Jordan Peterson Speaks Again!

Steven VanderMolen said:
Thanks, again. And I'm starting to get interested in the Hard Bop Jazz music of the 50's and 60's. John Coltrane, the legendary saxophonist, is my current favorite musician. I've purchased three of his CD's in the last few weeks, and will probably purchase a fourth tomorrow. His music is just so interesting to me. Sometimes laid back and mellow, other times frantic and upbeat, the man was clearly a genius. Unfortunately he died of cancer at the far too young age of 44. But he left behind a huge catalog of music.
Click to expand...

I feel like you are evading my point but I think I will get you in the end.

John Coltrane is great, but he is not as great as Miles.

So why are you slumming it?
 
StoneByStone said:
Where does it say people got arrested for misgendering people?
Click to expand...

The point made by the writer is the following: failure to use a person’s pronoun of choice — “ze,” “zir,” “they” or any one of a multitude of other potential non-words — will land you in hot water with the commission. That, in turn, can lead to orders for correction, apology, Soviet-like “re-education,” fines and, in cases of continued non-compliance, incarceration for contempt of court.

There are several articles out there that state that the incarceration claim is false, but they actually corroborate many of the other claims. Here's a good example: https://factcheck.afp.com/no-canadians-cannot-be-jailed-or-fined-just-using-wrong-gender-pronoun

Milne said the malicious misuse of a pronoun could be used to highlight a wider pattern of discrimination, but jailing someone is not a possible outcome for these type of lawsuits. The entity providing services could have to pay damages or send the concerned worker to sensitivity training, but not without other proof of discrimination.

In other words, the fines and "re-education" are real. The difference between this law and American anti-discriminatory laws is that the state here does not get involved in things like "sensitivity training", whereas the Canadian government does. It's very different for an employer to require an employee to take said training vs. having the state require it. That's when things get Orwellian.
 
Woko Haram said:
The point made by the writer is the following: failure to use a person’s pronoun of choice — “ze,” “zir,” “they” or any one of a multitude of other potential non-words — will land you in hot water with the commission. That, in turn, can lead to orders for correction, apology, Soviet-like “re-education,” fines and, in cases of continued non-compliance, incarceration for contempt of court.

There are several articles out there that state that the incarceration claim is false, but they actually corroborate many of the other claims. Here's a good example: https://factcheck.afp.com/no-canadians-cannot-be-jailed-or-fined-just-using-wrong-gender-pronoun

Milne said the malicious misuse of a pronoun could be used to highlight a wider pattern of discrimination, but jailing someone is not a possible outcome for these type of lawsuits. The entity providing services could have to pay damages or send the concerned worker to sensitivity training, but not without other proof of discrimination.

In other words, the fines and "re-education" are real. The difference between this law and American anti-discriminatory laws is that the state here does not get involved in things like "sensitivity training", whereas the Canadian government does. It's very different for an employer to require an employee to take said training vs. having the state require it. That's when things get Orwellian.
Click to expand...

Peterson claimed that the law made it illegal to misgender someone.
 
Woko Haram said:
How different is that statement from the state going to the trouble of using misgendering as evidence of legally actionable discrimination?
Click to expand...

It's the difference between going to jail and getting fired. That's a huge difference. And the law is only for government jobs, which makes perfect sense. Public jobs are funded by the public, so they shouldn't allow discrimination based on things like gender.
 
StoneByStone said:
It's the difference between going to jail and getting fired. That's a huge difference. And the law is only for government jobs, which makes perfect sense. Public jobs are funded by the public, so they shouldn't allow discrimination based on things like gender.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. It applies to the following: the federal government, federal services to the public, or a federally regulated industry. Much of that is government, but a lot of private jobs fall under "federally regulated industry."
 
Woko Haram said:
Actually, no. It applies to the following: the federal government, federal services to the public, or a federally regulated industry. Much of that is government, but a lot of private jobs fall under "federally regulated industry."
Click to expand...

Well yeah, if the federal government is involved, it's only fair that the people funding that government are protected. Though I do think private companies should have more autonomy, so I'm not totally in agreement with Canada's laws.
But the point is, the laws in Canada aren't much different than the laws in America. So Peterson was lying. It's not illegal to misgender someone.
 

There is a drought of authenticity and courage, and Peterson has found that hunger, and he has tapped into it...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top