. (Although I think they did not seem to read the same book as me with what they took away from it) I am homosexual and mildly effeminate. Despite great efforts to not come off as abnormal it seems beyond my control. I have no nefarious goals in saying that I feel I have been unfairly mistreated in my life because of this. It seems as if you think this feeling is either fabricated, or subconsciously constructed with no basis in reality. Am I just caught up in mass hysteria? Are my nefarious aspirations part of a collective unconscious? I suppose I have no concrete way of proving or showing this. However, to me it seems self evident and it is hard for me to imagine how someone else could not see the existence of various prejudices such as these (Granted I also live in Calgary and you live in Toronto). I think you are misunderstanding peoples' intentions on a massive scale. I definitely don't want to live in a re-made Soviet Union or under the Khmer Rouge. I am confused about whether you think people are plotting nefarious schemes and do not have genuine intentions, as you point out intention is what matters. Also my significant other is an educational psychologist so I would be interested to see how that is a "worst offender"... he checks children for conditions like dyslexia...? Or I guess I do not know what educational psychology academics write about as opposed to those who actually work, as he does, in the field of educational psychology. I find you very interesting (hence listening to you for an hour). I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us, especially the points I disagree with. All the best :) !
Intentions are immaterial outside the legal or social context. Consequences are all that matters in the context of history. On the world stage, there are typically multiple causal pathways culminating in events, but the gyrations of history are usually most clearly and readily perceived as proceeding from those who gained power only to force their willful intentions on the rest of us, and whether those intentions are good or bad play but a nominal role in whether the actual consequences of those intentions are good or bad. Past is prologue. This pattern of events is nothing new to profound thinkers like myself and Dr. Peterson. On the surface it might appear we have a new set of facts here, but the underlying patterns have played themselves out before. Dr. Peterson possesses an erudite understanding of those subtle patterns. He thus perceives good cause for alarm, and that is why he is forced to play the role of the martyr. In any case, I do believe he is correct in pointing out that some of the people behind the politically correct agenda do have nefarious intentions. However, as I said, that is of no consequence. Indeed, if history is any real indicator, a belief in their good intentions might indicate something far worse. The most vile stories in human history more often than not first appear on the world stage dressed in the finest moral linens. The truth of those "good intentions" is revealed a few million casualties later.
Derek Aitken, thanks for putting this into words so nicely! I feel exactly the same. I am also a mildly non-conformist lgbt person, and I agree that the way this law is written is dangerous and ridiculous. There are so many ways it could be misused. You could misgender someone by accident while trying to warn them about danger (or otherwise help them) and end up being sued. I'm all for a law that would protect my trans friends from losing jobs or being harassed. But this law goes too far. You can't punish people for potentially upsetting someone unintentionally. That's ridiculous! The law needs to be majorly reworked if it's to solve any problems for anyone at all. In its current form it will only bring about a lot more problems and more hate towards the people it aims to protect as they will be seen as the source of the problem. :\ It's terrible how parts of the left have gone to such extremes these days, giving the rest a very bad name. A few years ago people who got called "sjw" were often just asking for diversity in media or pointing out stereotypes they dislike. Nowadays there's a considerable group of people labeled that way that acts just as badly as the people the original "sjw"s opposed. It's a darn shame.
I'll take you up on that discussion if you like. I'll start by saying that I do think that people in power, especially current politicians, use you as a wedge issue to gain power and support and that their intents at large are self-intrested at the expense of Canada to the point of being able to be considered nefarious. To some extent your real problems are used as a stepping stone to demonize and threaten political opposition and non-conformity. This does not say that you yourself is nefarious, or that all or most LGBT organizers are nefarious, or that your problems and prejudices against you are not real or do not cause you material problems. But you can see clearly, when you're outside yourself and looking at the problem objectively, how this legislation itself is nefarious, and how it is a gateway to very serious problems. So, that brings us to the question of why gender and sexuality should not be an exception. Well, you talked about concerns of 'cultural appropriation' being taken to ridiculous levels. Well, in that case you're getting mistreated just for being white. I expect that's nothing like the more serious mistreatments you've experienced, but it is a mistreatment on that basis, and people are mistreated for being white. And while we can and probably should socially frown on that kind of mistreatment, if we shouldn't be able to legally silence people for disliking whites we shouldn’t be able to legally silence someone for disliking gays. If you're part of any kind of identifiable group, be it centred around ideology or race or gender or whatnot, you're going to find people that dislike you based on disliking that group. Part of having any kind of meaningful identity either by nature or choice (race or ideology or the grey area of sexuality) is going to be to stand up for it and to be opposed for it. It sucks when your group is either a very small minority or especially unacceptable for whatever reason. In such case you can integrate and try to fit in with larger groups (you tried, it didn't work well for you, it does work for some), you can promote sympathy for your group or respect for it by your behaviour and example (I would hope you do this as well, but it takes a lot of time to change minds), and you can created a sub-culture and associate mostly with people that identify with you. Gays do all three of these things fairly well. But yeah, if you are something, if you stand for something, if you do something, you're going to have to face some opposition and mistreatment based on it. Such is the nature of the world. Governments trying to suppress disagreements will always boil down to favouring one group over another, there isn't any other way to do it. To say gender should be protected but race or ideology should not is merely to say that your interests should be protected over others.
I have also taken issue with these political activists pretending like they know me or have the right to speak on my behalf. Not only am I technically crippled (I have a uncurable rare disease that disallows me from doing certain things), but I am also asexual as well and these people have never represented me in any way, I do not consider myself as part of the LGTBQ whatever community. To me these notions are wholly contradicting and self-defeating. " Lets get away from X form of prejudice! How do we achieve it? Oh I know, lets make the one thing that makes us different the most defining part about us! " Doesn't make any sense.
Thank you so much sir. Found your channel after watching two recordings of you at the UoT free speech rallies- it brought me to tears, the way you were treated. You're an upstanding, inspirational man.
Thank you, Dr. Peterson; your video took courage. It was also instructive. "Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
People who enjoyed this might also consider watching Professor Eric Dodson's thoughts on the shame-driven elements of the social justice movement. He's a philosopher by training -- critiquing the movement from an existential perspective. Here's the video link: ruclips.net/video/0VPiLfbesUI/видео.html
You are brave and I applaud your stand against absurdity and political correctness. But I don't see this a battle that will be won by logical, sane people. We are not the majority in North America. People attempted to indoctrinate me into this mindset when I was a brown kid from a single parent family on welfare, a situation I had no control over. They attempted to coddle me, tell me how much of a victim I was and how the world was set against me and there was nothing I could do about it. What they didn't know was that I had learned to read from 2 years old. I had been studying philosophical dilemmas, human emotions and history on my own for years before I ever entered public school. I saw them as unwell people with serious issues of their own who felt better by telling me how much of a victim I was, even if their lies could hurt me and threaten my future. I rejected them and their demented ideas wholeheartedly. I am sad to see that this victim mentality, external locus of control hysteria has become the norm and is supported by otherwise seemingly sane people. But I can't say that I am surprised. We are witnessing the fall of western civilization.
Fellow Canadian dropping in--also former Toronto native. Just wanted to comment and say that I appreciate Mr. Peterson has the balls to stand up to this politically correct insanity. I wish a lot of people were brave enough to take such a stand.
I only found this link because a few of my fellow atheist 'free thinkers ' want Prof. Peterson fired. Nice! Christopher Hitchens gave one of his best speeches at the U of T on free speech. He'd roll over in his grave if that were a thing.
"Free thinker" is a slogan, that many people throw out to describe their disbelief in a deity or position against religion (mainly Christianity). However i find an ridiculous amount of these folks are ideologues who don't think but have relocated their fundamentalism to social justice and political correctness. Rather than being free thinkers who question everything based on their accumulation of knowledge and analysis of data they are sheep using their platform to be selectively bigoted against groups and calling for safe spaces for others. Truth is due the to the flawed nature of humanity there will always be sheep, no matter how progressive or regressive the thinking. Irrationality is part of human nature.
Robert Acton I do not believe in a diety of any sort; however, over the last few years I have begun to resist using the term Atheist to describe myself because it has been hijacked by attention seekers and SJWs. The word has simply become a headline for facebook memes.
What's happening here is a modern day witch hunt is all. These wounded people need to take a look in the mirror and face themselves rather than go out and try and control other people and society at large. If society thinks they and their agenda is acceptable, it will see the facts that way... yet those who stand for political correctness have the media at their side and still, political correctness is the harpoon of a select few. These social justice warriors are no different than any other kind of bully, they defy their own logic by shoving their agenda down everyone else's throats. Not only that, but they ruin lives by infringing on others with their selfish threats, they become the arbiters of value, arbitrarily. Too ironic. Do they think that attacking people is going to sway the majority toward a position which is controlling the way they view mental illness? Asinine. Some people in life get screwed, accept it, you're not alone. Everyone has their baggage, but you don't see them forcing you to bow down to them and accept their values. Just because they hate their wife doesn't mean they can force you to talk as if you hate yours too. That's exploitation. It's best to simply part ways with that kind of person and let things be as they are going to be and do what you can within reasonable means to inform people, not attack them. If what you say is true, it will be accepted, but forcing your agenda only creates a longer process of resentment first before resolution.
I am a Psychologist myself and Maya is exactly correct. I've even had one tell me openly that they are doing it for revenge on their own experiences in school. Rare as it may be, I believe most believe they are acting from their goodwill without realizing that there is also such a thing as wrong tactics, not just wrong targets.
Thank you Dr. Peterson for voicing your opinion! I was a sociology student at York University but I changed my major after 2 years of study largely due to the problem discussed in this video. I came from China so you can understand if I have a certain expectation... but I was hugely let down. During my time at York I discover there is only one voice in sociology (at least). I got As regardless of my bad writing if I say the politically correct thing; I get Cs and criticism that weren't even self-consistent if I dare to deviate from that. As a Chinese I guess I just have a "talent" to play this sort of game so I made it to Dean's List pretty easily. But I find it pointless. I am not LEARNING anything new. I am graduating soon, as an accounting student. And frankly, I have experience more freedom of speech when we touch upon political or social issues in managerial accounting or auditing courses. I am a proud accounting students because I believed I was taught real knowledge and skills, and that accounting has a future. Sociology doesn't. I had hoped it was just York. Unfortunately it wasn't.
Jordan Peterson (JP) doesn't make any ethical claims about transgenderism in this lecture, even though the way in which he expresses his claims is rather emotionally charged. Let me try and explain to you why I think that might be. 1. JP makes epistemic, or explanatory, claims about the notion that gender is binary. Particularly, he seems to disagree with the proposition that gender is not binary, but doesn't actually say much in positive terms about what he, himself, thinks about it (even if you try really hard to read between the lines). 2. This does not, however, mean that he thinks that transgendered individuals do not exist. Transgenderism is defined as having an experience of one's masculinity/femininity such that does not cohere with one's anatomical sex. He does not reject this definition. What he seems to be rejecting is any inferences that are made on the sole basis of this definition indicating that gender is not biologically grounded. One of his arguments for the rejection of any such inferences is that they are self-defeating, because they are usually made on the supposition that (a) the gender binary is socially constructed, whereas (b) one's self-identification is biologically grounded (you don't get a choice in how you self-identify; it is biologically/genetically determined). Holding (a) and (b) at the same time is, therefore, self-defeating, because the gender binary is just a type a gender identification, which, on the PC proponents' account, would have to be biologically grounded, rather than socially constructed. 3. JP also makes the argument that gender and anatomical sex cannot be completely dissociated, because they are almost perfectly correlated with one another (I'd certainly like to know how the studies were conducted and on what populations). However, just because the correlation between sex and gender isn't actually perfect, we cannot reduce gender to sex, or biology, either. A more wholesome explanation would have to be some sort of combination of both biology and sociality, rather than just one or the other. Once again, though, all JP is doing is rejecting the claim that gender is not biologically grounded; he is not affirming its opposite (i.e., gender is biologically grounded), per se. 4. None of what's been stated so far is actually an attack on transgendered minorities, though. No ethical claims have actually been made, thus far. The discussion has only centred around explanatory issues, such as "What is gender and where does it come from?" More importantly, however, even if it was somehow proven (for the sake of argument) that gender just is binary, that still wouldn't warrant an ethical mistreatment of transgendered individuals. Neither would it invalidate transgendered individuals' experience of their own gender; the real problem would actually be that their experience would now be unaccounted for. This, however, is not an ethical problem but an epistemic/explanatory/scientific problem. This distinction is crucial and lies at the heart of this misunderstanding. 5. To the best of my understanding, the primary complaint that JP is raising, though, is that his epistemic position is being treated as an ethical one, when it shouldn't be. In other words, it seems that proponents of PC treat any explanatory/epistemic claim that undermines their position as an ethical problem, rather than an epistemological one. This of course, is just silly (and the consequence of poor reasoning), because epistemology and ethics (though highly interdependent) are in fact two distinct domains of inquiry, not one. The idea is that you can't accuse someone of moral wrongdoing, especially on legal grounds, if all they've done is disagree with your notion of why things are the way they are; ESPECIALLY when they haven't made any ethical judgments against you in their disagreement with you. 6. The only ethical judgment that JP has made, albeit somewhat implicitly, is that the kind of response given by PC is politically and ideologically motivated precisely because it conflates epistemology with ethics. This sort of conflated treatment is problematic, because it builds walls where there shouldn't be any, by silencing voices that shouldn't be silenced. It's basically just a half-sophisticated form of bullying, which is pitiful at best. 7. JP's argument, therefore, isn't an argument against transgenderism; it's an argument against PC. No ethical claims have actually been made against transgendered individuals. All that's been said is that PC is being epistemically irresponsible and politically/ideologically driven, when it shouldn't be. The real question isn't whether the gender binary is real or not; the real question is, where do we draw the line between reasonable disagreement and politically driven oppression? Surely, we can't claim that we're being oppressed whenever someone endorses a different viewpoint than what we believe -- ESPECIALLY when the viewpoint does not contain any ethical claims, whatsoever. Making claims about how things are is quite a different process than making claims about how things should be. Knowing the difference between the two can save you (and others) a lot of time and unnecessary trouble. Conclusion: A large portion of this debate is the result of a pervasive sort of misunderstanding. The misunderstanding occurs when the politically correct treat any non-normative/non-ethical disagreements made by the politically incorrect as normative/ethical ones. The point is that JP can be right with every single one of his points, and it still wouldn't follow that he thinks that transgendered individuals either should be mistreated or don't exist. In fact, JP chooses his words very carefully so as not actually make any normative claims against transgendered individuals, and it's crucial to notice that about him. His refusal to adopt gender-neutral terminology is not a rejection of the experience of transgendered individuals; it's a rejection of the grounds upon which the notion of transgenderism is built upon. These are two, entirely different things. So, to claim that he's attacking transgendered persons just because he's refusing to accept the construct of transgenderism as it is presently formed, is not just irresponsible and politically/ideologically motivated, but also utterly immature and, for the lack of a better word, unbecoming of any adult. For an adult should be able to tell the difference between the moon and the finger that's pointing to it.
Thank you, +Tony Tony. I hope it helped clarify a few important points about the nature of the debate. Though, an additional point to make is this. JP seems to be treating proponents of PC as either (1) intentionally and knowingly driven by political ideology, or (2) as puppets of political ideology. Whether or not either of these happens to be the case, there are (obviously) still a lot of transgendered folks who are both good people and who are suffering because of gender discrimination. And JP's treatment of these issues as was expressed in the Lecture, though by no means exhaustive, *seems* to indicate that by attacking PC, he is somehow attacking the transgendered community. I don't think that this follows, though, from what he's actually said. His attack is on PC, and, in the case that a proponent of PC is actually transgendered (such as professor Peet), it would be easy (though foolish) to think that JP's attack is against Peet or transgendered people. That Peet, a transgendered individual, happens to be a proponent of PC, therefore, does not mean that JP's attack is now an attack on Peet or transgendered folks. This is just a contingent factor, nothing else. The original argument was against PC, after all, and not transgendered people. Let's summarize the argument I have gotten from this experience in order to make things even clearer: (a) transgendered minorities deserve a fair hearing of the ethical problems that they are facing (obviously), (b) JP's argument is an epistemic one, not an ethical one, and (c) PC (political correctness) needs to be replaced with what I call ethical correctness (EC). EC is just the opposite of PC, in that it treats only ethical problems as ethical problems, and keeps the distinction between ethics and epistemology loud and clear. What this means is that, even if we attack PC and decide to do away with it, some people (namely, transgendered individuals) are still going to be unhappy because their suffering is neither being addressed nor publicly recognized. EC is purposed toward addressing this ethical issue by clarifying the difference between ethics and epistemology, as well as the relationship between the two. This is beneficial in at least two ways. First, it tells the politically incorrect that, even if we do away with PC, there is still a legitimate problem that needs to be dealt with -- which is the problem of gender-based discrimination. Second, it tells the politically correct that, the debate about PC is not necessarily an ethical one, and so opens up room in the discussion for an alternate solution to the problem of discrimination than offered by PC. Again, the real problem that we face, after doing away with PC, is that there is still discrimination that occurs against transgendered people. JP's position seems to undermine PC's viability as the right solution to these ethical problems on the grounds that it (PC) creates a whole new ethical problem, that is unwarranted to begin with. So, if we could treat the "is" side of things as sufficiently different from the "ought" side of things, then we'll realize that there are two problems to be dealt with: the explanatory/epistemic problem of understanding what transgenderism is and how it comes about, and the ethical problem of trying to reduce unwarranted discrimination against transgendered folks in the public sphere. Everyone can be happy, then. But this requires that the politically incorrect publicly recognize the ethical problem that is still there, and that the politically correct recognize that disagreement with PC is not, in itself, an ethical problem.
Jeez Garri, you sure have a lot to say. Sorry, JP makes more sense than you. You appear to have happily allowed your mind to be turned to Politically Correct mush. 99 per cent of the people commenting here do not wish to end up like you.
+Gregory Alan Elliott I'm a philosopher, so I was trained to think and write like one. I wasn't trying to appeal to a non-philosophical audience with my comment, but maybe I should do that now that you've raised to my awareness that you don't understand me, at all. Sorry about that. I'll post again later tonight, and hopefully it'll make more sense then. But I suggest you realize that your not being able to understand me doesn't necessarily imply that I'm stupid. It's also possible that it's because we're both stupid or just because you're stupid. :p So, please don't jump to conclusions that are unwarranted. I do not debate with anyone who does such things. Take care.
"His refusal to adopt gender-neutral terminology is not a rejection of the experience of transgendered individuals; it's a rejection of the grounds upon which the notion of transgenderism is built upon." When your behavior is shitty (refusing to use other people's chosen pronouns), pointing at your logic by way of explanation doesn't make it less shitty. Or less bullying. Or less disrespectful.
Julia Charles thanks for raising this point. From my understanding, Peterson's refusal to use gender-neutral terminology isn't a flat out refusal. Rather, I believe he said that he refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns without having a conversation about it, first. This doesn't mean that he's disrespecting transgendered people, such as professor Peet -- even though such people don't actually have to explain themselves to anybody. But it is, to a reasonable degree, a fair condition. Wouldn't you want to know why somebody wants you to do something before you go ahead and do it? This will allow you to see whether or not it's even something you would want to do. I think that what Peterson is saying would become bullying and/or disrespectful only if he started making claims like "I refuse to adopt gender-neutral pronouns. Period." or "Transgendered people are mistaken about their experience of their own gender. Period." or even "Transgendered people are psychologically unwell." However, such statements are far from what Peterson has uttered; and further yet, no such statements are implied by any of what he's actually said. It's these kinds of nuances that I've tried to raise, so that people who've overlooked them can now realize that he's not actually being a bigot, even though it's easy (though foolish) to construe him that way. I hope this helps to clarify my position on the matter. Please let me know what you think. -- Garri
Dr. Peterson ur some of the few worth a to be called a professor. My full Respekt. U have to keep going! Truth is we had to have acted over century's ago! 10years....... Tz
Has everyone missed the most hideous aspect of the pronoun initiative ? While dealing with a person directly, everyone uses "you" which is gender neutral. So no problem there (unless OHRC decides that "you" is oppressive too). All this nonsense with new pronouns kicks in when speaking about someone in third person. So the object of discussion is not even present to feel the alleged indignity. What it does in principle is to impose a new draconian norm that limits the freedom of speech to talk about anything, unless in a way approved by the government and groups in power. And why stop at transgender? Once this principle is established it can easily be imposed to "protect" the expanding number other groups. It also means that in order to stamp out the practice there has to be a system of language police, informants and snitches to report the offenders. This is Orwellian territory. I would like to believe in democratic institutions (legislatotors and courts) preventing it from happening. However, seeing a trend among our elites to completely deny the reality and instead to rely on fantasies constructed by crazies to dictate our policies and laws, makes me quite concerned about the future.
"All this nonsense with new pronouns kicks in when speaking about someone in third person. So the object of discussion is not even present to feel the alleged indignity." You are aware that the third person kicks in at times where the person you're talking about is still present, right? For example, in a group setting? The vast majority of times where I spend time with more than one other person, someone within the group will be referred to and pronouns used in reference to them.
'You' for direct communication, 'they' for third person. Grammatical correctness is the only reasonable argument against but the English language is FUBAR enough at this point to render that nothing but pedantic.
Precisely. And grammatical correctness is so subject to change and linguistics so prone to evolution that...well, where's the argument against the singular 'they' when it's already quietly worked its way into language like any good new word does? It's a bit late now to contest it, haha.
Thank you Professor Peterson. Thank you very much for doing this. I can't imagine how crazy it should be in USA/Canada to see such occurances. You've mentioned one of your clients from Eastern Europe... I am from Lithuania and all our political, economical and mentality changes are always like 10 years behind modern east. But thing is that even here we started having rough time with all these lgbt rights and I started to feel restricted from having my opinion against some of the "rights" (or should I call it "wrongs"?)... Even worse... I have few "good old" liberal oriented friends with whom my relationship started worsening because they do not see the way out of thinking "everything should be tolerated without understanding why or what is it to be tolerated" and I cant express myself clearly why I see differently and why I think this tolerance is even dangerous. Of course, source of our conflict is gender identity issue... Last time when relationships broke (even within families) in Lithuania was when we were under the Soviet Union when one half of population were prosoviets, informants for KGB, antinationalists and other half were silent underground opposition trying to embrace free word, our native language, culture and rituals... now this ideology is starting to separate us and you can't talk about it loud because publicly you can have only positive opinion on lgbt, no opinion, or opinion against those who have negative opinion on lgbt (and this is even encouraged). I really do appreciate your thoughts on this topic and I really do experience and feel this as scary. Even though I live in a country where we have 6,5euro/hour MEAN wage (I work for less), just spread the word if things will turn bad for you in university. Too much I feel indebted for what you do, so I promise to support you monthly with what I could. Cant wait to see other parts of your video.
U of T student here. I know there are, in my circle of friends, a large portion of people that support ultimately what you are saying, if not everything that was said.
Just received some major education on a topic I've been following and this guy is very good at articulating himself. I really get what he's saying. Took a while to get me there but a good journey.
People do not realize how dangerous it is to make a video like this as a professor.
Bravo to Peterson for making a serious case against PC culture.
Rather than left or right, I would support a university environment where all are free to air their ideas, and we can have a discussion. Now granted, there are some ideas, like hate speech, which I would rather not allow to be expressed. But we already have laws regarding that. They don't need to be tightened further.
I don't want the left to be reduced to this. I a a proud leftist, and I disagree with this PC culture.
The left used to stand for equal rights, freedom of speech, freedom from (actual) oppression... what are these "leftists" doing now?
The left needs to reclaim itself.
Try just saying this in any work place, professors have tons of protections, regular Joes don't. Still it does require risk and courage.
jetrpg22
In most universities only leftist professors are protected.
I know the example I am providing here is something that is taking place in the UK, but I think it extends to the US.
It turns out that in 4 out of 5 British universities, free speech no longer exists. And the accepted language isn't exactly rich in 'leftist' words ...
Now, if you had said that, most of the time, the 'leftist' are found in the arts/languages sections and the 'more more money for me' are in the law/commerce sections, I would have agreed immediately.
jonas brave
The left has no interest in arguing , because they will lose. Therefore, they seek to silence, because, they really think they have a right to never lose, even when by facts, logic and even internal consistency, they are dead fucking wrong..
The people who criticize Dr. Peterson in the comments below just based on what he's expressing here would be well served to go to his channel and start listening to some of his lectures on philosophy, psychology, ideology, and how these ideas work in history and social contexts. His insights transcend the extremes of any ideology. The various polarizing extremes of ideology that are dominating modern civic discourse have deep roots in human and social group psychology, which has been a dominant theme in his various lectures, as I have interpreted them.
People, as a general rule, have almost no understanding of basic psychology, and by extension, have no real control over themselves and what they think. And I would suggest that people are already at a point in social conditioning that they have been wired to act in an dictated manner, without even realizing it. And since they act in a way that they have been programmed to feel is "doing the right thing", it's an ego reward and feeds that behavior to react. And that's a big piece of what is going on in modern discourse, the majority are acting as reactionaries. They are actively seeking things out to react to, typically in a negative manner. It's viscous cycle and it's not only extremely unhealthy for social systems, it's likely just as unhealthy for the individual. I've said it over and over, if people want to improve the world, or political systems, or whatever, the best thing they could do is get a basic handle of human psychology and their own psychology. Until people understand how their own mind works, they can never solve anything outside of it, and will continue to be manipulated by insidious external forces they aren't even aware of.
Dr. Peterson analyzes philosophy, psychology, history, social systems, etc, and the ways they intersect with critically deep insight. Before you dismiss him based on one lecture, do yourself a favor and listen to more of his work. The best lectures on philosophy I've listened to are by Dr. Peterson.
If a professor of psychology and philosophy can be accused of hate speech by studying and breaking down ideas from all possible angles, we are heading down a dark road.
Thank you, Dr. Peterson for taking on this serious issue. You set a positive example of what a good professor should be. A brave man is one who challenges the people who signs his paychecks.
He says that Sociologists are ideologically identical to Stalin and Mao. Such insight.
***** I believe that anybody reasonable who is informed about the experiences of gender minorities should call for your head, at least metaphorically. You should not be given a prestigious podium for spreading these ideas. I would not support your literal execution, but I would celebrate your firing, and I would root for your opponent if someone decided to try suing.
***** Have the number of people calling for your head, their reasonableness, or their arguments, been at all surprising to you? Would you have predicted the current likes to dislikes ratio on your video, for example?
Thank you, James Wentz, for demonstrating exactly what we're dealing with. These are the sorts of people that Dr Peterson has stated his intent to "arm."
***** If, having watched and understood Ronnie's response, you accept his critiques, and apologise for the ways in which your lecture propagated harmful misconceptions, I will accept that you do in fact deserve your authority. Very few people in your position would admit to being wrong in these ways. You are wrong, and dangerously so, and Ronnie has clearly outlined most of the specific ways in which you are wrong. Make the necessary adjustments and apologise for emboldening people like James Wentz above, and maybe I'll apologise for calling for your head.
The Lecture that launched a million clean rooms.
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”
― John G. Diefenbaker
Great quote
Yes it seems that everybody is forgetting the part " free to oppose what I believe wrong"
This wasn't spoken in 2016. I'm confident that these are Dief's own words. He didn't parrot others. He spoke for himself.
If we don't have free speech, we don't live in a free society. If there is a language police in Canada, we are living in a totalitarian society. Have we forgotten the ideas of the enlightenment? Was it that long ago? I guess you have free speech in Canada, as long as you agree with the government.
aren't you dramatic. watch out, kid, that euphoria is addictive
Ally Marcial You remind me of the movie line ''...because you can't handle the truth!''
He's not being dramatic. This law will make it illegal to openly question the validity of so-called progressive gender ideology. For example, as Dr. Peterson pointed out, the proposition that gender and sex are fundamentally different from one another. Anything less than indulging the often neurotic whims of "non-binary, gender fluid" people who don't even have gender dysphoria (look up truscum) will also constitute criminal discrimination under the law. Discussing the possibility of illness for people who have perfectly healthy bodies but are dysphoric and compelled to surgically alter said healthy body and ingest sex hormones (often with unsatisfactory results) will also be a crime. Discussing therapy as a legitimate form of treatment rather than highly invasive and irreversible surgery and physically harmful hormone regimens will be illegal.
So, yes. Free speech is indeed under attack as is freedom. It's no longer enough to disagree with the above views. They're being criminalized.
ZeroAffectation I think he's on the other side, though, saying people's ability to express themselves infringes on his rights and makes Canada a totalitarian regime.
I think this piece of news is relevant to part of this conversation. The American Psychological Association has just made it very clear that same-sex attraction and related gender-identity issues are A MATTER OF CHOICE NOT BIOLOGY. APA now accepts the research that people aren't ''born that way''
This significantly changes things because this is no longer a matter of civil rights, as genuine biological characteristics as race, sex, etc, are; it's a matter of protecting unfounded political claims of special-interest groups, and criminally persecuting those who question such decisions, even while APA itself proves legitimacy for criticism.
www.lifesitenews.com/news/psychology-researcher-lesbian-blows-the-doors-off-born-gay-theory?
I admire your courage professor. Know there're many out there who feel the same and support you
I have just read ALL of the 345 comments. 99 per cent of them are supportive and grateful for your Part I video, and look forward to Parts II and III. Keep it up.
And that is truly the saddest comment I've read here. While I would not go so far to say there is any hate or malice in anything he says, I think it does illustrate a great deal of ignorance toward various minorities as well a certain amount of hyperbole regarding the unintended consequences of the legislation.
Do you think even one of those supportive and grateful comments was by somebody who is not cisgender? The majority pat each other on the back for their willingness to disrespect minorities...
***** Members of the gender majorities (cismen and ciswomen), and members of the gender minorities (transmen, transwomen, androgynes, intersex people, demi-boys and demi-girls, etc) naturally have a differing perspective on matters of gender, just like members of ethnic majorities naturally have a differing perspective on matters of ethnicity than members of ethnic minorities. If somebody made a video saying that First Nations identities are fraudulent and defending white people's right to pretend they're the original occupants of this land, and the comments section was mostly European people congratulating them on their bravery for speaking out, except for a few (mostly First Nations people) who objected, who would be the racist in that scenario?
I know you have no idea what I know about politically correct legislation... or what I know about who is trying to push said legislation through. I know a lot. But you must not, if you think it is good legislation.
It's not the Profs problem that you're obtuse. There is no hate nor malice in this presentation. Just logic and rationality.
Dr. Peterson:
As a gay man, I think you're awesome. Don't stop fighting the good fight for free speech - and don't let these establishment ideologues try to bully you into submission.
Thank you.
By all means: I would point to the case of One vs. Olesen in the United States. The trial resulted in the Supreme Court deciding in favour of a gay-interest magazine which faced censorship when contemporary society (this was 1958) was very much opposed to gay rights.
Political correctness is nothing more than ideological censorship, the very same kind that was used to censor a magazine because it represented "obscene" views. In that respect, when given the option of siding with the censor or the free speech rebel (if I may call you that,) I believe it is incumbent on minorities like myself to defend free speech as the negative effects of free speech are far more limited in comparison to the negative effects of censorship.
I concur
Stop the Self Censorship, Take Gad Saad as an example, he adds more to the controversy. We have to fight political correctness, and the majority is with you.
***** Thanks for the heads up.
I had to quit my job last year because of these issues (I'm a psychotherapist and suddenly was inundated with mentally fragile teens stating they were transgender).
I have been waiting for your thoughts on this matter and greatly appreciate your willingness to speak out - I kid you not - I listen to your lectures day and night the last few months - my daughter listens to them too and passes them on to her friends - the reason I love your lectures is because you seem to be a dying breed - you speak your mind - your freedom do do so has literally been keeping me from going insane - you have been preserving my coherence - and what you said about being made into a tool for ideologues really nailed this dilemma - we are no longer valued for thinking but instead for offering our own minds up in the service of what?
I will pass this on to others.
As I observed it with the kids who came to me, they were all quite fragile psychologically, and that fragility was compounded by the transition of adolescence. They were experiencing profound inner chaos and confusion and transgender became a new and promising category inside which they could find structure and meaning for their suffering. To me transgender expression isn't so much a mental disorder but a sign that an individual has potentially repackaged perhaps another disorder (anxiety, autistic spectrum issues perhaps, dissociative disorders) inside this
new category. Almost all psychological disorders alter or prevent normative development - a diagnosis of transgenderism can greatly distract an individual from an underlying condition that makes normative life expectaions difficult to achieve. In some sense I understand how powerful this new category is for people who find comfort within it - it's just not a very deep or effective way to really heal the underlying condition. It's more likely to help people by giving them access to a community or tribe that shares their values to some degree. I would prefer atypical kids not be diverted into that category, but rather face the pain of maturation and come through it stronger rather than more dependent. But these impression, clinical in nature, have literally been tossed out the window due to trans activism. Clinicians must comply or they will be out of compliance with the law. Like Jordan, I just couldn't sit with kids and call them by their new pronouns, it felt like I was being forced to lie, it felt tyrannical. And I knew the kids would never trust me if they saw me cower and bend to their dictates. With all other mentally ill folk who try to manipulate those who help them this can be addressed clinically. It's part of the treatment to address how the individual who feels out of control tries to control others so as to reach some equilibrium. But with transgender treatment the client's underlying pathology is never addressed, it's simply not allowed. I had one teen, who I adored, she was sorta a female version of Jim Carrey, tell me that her group of friends, all some category of queer, walked around the school and they were "the masters of the universe!" They were also cutting their bodies on a routine bases and swimming in suicidal ideation - the girl came to me because her girlfriend had just killed herself and now she thought she should too. These kids were 13. Our poor children - I remember being sad now and again - and I had real problems - but nobody ever discussed suicide as an option. All the kids I met with knew people or went to school with someone who had threaten or committed suicide. Anyway - I just realized I couldn't keep on with the teens as sooner or later one of mine would do it and I just knew it would destroy me on some level - the transgender kids have significantly higher rates of suicide. Sorry to go on and on - I obviously have been really upset and working overtime for the last few years trying to make sense of what has been happening in the field of clinical psychology.
Thank you. I'm not a sir, lol, but I'll take the attribution as a compliment. I've written volumes to myself trying to untangle what has happened , but it's really been our hero, Prof Peterson, who has helped me piece it all together. In an existential sense we are being systematically mandated to lie about the way in which we perceive reality. This is basically a kind of enforced psychic death, we are being asked to relinquish the very authority of our own senses. For many of us, the awareness that this is the best of us is more than evident. Many of us who have stuggled to face hard realities head on, to wrangle with the depths of life, experience political correctness is a kind of crucifixion - it is the death of our own perceptions. Hopefully we will rise up. I believe it possible.
Trying to make people who want to change their sex not do so is futile. Why can't people do what they want with their bodies and alter it how they so choose?
This is all an effort by the political and corperate elitet to demasculate men becuase men are usualy the ones to fight back aginst corruption
My concern is conflating actions that mentally fragile people may take with the actual question of people who are not the gender their body physically expresses. Yes, someone who is feeling some form of mental fragility will cast about for a rationale, for a solution; but that in no way means that what they find is not an actual solution for someone else. I personally know several women who spent decades - one was 50, the other 70 - living as men, until they finally felt able to make the transition to the gender that aligned with how they truly felt.
tl;dr version: don't toss the baby out with the bathwater.
Thank you, to this professor, for standing up for a free society.
I work in tech, and for the past 5-6 years now I've witnessed what was once an industry very much dominated by classically liberal thought become overrun with social justice warriors. People self sensor in the office, are afraid to show public affection of *any* kind (pats on the back or compliments about appearance are fireable offenses at big tech companies now), and are terrified to say anything as someone's always out to get you in trouble. This video was remarkable, but I could hear the terror in your voice. Don't be afraid, I've shared this video with a small group of like minded folks in the office and they're blown away. Thanks so much Dr. Peterson, there's more of us out there and while we're too afraid to speak, we do have your back.
What would be the result of keeping quiet 10 years down the line? Don't you think it would be better to confront it now instead of later?
I think that if you're in disagreement with this video, ask yourself if you're in disagreement with some of the professor's ideas about LGBT rights, leftism, marxism or if you're in disagreement with what he was actually talking about [which is easy to miss if you're triggered]. I think a lot of people are missing the forest for the trees here. The professor has some ideas that shine through - ideas that you may or may not agree with. That isn't the topic; that isn't the issue. He's using this particular bill and these particular ideas as a TOOL to illustrate a growing problem: that the left has, for the better part of 50 years, been on the assault of the freedoms of sharing ideas and of speech, and they aren't slowing down.
It has become socially acceptable to shred people's privacy, reputation and career over a disagreement of values that are very new and not well considered in some cases. One can go to the extreme and argue "Would it be acceptable under the professors argument, then, to show up to work in full Nazi regalia and expect to keep their jobs or not have anyone outraged?" I expect that most people would agree that wouldn't be socially acceptable, and that such a person losing their job would be justified.
What is a problem, however, is that the left continues to widen the scope of what is "not acceptable" at break-neck pace. They also have an army of social justice warriors who are the modern equivalent of "the muscle," silencing critics and dissenters with the new age of personal and professional attacks. This has also somehow become acceptable. Dissent and debate AREN'T ALLOWED in much of the company of left [or right, for that matter, but the right at least gets a lot of shit about it] ideologists. Whether you're educated on a subject or not, your opinion is often only welcome if you are in congruence with their ideals. If you aren't, the company often gets very hostile. IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO BE ANGRY! It's your and my right to get upset about ideas that we don't agree with. It's your and my right to keep the company of people who share our values.
It is NOT the right of anyone to project their value structure onto me, expect me to adhere to it and then to attack me if I don't. The professor is concerned about the scope widening with regard to those expectations and the effect that it's having on a fair discourse and employment in academia [and now, suddenly, legal implications as well]. Like it or not, there ARE reasonable arguments that support the patriarchy. There ARE reasonable arguments that transgenderism is a mental disorder by modern definitions. There ARE reasonable arguments that marxism is a dangerous and "murderous" [his words, not mine] ideology. Whether you agree with the propositions and arguments or not, it is suddenly risking personal safety, career and even freedom to even DISCUSS THESE IDEAS in all but careful company.
If you're a smart debater, you could argue that this has been the status quo for some time for the right [e.g. it isn't socially acceptable to talk about Eugenics, Facism, IQ/Race correlations, for example], but unlike the right, the left seems to be ever-expanding the list of what isn't politically correct, then imposing that will with a vigor and wrath that's been long reserved for only the most heinous opinions and actions. That's a problem.
It might surprise you to hear after reading this that I'm a social liberal, and support many of the progressive movements that I admit have 'fair' arguments against. This isn't about my opinion, though, or Dr. Petersons. It's about all of us, our freedom, and it is important.
"They also have an army of social justice warriors who are the modern
equivalent of "the muscle," silencing critics and dissenters with the
new age of personal and professional attacks. " This "muscle" is reminiscent of the Brown Shirts, the Komsomnolets, or Mao's Red Guard. Most of my family lived in the
Soviet Union for seventy years and I am well aware of how the Komsomnol operated.
Yes. BLM, feminazis, I'mfeelingtranspeople, occupy movement, etc...
Very well said. Actually talking about the point of the video and not the arguments about if he was PC or not.
Ken P, uh, sorry to interrupt with something unrelated, but you might want to check the spelling on "komsomol" and all derivative words. There's no "n" after second "m". I've seen you make this typo in other posts on here. As someone with a similar background I couldn't ignore it. Sorry to bother you, have a nice day!
Thank you. You are right, although it does come up if you do a search, so even search engines can be in error. You have a nice day also.
You have my completely support from Latin America. Finally someone that stands UP!
Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Professor Peterson, you are doing the right thing, with determination and courage. You have my solidarity, profound admiration and my prayers. You will win this battle and make difference.
How is biological sex assigned at birth? That is also a political statement. Im not assigned female, I AM female, based on biological science. This stuff is very messy and Im very glad a professor is talking about this.
Geoff Stone
but that is the entire point. What transgenderism does is say a girl=pink, boy is blue. Suppose I liked only 'boy' things (I did a lot), transgenderism says one is then a transman. Its just using one gender stereotype but then put on the opposite sex. How is that progressive? Isnt it more progressive to do away with gender altogether? This also will free women, as we are most oppressed by gender socialisation. And its not only colors and toys, but everyday sexism, violence against women. I btw didnt get a pink blanket, nor a pink room. Genderrroles and norms these days have become way more strict.
Geoff Stone
and another thing to ponder. Why does certain behavior and identification make one a man or a woman? Why cant transwomen be just transgender men? Or gender non conforming men. Why do they have to be woman. What makes a woman? I say biology does.
Geoff Stone
I like the way you think! Going to watch your video. If youre in this debate and you have a different opinion from the trans activists you'll get attacked a lot. Its a battlefield, which perhaps you may have noticed yourself. So I assumed you were giving me a battle as well :). I see you have found some paradoxes in transgenderism. Ive found them too. Great.
What the fuck are you people even talking about? You're making literally 0 sense in any of these comments.
oBLACKIECHANoo
we make sense. What part(s) dont you understand, perhaps I can explain.
I admire you're principles and courage Dr. Peterson. Thank you.
It was deeply satisfying to hear someone I respect so much clearly articulate things I have thought for years but felt increasingly unable to say.
Basically the silent majority, in these times of madness.
You are definitely not alone, we all feel like this.
Not a silent majority. Just a majority. From whom some minority groups are asking for a little courtesy, and being told that makes them ideologically identical to Stalin and Mao.
"From whom some minority groups are asking for a little courtesy"
Cool sophistry bro!
TheSharpeful It's exactly what's happening here. Look at the likes/dislikes. The majority are supportive, and many of them loudly so. Meanwhile a few nonbinary and trans people are objecting because the lecture teaches people that it's okay to invalidate them, but they're being largely drowned out by cis people who think that the gender minorities A) aren't real and B) aren't really being mistreated. It's a fight between people who think it's all bullshit, and people who are living it. The former massively outnumber the latter, sadly... which is why protection under law can be justified. The "silent" majority wasn't about to start treating nonbinary people with respect.
***** "It's exactly what's happening here. Look at the likes/dislikes."
Thank god so many people still have common sense.
"Meanwhile a few nonbinary and trans people are objecting because the lecture teaches people that it's okay to invalidate them"
No, the lecture does not "teach" anything like that.
"but they're being largely drowned out by cis people"
You mean, there are people who disagree? Why I never... surely we should get together and push a law to criminalize that! Oh... wait.
"The former massively outnumber the latter, sadly... which is why protection under law can be justified"
Everyone is already protected under the law you moron!
What you want is to protect certain peoples subjective "feelings" with the law.
If you don't understand how completely ass backwards, subjective, harmful (and actually oppressive for once) that is then there is no hope for you.
Know this... you sjw types keep pushing your PC orwellian shit onto society, there will be a violent backlash against you when enough people get fed up.
Consider this a semi-friendly warning :)
Michael it's not gender minorities who are objecting. You shouldn't lump them all together. It's mostly white cis SJWs with savior complexes. I personally know a trans woman, for example, who doesn't buy into any of this crap and would likely agree with most of what Jordan has to say.
And to your other point, I imagine that Jordan wouldn't support the current over-reaching "protections" for racial/religious minorities either. Almost everything he said applies more generally.
People are not so fragile as you seem to think and mean comments certainly don't "invalidate" anyone. We don't need criminalize everything that can possibly be interpreted as slightly hurtful or dismissive. My trans friend says she resents the way that everyone is afraid to talk to her at the risk of accidentally causing offence. And she points out that real transphobes are never going to change their minds merely by being silenced by such rules. What we need is open and honest dialogue, not Orwellian thought policing.
This was really interesting. Thanks for the comprehensive overview of social justice activities in Canada. Let me know if you're willing to come on my channel for a live stream sometime and talk about this subject.
Didnt expec to see you here keep making good videos
+Jordan B Peterson Maybe a general talk about social justice and its effects on Canadian free speech--and by extension the western world--and the controversy of you refusing to let ideologues dictate what language and pronouns to use. Just something simple and unpretentious to introduce you to my viewers, because I think a lot of them would enjoy the deeper analysis that you provide on these and other issues.
Yes! Please make this happen.
Undoomed! Love your channel
I can't wait to see this!
If they come down hard on him, then they prove his point. It takes a lot of courage to speak out like this, thank goodness men like this still exist.
This video will go down in history as being something akin to Rosa Parks' refusal to change seats on a bus.
@@igo9481 FFS how old are you, 6?
Amen to that😳
I read about you in the TO marxist papers two days ago. It had a picture of a student holding a sign that said "we're watching you, Dr. Peterson" or something like that. Yeah, seeing that still gives me the creeps.
That's just scary...
That's just the Left.
That is ideological, authoritarian, thought control. Left or right does not matter.
Yes, it does matter actually. I don't see any authoritarianism coming from the right these days. I'm non-partisan, though I think I had a more leftist slant before it started going off the deep end. Conservatism is trying desperately to hold onto the status quo now. We are losing our culture, family structure and society to all these wacko progressive ideals. Progressivism is trying to dismantle everything about western civilization that made it the most successful.
Zenn Temple Music Well said!! I never saw it from the perspective that they are acting this way due to "Nihilistic Narcissism", but you are absolutely correct. Where is the consistency in their beliefs found...look at me narcissistic virtue signaling. I have cousins in Germany who are female and they've never have been so afraid to be in public, must be their inherent "Islamophobia".
For me it is very obvious that Dr. Peterson is not imposing any of his thoughts on anyone but is looking for a serious and information-based discussion. I applaud you sir! Respect from Germany!
Hello Dr. Peterson. Long time fan of your work. First time commenting. Thank you so much for all your lectures. I am eternally grateful for the insights your words have provided me with over the past several years. I just wanted to commend you for your bravery. I live in the states and I see some of the things you've layed out here first hand. It is truly terrifying. Seeing you stand up for reason and rationality here has given me hope, though. I know it's scary but you are truly doing the right thing. Best wishes my friend.
PS. I have no clue if this is of any interest to you but I just left a comment on Duncan Trussel's website referring him to you with a few links of your work. If you're not aware of him he's a comedian, spiritualist and podcaster closely associated with Joe Rogan. They often podcast together. Joe has gone to great lengths to highlight the same absurdity that you illustrated in this talk and I think he would be seriously interested in not only what you have to say on this subject but your work in general. Another commenter mentioned Gad Saad who works at Concordia University. I bet that if you reached out to him he could probably help you get on Joe's show. It's the most popular podcast on the internet and could serve as a tremendous signal boost for both your podcast and this particular message as well. Again, not sure if any of that is your cup of tea but I am sure that it would be achievable permitting it's something you would like to pursue. Think about it!
Professor Peterson, you are a hero of academia. You will always have my support, and the support of many others in education and other fields. Thank you for taking a stand.
Whatever happened to keeping a distinction between "offence" and "harm"? The fact that our society is based on hundreds (if not thousands) of years of established and coherent political philosophy, only to be cast aside in a few short decades by a radical few driven by pathological moral exculpation is truly terrifying.
I still teach my children sticks and stones, but the schools are re-programming the toughness out of them. :(
bravo professor! thank God we have someone like you who could show us what's Really going on and the horrible consequences these actions will lead to. I just want to say that it's really really brave of you to speak against this madness and please go on we are with you.
your student from Pakistan
Dr Peterson this upsets me hearing your struggle in your world of academia;I should imagine it must be some kind of hell for a knowing man to be surrounded by this toxic pc lefty ideology,enough to doubt your own sanity.
I struggle living in one of the most extreme left parts of London where jeremy corbyn is graffiti on walls like some sort of God ,by young hipster liberal art student types ,its,utterly depressing and demoralizing and has made me tempted to join some right wing group just so I can freely express my opinions which aren't even that extreme,I feel I'm experiencing a similar thing it's just utterly devoid of balance or reasoning,I've been branded a racist a bigot a little Englander,narrow minded etc purely because of my vote to leave the EU I can feel the swellings of extreme right wing feelings which I try and temper with my love of humanity ,it's soul destroying to be in this situation,surrounded by the metropolitan elite who shut you down for anything that they consider politically incorrect ,you're right it is no different from nazism I even have this ridiculous idea of wanting to move to the deep south of America where I maybe would be amongst people who feel the same ,I long to be able to openly talk about my concerns ,but it's not different when in nazi Germany you had to watch what you said in front of neighbours and even friends in case you were reported for views that were anti government ,obviously that us an extreme example but it is utterly terrifying and I can't imagine having to deal with that in a place of work where your job is basically to express your thoughts ,all I cN think of is George Orwell - "the first duty of intelligent men, is,reinstatement of the obvious " please men like the you are sorely needed in society ,your intelligence and brilliant understanding of people and society is the only thing I feel that can counteract the liberal so called "intelligentsia " kill them with reasoning ,facts,history and,reality
you've helped me so much make sense of this toxic ideology that permeates modern society and give me hope,you're the modern George Orwell ,you can see and feel things that a lot of people can't see or understand and that Is a lonely lonely place, you aren't alone
Wow, have been waiting a long time for this one. Will definitely be sharing. Thank you.
Professor, you make sense! Thank you for taking risk and speaking up, professor!
I first became aware of Jordan Peterson through various Agenda with Steve Paikin episodes and was immediately captivated by his brilliance. I have now watched some of his youtube videos as many as 20 times trying to fully digest the sum of knowledge he is bestowing humanity. Before I knew of Prof Peterson I admit that I looked down on most of the social sciences and humanities (my education is in mathematics). This was not because I felt the material was inferior - I myself have always enjoyed history and classical western literature for example - but rather because of the clear ideological bias that exists within academia in general and the humanities in particular.
For a long time now I have also be concerned about the increasingly politically correct atmosphere growing within academia - safe spaces (*cringe*), post-modernism, and the marxist influence felt particularly strong within the social sciences. I think I remember you saying in one of your videos that you sometimes felt that students left university worse off than when they arrived. I unfortunately feel that this is true. It seems that all to often universities merely pump out ideologues. Worse still these people have been duped into believing that they are critical thinkers. As soon as I saw this video posted I couldn't help but watch and I commend you on speaking out about this. I will do my small part to share this video with others.
So far at least 2+2 != 5...
(1).Since we live on a ball. Why when you leave earth and go up in
elevation to any height, does the horizon always rise's to match your
eye level?
( I might not be educated as much as you may believe you
are, but, when that sorta simple thing happens!! You can only contend
you are on a flat plane.. If we live on a ball, the curvizon would
always be dropping off.)
(2). Why is water infinitely flat or
running down and finding flat. ( I personally have never seen water have
any kind of a curve, other than some retention at the end of a water
goblet)
Therefore one would have to once again contend that water is
and always will be!! Flat like everybody's horizon standing still &
being level with everybody on this motionless created once beautiful
enclosed plane....
(3). I understand the amount of hate that the
so-called higher educated class will have towards a fact that even they
were lied to as well. I do however feel that at least some of the
educated may with a little coaching & a kick in the ass here &
there, they just might have enough time too UN-educate themselves!!
Remember! Starting at the bottom and starting over!! Is the same thing!
Basically its time to step off the created spinning NASA ball you have
been out of control flying through space at speeds only the NASA can make up.
Its about flat earth! Its where we live.
Keep up the great work Dr. Peterson. Your voice against political correctness is greatly appreciated.
I respect this man immensely for speaking his mind.
Ho Lee Phuk !
It's 1984 folks and C-16 can kiss my ass.
Room 101 should fix your wrong think.
_++bad_
++UNgood champ, remember to use version 15 of your newspeak dictionary.
Not Room 101!
More people need to speak out about this.
Reading the Gulag Archipelago while dealing with an awkward problem at work has made me have a revelation: broad, vague or poorly enforced rules are written with the intent of having an excuse whenever authority figures wish to apprehend or punish people, either because they are required to demonstrate their power or because said people have shown themselves to be their enemies.
I think it's fair to say that the less clear and focused a rule is, the more people there are liable to - consciously or otherwise - break it, and to say, "They'll never actually enforce it," is only to enable their authoritarianism, for if that were really true then there'd be no reason to actually write it into law to begin with. Finally, the fact that authorities let people break a rule gives you no defense should you ever be accused of doing so yourself. "Everyone does it" and other claims of bias or prejudice are not an excuse and certainly would not be listened to should you happen to be part of an "unwanted" group. The end result is people living in fear.
Dr. Peterson, have you ever considered combining your powers with Prof. Gad Saad, who works in Montreal? I first heard him on the Joe Rogan Experience, which I hope to see you appear on as well someday.
And do you see this PC nitpicking continuing much further into being written law? Will the general population rise and shut it down or will they be too busy playing on their pocket dopamine screens and eating Cheetos to care? I believe that it is too late, and that if the people at large were ever going to take initiative, they would have by now and if they ever do, it may be too late. I am sometimes depressed about the way things are and where they are going, especially the growing disillusion and schism between the sexes, but I am also excited to be alive in what seems to be a make-or-break moment in history.
Thank you.
powerful stopaskingformyname
He was just on Gad Saad's podcast.
Joe Rogan talked about this in one of his recent podcasts.
Ethereal Darkness
I'm gonna tell myself I helped make this happen, haha
He, Gad Saad and Jonathan Haidt could do great things together.
Thank you for being courageous enough to say what you believe. It really makes a difference for us people out their just trying to do what's right.
Conor if we all heap
Our lot on the good maybe it’ll edge out the competition by a hairs width.
As always Dr. Peterson, spot on.
This is fantastic! Thank you for your courage in voicing what many of us feel!
FINALLY someone that presents a logical, eloquent and objective argument that addresses this unfortunate reality. People are being dictated how to express themselves, what to say and not to say, what to fear and what to feel guilty of, either purposefully or unwittingly. The blind adoption of useless terms and communication guidelines by HR departments without a second thought or meaningful debate is worrisome, as they shape people's minds and attitudes in situations that were not an issue to being with. Most importantly, anyone raising a reasonable point of debate, is swiftly dealt with and given all kinds of labels, thereby contradicting the 'tolerance' ideology this all stems from. It´s madness and it seems we're being herded towards the least common denominator.
Professor Peterson, thank you for taking the time and courage to speak out about this. I'm very interested as to the response of the University administrators in this matter.
Dr. Peterson, thank you for speaking out about this and know that many people support you.
Jordan, I am very sorry to hear about your experiences, but none of what you say surprises me. I have wrestled with some of your ideas, but overall l have found your lectures extremely useful in creating clarity to some of my own personal problems, and how they might reflect on wider society. Regardless of our own personal biasis, its so important to hear a pluarity of voices, especially if we have a genuine desire to seek the truth.
Thank you for your courage, Dr. Peterson. True to character as expected.
Prof. Peterson, I stand with you.
Finally someone sane. Don't let their bullying and harassment get to you.
"But I think the real reason is the person who wrote this can't write."
LOL'd at this line.
lol its fantastic and most likely true. A politician can get elected without any valid education :P
Gurubu cough *AOC* cough excuse me
Dr. Peterson, you are my new hero!! Thank you for articulating these problems so clearly. 👏
It scares me that this is now LAW in Canada. Appaling.
The point about intent is really good. "Intentionally or not" has no place in law
Thank you professor Peterson, thank you so much for putting this out despite the dangers to your career that it poses.
I just shut up and went to class without ever participating in discussion about political or social issues. As a economically conservative person who only accepts things based off of facts and reason, I see no point in debating with a mob of nonsensical people who yell in your face and have absolutely no chance of changing their views because they are based on nothing more than an ideology and pure emotion rather than coherent or independent thought.
Hello Professor Peterson. I am a friend of some of your appreciative students. I am also the Gregory Alan Elliott of Twitter Trial fame. Your video describes and explains the system/people who tried their cancerous best to use Political Correctness to throw me in jail in order to silence my online political opinions and observations. Thank you. I have just emailed information about you and your work to some of the most powerful and intelligent Freedom Of Speech activists and personalities on the planet. I won't list them here, but please keep an eye out for them. They are a valuable support network. Regards.
It is an omen of the danger that you must be so vague.
Don´t fear professor! People all over the world are craving for someone like you
Thank you for finding the courage within yourself to address this issue publicly. It is absolutely necessary. We can not wait any longer.
Thank you professor. I am college student in the USA and I constantly find myself afraid to say things in fear of having a mob after me for doing "wrongthink".
I'm proud that we still have people in a position of authority, that are willing to say this.
2016... wow it’s 2019 it’s rampant everywhere now.
It’s 2022, are you feeling it now, Mr. Krabs?
@@lastfirst5863 2022 feeling hardcore.
Very grateful to Dr. Peterson for doing this. IT is so essential for the WEst.
Free speech is a fundamental human right. Please continue to stand strong against #SJW cultist fascism. They are the mindless brownshirts of an elitist political/donor class that needs to be put in its place.
Of course it is, but it still limits. Remember that the next time you have an urge to yell 'fire!' in a movie theater. You would think at a time when we are finally starting to come to terms with the damage caused by bullying, we would understand the need for people to be treated with basic respect.
Free speech for everyone except those i disagree with..lol
Not at all. I support his right to have his opinion and to express it. Where I draw the line is when he berates one of his trans students and tells them they "are sick and of course they cannot use the washroom that matches their gender because there is no such thing as gender spectrum."
Surprise. There are only TWO genders. Deal with it. #fact #gender
Must be nice and reassuring Greg to have such a clear black and white view of the world. Too bad that view has no relation to the world we actually live in. Let me know when you return to Earth and we can talk about this world.
the first 20 minutes was all it took to earn my subscription. you speak honestly and cautiously to sense falsehoods in what you say. bravo!
Well done for standing up and saying what others will not.
I support Dr. Peterson's position on these issues one-hundred and ten percent!
People are just so god damn soft these days, you're literally walking on egg shells around people who are so head strong on PC, and almost everything we do or say people will get TRIGGERED.
Many people nowadays have this ridiculous notion that they should to be able to go through an entire life without ever being offended. To those people I say, grow some F'ing skin.
Exactly..
having seen this absolute farce unfold first hand from here in B.C. and having seen Mr Peterson stand fast on the bridge of sanity proclaiming "you shall not pass", I feel ashaimed to have not already voiced my support and heart-felt greatfulness that someone is standing up for reality...... Mr P, You are a true hero and I only pray more people wake the hell up and see reality.
I honestly didn't think professors such as yourself existed in academia anymore. This is the kind of thoughtful discussion that leads to the type of discourse that should be held in high esteem in post secondary education.
I too fear the totalitarian nature of these new laws and I'm especially frightened about the implications for my future children.
Please keep up the good fight. Do not go quietly into the night!
We need more people like you Dr. Jordan
So, they're trying to make Tumblr wisdom into law.
"Flip Chart"
There - I said it.
Flip Chart indeed.
hell yeah!! at this point it just f*** them and not apologize enough is a enough
Thank you for making this video! You have expressed very eloquently what many of us are thinking. Your logic and common sense approach to this whole subject is difficult to argue against. By the way, you are not the only one who would be ready to go to jail for speaking the truth to this generation. Literally millions of people wholly agree with you on all this. I keep asking myself, "How can intelligent people have come to believe such non-sense and promote it as undeniable truth?"
I will be looking forward to Part 2! :)
God bless you, this is one of the sanest things I've watched in weeks.
Hello Jordan, I would love to hear Part 2, looking forward to see it online.
Stay strong and keep fighting the good fight.
Sincere thanks, professor, for publicly addressing the issue.
We need more principled people like Peterson that will speak up and talk about the truth and stand up against the SJW and PC madness ! Thank you for being a rare beacon of truth and hope !
I understand your fears of radical activists, and extreme political correctness. I particularly agreed with your observations about people using "being good" as a pretence to have enemies to go after. Or seeking ways to find people to be bad/racist/horrible in order to perpetuate this dynamic of moral superiority. You articulated something I have felt but been able to put into words until I heard your's. So thank you very much. These political activities do seem very scary at times. The religious fanaticism of people to be ideologically pure and good too often goes far over board. It reminds me of religious fanatics doing things such as inquisitions or witch hunts to ferret out "bad people". I have been told things like LIP LINER is "cultural appropriation" and "problematic"... saying I didn't think it was was me being a "white supremacist, imperialist, pro-colonialism". I wonder if legislation like this will lead to black people wearing kimonos or white people with dreadlocks will become a criminal activity.
However, in regards to gender I would like to recommend to you the book "Gender Trouble" by Judith Butler. I hope you do not reject this out of hand assuming it is in opposition to your position, and therefore unworthy of your attention. It is a very good book and something I found profound and illuminating. If nothing else reading it will allow you to understand the views of those you disagree with. I think it is often consider a "seminal text" of gender studies type people. (Although I think they did not seem to read the same book as me with what they took away from it)
I am homosexual and mildly effeminate. Despite great efforts to not come off as abnormal it seems beyond my control. I have no nefarious goals in saying that I feel I have been unfairly mistreated in my life because of this. It seems as if you think this feeling is either fabricated, or subconsciously constructed with no basis in reality. Am I just caught up in mass hysteria? Are my nefarious aspirations part of a collective unconscious? I suppose I have no concrete way of proving or showing this. However, to me it seems self evident and it is hard for me to imagine how someone else could not see the existence of various prejudices such as these (Granted I also live in Calgary and you live in Toronto). I think you are misunderstanding peoples' intentions on a massive scale. I definitely don't want to live in a re-made Soviet Union or under the Khmer Rouge. I am confused about whether you think people are plotting nefarious schemes and do not have genuine intentions, as you point out intention is what matters.
Also my significant other is an educational psychologist so I would be interested to see how that is a "worst offender"... he checks children for conditions like dyslexia...? Or I guess I do not know what educational psychology academics write about as opposed to those who actually work, as he does, in the field of educational psychology.
I find you very interesting (hence listening to you for an hour). I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us, especially the points I disagree with. All the best :) !
As every war is construed as a 'defensive war' by all sides, it only makes sense that Peterson would attribute nefarious intentions to his target.
Intentions are immaterial outside the legal or social context. Consequences are all that matters in the context of history. On the world stage, there are typically multiple causal pathways culminating in events, but the gyrations of history are usually most clearly and readily perceived as proceeding from those who gained power only to force their willful intentions on the rest of us, and whether those intentions are good or bad play but a nominal role in whether the actual consequences of those intentions are good or bad. Past is prologue. This pattern of events is nothing new to profound thinkers like myself and Dr. Peterson. On the surface it might appear we have a new set of facts here, but the underlying patterns have played themselves out before. Dr. Peterson possesses an erudite understanding of those subtle patterns. He thus perceives good cause for alarm, and that is why he is forced to play the role of the martyr. In any case, I do believe he is correct in pointing out that some of the people behind the politically correct agenda do have nefarious intentions. However, as I said, that is of no consequence. Indeed, if history is any real indicator, a belief in their good intentions might indicate something far worse. The most vile stories in human history more often than not first appear on the world stage dressed in the finest moral linens. The truth of those "good intentions" is revealed a few million casualties later.
Derek Aitken, thanks for putting this into words so nicely! I feel exactly the same. I am also a mildly non-conformist lgbt person, and I agree that the way this law is written is dangerous and ridiculous. There are so many ways it could be misused. You could misgender someone by accident while trying to warn them about danger (or otherwise help them) and end up being sued.
I'm all for a law that would protect my trans friends from losing jobs or being harassed. But this law goes too far. You can't punish people for potentially upsetting someone unintentionally. That's ridiculous! The law needs to be majorly reworked if it's to solve any problems for anyone at all. In its current form it will only bring about a lot more problems and more hate towards the people it aims to protect as they will be seen as the source of the problem. :\
It's terrible how parts of the left have gone to such extremes these days, giving the rest a very bad name. A few years ago people who got called "sjw" were often just asking for diversity in media or pointing out stereotypes they dislike. Nowadays there's a considerable group of people labeled that way that acts just as badly as the people the original "sjw"s opposed. It's a darn shame.
I'll take you up on that discussion if you like.
I'll start by saying that I do think that people in power, especially current politicians, use you as a wedge issue to gain power and support and that their intents at large are self-intrested at the expense of Canada to the point of being able to be considered nefarious. To some extent your real problems are used as a stepping stone to demonize and threaten political opposition and non-conformity. This does not say that you yourself is nefarious, or that all or most LGBT organizers are nefarious, or that your problems and prejudices against you are not real or do not cause you material problems.
But you can see clearly, when you're outside yourself and looking at the problem objectively, how this legislation itself is nefarious, and how it is a gateway to very serious problems.
So, that brings us to the question of why gender and sexuality should not be an exception. Well, you talked about concerns of 'cultural appropriation' being taken to ridiculous levels. Well, in that case you're getting mistreated just for being white. I expect that's nothing like the more serious mistreatments you've experienced, but it is a mistreatment on that basis, and people are mistreated for being white.
And while we can and probably should socially frown on that kind of mistreatment, if we shouldn't be able to legally silence people for disliking whites we shouldn’t be able to legally silence someone for disliking gays.
If you're part of any kind of identifiable group, be it centred around ideology or race or gender or whatnot, you're going to find people that dislike you based on disliking that group. Part of having any kind of meaningful identity either by nature or choice (race or ideology or the grey area of sexuality) is going to be to stand up for it and to be opposed for it. It sucks when your group is either a very small minority or especially unacceptable for whatever reason. In such case you can integrate and try to fit in with larger groups (you tried, it didn't work well for you, it does work for some), you can promote sympathy for your group or respect for it by your behaviour and example (I would hope you do this as well, but it takes a lot of time to change minds), and you can created a sub-culture and associate mostly with people that identify with you. Gays do all three of these things fairly well.
But yeah, if you are something, if you stand for something, if you do something, you're going to have to face some opposition and mistreatment based on it. Such is the nature of the world. Governments trying to suppress disagreements will always boil down to favouring one group over another, there isn't any other way to do it. To say gender should be protected but race or ideology should not is merely to say that your interests should be protected over others.
I have also taken issue with these political activists pretending like they know me or have the right to speak on my behalf. Not only am I technically crippled (I have a uncurable rare disease that disallows me from doing certain things), but I am also asexual as well and these people have never represented me in any way, I do not consider myself as part of the LGTBQ whatever community. To me these notions are wholly contradicting and self-defeating.
" Lets get away from X form of prejudice! How do we achieve it? Oh I know, lets make the one thing that makes us different the most defining part about us! "
Doesn't make any sense.
thank you prof peterson. we need more like you.
The video that started it all!
Thank you so much sir. Found your channel after watching two recordings of you at the UoT free speech rallies- it brought me to tears, the way you were treated. You're an upstanding, inspirational man.
Thank you, Dr. Peterson; your video took courage. It was also instructive.
"Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Keep fighting the good fight, Professor. The majority stands with you.
I'm here from Gad Saad's video, subscribed. High fives.
To borrow Gaad Saad's masterful phrase: I really admire your "testicular fortitude" Professor Peterson. Thank you for risking so much for our rights
People who enjoyed this might also consider watching Professor Eric Dodson's thoughts on the shame-driven elements of the social justice movement. He's a philosopher by training -- critiquing the movement from an existential perspective.
Here's the video link:
ruclips.net/video/0VPiLfbesUI/видео.html
Thanks for the reference to Dodson. I checked him out - he's awesome!
I've learned to never be ashamed of being a fashlord.
Which video is that? Link seems to be missing.....
Keep fighting the good fight, People like you who speak out on their bull are the heros we need.
You are brave and I applaud your stand against absurdity and political correctness. But I don't see this a battle that will be won by logical, sane people. We are not the majority in North America.
People attempted to indoctrinate me into this mindset when I was a brown kid from a single parent family on welfare, a situation I had no control over. They attempted to coddle me, tell me how much of a victim I was and how the world was set against me and there was nothing I could do about it.
What they didn't know was that I had learned to read from 2 years old. I had been studying philosophical dilemmas, human emotions and history on my own for years before I ever entered public school.
I saw them as unwell people with serious issues of their own who felt better by telling me how much of a victim I was, even if their lies could hurt me and threaten my future. I rejected them and their demented ideas wholeheartedly.
I am sad to see that this victim mentality, external locus of control hysteria has become the norm and is supported by otherwise seemingly sane people. But I can't say that I am surprised. We are witnessing the fall of western civilization.
Fellow Canadian dropping in--also former Toronto native.
Just wanted to comment and say that I appreciate Mr. Peterson has the balls to stand up to this politically correct insanity. I wish a lot of people were brave enough to take such a stand.
I only found this link because a few of my fellow atheist 'free thinkers ' want Prof. Peterson fired. Nice!
Christopher Hitchens gave one of his best speeches at the U of T on free speech. He'd roll over in his grave if that were a thing.
Thanks for mentioning I'm going to go check that out
Oh those tolerant free thinking atheists with their silencing agenda. Dear fucking gods and heavens, what has happened?
I feel you. The idea of a "free thinking atheist" has been totally hijacked.
"Free thinker" is a slogan, that many people throw out to describe their disbelief in a deity or position against religion (mainly Christianity). However i find an ridiculous amount of these folks are ideologues who don't think but have relocated their fundamentalism to social justice and political correctness. Rather than being free thinkers who question everything based on their accumulation of knowledge and analysis of data they are sheep using their platform to be selectively bigoted against groups and calling for safe spaces for others. Truth is due the to the flawed nature of humanity there will always be sheep, no matter how progressive or regressive the thinking. Irrationality is part of human nature.
Robert Acton I do not believe in a diety of any sort; however, over the last few years I have begun to resist using the term Atheist to describe myself because it has been hijacked by attention seekers and SJWs. The word has simply become a headline for facebook memes.
Jordan Peterson is our voice against the extreme left! Thank you professor!!
What's happening here is a modern day witch hunt is all. These wounded people need to take a look in the mirror and face themselves rather than go out and try and control other people and society at large. If society thinks they and their agenda is acceptable, it will see the facts that way... yet those who stand for political correctness have the media at their side and still, political correctness is the harpoon of a select few. These social justice warriors are no different than any other kind of bully, they defy their own logic by shoving their agenda down everyone else's throats. Not only that, but they ruin lives by infringing on others with their selfish threats, they become the arbiters of value, arbitrarily. Too ironic. Do they think that attacking people is going to sway the majority toward a position which is controlling the way they view mental illness? Asinine. Some people in life get screwed, accept it, you're not alone. Everyone has their baggage, but you don't see them forcing you to bow down to them and accept their values. Just because they hate their wife doesn't mean they can force you to talk as if you hate yours too. That's exploitation. It's best to simply part ways with that kind of person and let things be as they are going to be and do what you can within reasonable means to inform people, not attack them. If what you say is true, it will be accepted, but forcing your agenda only creates a longer process of resentment first before resolution.
I am a Psychologist myself and Maya is exactly correct. I've even had one tell me openly that they are doing it for revenge on their own experiences in school.
Rare as it may be, I believe most believe they are acting from their goodwill without realizing that there is also such a thing as wrong tactics, not just wrong targets.
Thank you Dr. Peterson for voicing your opinion! I was a sociology student at York University but I changed my major after 2 years of study largely due to the problem discussed in this video. I came from China so you can understand if I have a certain expectation... but I was hugely let down. During my time at York I discover there is only one voice in sociology (at least). I got As regardless of my bad writing if I say the politically correct thing; I get Cs and criticism that weren't even self-consistent if I dare to deviate from that. As a Chinese I guess I just have a "talent" to play this sort of game so I made it to Dean's List pretty easily. But I find it pointless. I am not LEARNING anything new. I am graduating soon, as an accounting student. And frankly, I have experience more freedom of speech when we touch upon political or social issues in managerial accounting or auditing courses. I am a proud accounting students because I believed I was taught real knowledge and skills, and that accounting has a future. Sociology doesn't. I had hoped it was just York. Unfortunately it wasn't.
Jordan Peterson (JP) doesn't make any ethical claims about transgenderism in this lecture, even though the way in which he expresses his claims is rather emotionally charged. Let me try and explain to you why I think that might be.
1. JP makes epistemic, or explanatory, claims about the notion that gender is binary. Particularly, he seems to disagree with the proposition that gender is not binary, but doesn't actually say much in positive terms about what he, himself, thinks about it (even if you try really hard to read between the lines).
2. This does not, however, mean that he thinks that transgendered individuals do not exist. Transgenderism is defined as having an experience of one's masculinity/femininity such that does not cohere with one's anatomical sex. He does not reject this definition. What he seems to be rejecting is any inferences that are made on the sole basis of this definition indicating that gender is not biologically grounded. One of his arguments for the rejection of any such inferences is that they are self-defeating, because they are usually made on the supposition that (a) the gender binary is socially constructed, whereas (b) one's self-identification is biologically grounded (you don't get a choice in how you self-identify; it is biologically/genetically determined). Holding (a) and (b) at the same time is, therefore, self-defeating, because the gender binary is just a type a gender identification, which, on the PC proponents' account, would have to be biologically grounded, rather than socially constructed.
3. JP also makes the argument that gender and anatomical sex cannot be completely dissociated, because they are almost perfectly correlated with one another (I'd certainly like to know how the studies were conducted and on what populations). However, just because the correlation between sex and gender isn't actually perfect, we cannot reduce gender to sex, or biology, either. A more wholesome explanation would have to be some sort of combination of both biology and sociality, rather than just one or the other. Once again, though, all JP is doing is rejecting the claim that gender is not biologically grounded; he is not affirming its opposite (i.e., gender is biologically grounded), per se.
4. None of what's been stated so far is actually an attack on transgendered minorities, though. No ethical claims have actually been made, thus far. The discussion has only centred around explanatory issues, such as "What is gender and where does it come from?" More importantly, however, even if it was somehow proven (for the sake of argument) that gender just is binary, that still wouldn't warrant an ethical mistreatment of transgendered individuals. Neither would it invalidate transgendered individuals' experience of their own gender; the real problem would actually be that their experience would now be unaccounted for. This, however, is not an ethical problem but an epistemic/explanatory/scientific problem. This distinction is crucial and lies at the heart of this misunderstanding.
5. To the best of my understanding, the primary complaint that JP is raising, though, is that his epistemic position is being treated as an ethical one, when it shouldn't be. In other words, it seems that proponents of PC treat any explanatory/epistemic claim that undermines their position as an ethical problem, rather than an epistemological one. This of course, is just silly (and the consequence of poor reasoning), because epistemology and ethics (though highly interdependent) are in fact two distinct domains of inquiry, not one. The idea is that you can't accuse someone of moral wrongdoing, especially on legal grounds, if all they've done is disagree with your notion of why things are the way they are; ESPECIALLY when they haven't made any ethical judgments against you in their disagreement with you.
6. The only ethical judgment that JP has made, albeit somewhat implicitly, is that the kind of response given by PC is politically and ideologically motivated precisely because it conflates epistemology with ethics. This sort of conflated treatment is problematic, because it builds walls where there shouldn't be any, by silencing voices that shouldn't be silenced. It's basically just a half-sophisticated form of bullying, which is pitiful at best.
7. JP's argument, therefore, isn't an argument against transgenderism; it's an argument against PC. No ethical claims have actually been made against transgendered individuals. All that's been said is that PC is being epistemically irresponsible and politically/ideologically driven, when it shouldn't be. The real question isn't whether the gender binary is real or not; the real question is, where do we draw the line between reasonable disagreement and politically driven oppression? Surely, we can't claim that we're being oppressed whenever someone endorses a different viewpoint than what we believe -- ESPECIALLY when the viewpoint does not contain any ethical claims, whatsoever. Making claims about how things are is quite a different process than making claims about how things should be. Knowing the difference between the two can save you (and others) a lot of time and unnecessary trouble.
Conclusion: A large portion of this debate is the result of a pervasive sort of misunderstanding. The misunderstanding occurs when the politically correct treat any non-normative/non-ethical disagreements made by the politically incorrect as normative/ethical ones. The point is that JP can be right with every single one of his points, and it still wouldn't follow that he thinks that transgendered individuals either should be mistreated or don't exist. In fact, JP chooses his words very carefully so as not actually make any normative claims against transgendered individuals, and it's crucial to notice that about him. His refusal to adopt gender-neutral terminology is not a rejection of the experience of transgendered individuals; it's a rejection of the grounds upon which the notion of transgenderism is built upon. These are two, entirely different things. So, to claim that he's attacking transgendered persons just because he's refusing to accept the construct of transgenderism as it is presently formed, is not just irresponsible and politically/ideologically motivated, but also utterly immature and, for the lack of a better word, unbecoming of any adult. For an adult should be able to tell the difference between the moon and the finger that's pointing to it.
Thank you, +Tony Tony. I hope it helped clarify a few important points about the nature of the debate. Though, an additional point to make is this.
JP seems to be treating proponents of PC as either (1) intentionally and knowingly driven by political ideology, or (2) as puppets of political ideology. Whether or not either of these happens to be the case, there are (obviously) still a lot of transgendered folks who are both good people and who are suffering because of gender discrimination. And JP's treatment of these issues as was expressed in the Lecture, though by no means exhaustive, *seems* to indicate that by attacking PC, he is somehow attacking the transgendered community. I don't think that this follows, though, from what he's actually said. His attack is on PC, and, in the case that a proponent of PC is actually transgendered (such as professor Peet), it would be easy (though foolish) to think that JP's attack is against Peet or transgendered people. That Peet, a transgendered individual, happens to be a proponent of PC, therefore, does not mean that JP's attack is now an attack on Peet or transgendered folks. This is just a contingent factor, nothing else. The original argument was against PC, after all, and not transgendered people.
Let's summarize the argument I have gotten from this experience in order to make things even clearer: (a) transgendered minorities deserve a fair hearing of the ethical problems that they are facing (obviously), (b) JP's argument is an epistemic one, not an ethical one, and (c) PC (political correctness) needs to be replaced with what I call ethical correctness (EC). EC is just the opposite of PC, in that it treats only ethical problems as ethical problems, and keeps the distinction between ethics and epistemology loud and clear. What this means is that, even if we attack PC and decide to do away with it, some people (namely, transgendered individuals) are still going to be unhappy because their suffering is neither being addressed nor publicly recognized. EC is purposed toward addressing this ethical issue by clarifying the difference between ethics and epistemology, as well as the relationship between the two. This is beneficial in at least two ways. First, it tells the politically incorrect that, even if we do away with PC, there is still a legitimate problem that needs to be dealt with -- which is the problem of gender-based discrimination. Second, it tells the politically correct that, the debate about PC is not necessarily an ethical one, and so opens up room in the discussion for an alternate solution to the problem of discrimination than offered by PC.
Again, the real problem that we face, after doing away with PC, is that there is still discrimination that occurs against transgendered people. JP's position seems to undermine PC's viability as the right solution to these ethical problems on the grounds that it (PC) creates a whole new ethical problem, that is unwarranted to begin with.
So, if we could treat the "is" side of things as sufficiently different from the "ought" side of things, then we'll realize that there are two problems to be dealt with: the explanatory/epistemic problem of understanding what transgenderism is and how it comes about, and the ethical problem of trying to reduce unwarranted discrimination against transgendered folks in the public sphere. Everyone can be happy, then. But this requires that the politically incorrect publicly recognize the ethical problem that is still there, and that the politically correct recognize that disagreement with PC is not, in itself, an ethical problem.
Jeez Garri, you sure have a lot to say. Sorry, JP makes more sense than you. You appear to have happily allowed your mind to be turned to Politically Correct mush. 99 per cent of the people commenting here do not wish to end up like you.
+Gregory Alan Elliott I'm a philosopher, so I was trained to think and write like one. I wasn't trying to appeal to a non-philosophical audience with my comment, but maybe I should do that now that you've raised to my awareness that you don't understand me, at all. Sorry about that. I'll post again later tonight, and hopefully it'll make more sense then. But I suggest you realize that your not being able to understand me doesn't necessarily imply that I'm stupid. It's also possible that it's because we're both stupid or just because you're stupid. :p So, please don't jump to conclusions that are unwarranted. I do not debate with anyone who does such things. Take care.
"His refusal to adopt gender-neutral terminology is not a rejection of
the experience of transgendered individuals; it's a rejection of the
grounds upon which the notion of transgenderism is built upon."
When your behavior is shitty (refusing to use other people's chosen pronouns), pointing at your logic by way of explanation doesn't make it less shitty.
Or less bullying. Or less disrespectful.
Julia Charles thanks for raising this point. From my understanding, Peterson's refusal to use gender-neutral terminology isn't a flat out refusal. Rather, I believe he said that he refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns without having a conversation about it, first. This doesn't mean that he's disrespecting transgendered people, such as professor Peet -- even though such people don't actually have to explain themselves to anybody. But it is, to a reasonable degree, a fair condition. Wouldn't you want to know why somebody wants you to do something before you go ahead and do it? This will allow you to see whether or not it's even something you would want to do.
I think that what Peterson is saying would become bullying and/or disrespectful only if he started making claims like "I refuse to adopt gender-neutral pronouns. Period." or "Transgendered people are mistaken about their experience of their own gender. Period." or even "Transgendered people are psychologically unwell." However, such statements are far from what Peterson has uttered; and further yet, no such statements are implied by any of what he's actually said.
It's these kinds of nuances that I've tried to raise, so that people who've overlooked them can now realize that he's not actually being a bigot, even though it's easy (though foolish) to construe him that way.
I hope this helps to clarify my position on the matter. Please let me know what you think.
-- Garri
Dr. Peterson ur some of the few worth a to be called a professor. My full Respekt. U have to keep going!
Truth is we had to have acted over century's ago!
10years....... Tz
Has everyone missed the most hideous aspect of the pronoun initiative ?
While dealing with a person directly, everyone uses "you" which is gender neutral. So no problem there (unless OHRC decides that "you" is oppressive too).
All this nonsense with new pronouns kicks in when speaking about someone in third person. So the object of discussion is not even present to feel the alleged indignity. What it does in principle is to impose a new draconian norm that limits the freedom of speech to talk about anything, unless in a way approved by the government and groups in power. And why stop at transgender? Once this principle is established it can easily be imposed to "protect" the expanding number other groups. It also means that in order to stamp out the practice there has to be a system of language police, informants and snitches to report the offenders. This is Orwellian territory.
I would like to believe in democratic institutions (legislatotors and courts) preventing it from happening. However, seeing a trend among our elites to completely deny the reality and instead to rely on fantasies constructed by crazies to dictate our policies and laws, makes me quite concerned about the future.
"All this nonsense with new pronouns kicks in when speaking about someone
in third person. So the object of discussion is not even present to
feel the alleged indignity."
You are aware that the third person kicks in at times where the person you're talking about is still present, right? For example, in a group setting? The vast majority of times where I spend time with more than one other person, someone within the group will be referred to and pronouns used in reference to them.
'You' for direct communication, 'they' for third person. Grammatical correctness is the only reasonable argument against but the English language is FUBAR enough at this point to render that nothing but pedantic.
Precisely. And grammatical correctness is so subject to change and linguistics so prone to evolution that...well, where's the argument against the singular 'they' when it's already quietly worked its way into language like any good new word does? It's a bit late now to contest it, haha.
Keep up your work and keep talking Sir. You make perfect sense to most sane people.
Thank you Professor Peterson. Thank you very much for doing this.
I can't imagine how crazy it should be in USA/Canada to see such occurances. You've mentioned one of your clients from Eastern Europe... I am from Lithuania and all our political, economical and mentality changes are always like 10 years behind modern east. But thing is that even here we started having rough time with all these lgbt rights and I started to feel restricted from having my opinion against some of the "rights" (or should I call it "wrongs"?)... Even worse... I have few "good old" liberal oriented friends with whom my relationship started worsening because they do not see the way out of thinking "everything should be tolerated without understanding why or what is it to be tolerated" and I cant express myself clearly why I see differently and why I think this tolerance is even dangerous. Of course, source of our conflict is gender identity issue...
Last time when relationships broke (even within families) in Lithuania was when we were under the Soviet Union when one half of population were prosoviets, informants for KGB, antinationalists and other half were silent underground opposition trying to embrace free word, our native language, culture and rituals... now this ideology is starting to separate us and you can't talk about it loud because publicly you can have only positive opinion on lgbt, no opinion, or opinion against those who have negative opinion on lgbt (and this is even encouraged). I really do appreciate your thoughts on this topic and I really do experience and feel this as scary.
Even though I live in a country where we have 6,5euro/hour MEAN wage (I work for less), just spread the word if things will turn bad for you in university. Too much I feel indebted for what you do, so I promise to support you monthly with what I could.
Cant wait to see other parts of your video.
Shared. Watched the whole lecture. Thank you for deciphering the bill Mr. Peterson.
U of T student here. I know there are, in my circle of friends, a large portion of people that support ultimately what you are saying, if not everything that was said.
I can’t believe this was 2016, so much has happened to this professor since then. We need more voices and brains like his!
A legend was born
Just received some major education on a topic I've been following and this guy is very good at articulating himself. I really get what he's saying. Took a while to get me there but a good journey.