Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Call Me Jimmy

20Cent wrote: »

It's a matter of "active debate" now.

Not dragging people away to prison like Kermit claimed.

What's your take on a comedian getting fined 42 grand by the human rights council for jokes? Oh yes those jokes were 'hateful', they were at a handicapped lads expense, but if you don't see the problem with this stuff you'll never see it. Canadian comedy will go through the glorious human rights council to ensure there is no harm in it. Everyone will be protected from harm so what downside could there possibly be?

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

What's your take on a comedian getting fined 42 grand by the human rights council for jokes? Oh yes those jokes were 'hateful', they were at a handicapped lads expense, but if you don't see the problem with this stuff you'll never see it. Canadian comedy will go through the glorious human rights council to ensure there is no harm in it. Everyone will be protected from harm so what downside could there possibly be?

Perhaps give a link or soemthing for those of us not into the Canadian comedy scene.

Call Me Jimmy

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-comedian-human-rights-tribunal-1.3689465

https://www.weeklystandard.com/mark-hemingway/canadian-human-rights-commission-fines-comedian-15-000-for-insulting-audience-member.

These are the guys you'd be referred to if you misgendered someone.

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-comedian-human-rights-tribunal-1.3689465

https://www.weeklystandard.com/mark-hemingway/canadian-human-rights-commission-fines-comedian-15-000-for-insulting-audience-member.

These are the guys you'd be referred to if you misgendered someone.

Not really, no one has been "referred to them" for misgendering someone. The experts say they couldn't be.


Do you consider defemation laws to be wrong then?

Call Me Jimmy

20Cent wrote: »

Not really, no one has been "referred to them" for misgendering someone. The experts say they couldn't be.


Do you consider defemation laws to be wrong then?

Which experts are you talking about?

Yes I support defamation laws, ie.the person is telling provable lies which damages reputation or ability to earn. Why do you ask?

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Which experts are you talking about?

Yes I support defamation laws, ie. it can be proven the person is telling provable lies which damages reputation or ability to earn. Why do you ask?

The Canadian Bar association are the experts I refered to. Defemation laws which you say you support could also be argued to be a slippery slope.

Call Me Jimmy

20Cent wrote: »

The Canadian Bar association are the experts I refered to. Defemation laws which you say you support could also be argued to be a slippery slope.

As with all such legislation and anything in the hate speech realm, it is purposefully vague. What exactly are you referring to? The bill is to be interpreted by the commission and the commission has their definitions which will be used in discrimination/harassment cases etc. So the bill talks about gender identity etc. if a case comes before the commission they interpret it using their own policies.

What exactly did the canadian bar association say that negates this?

No defamation laws are not a slippery slope because they are well defined and very limited in scope. Yes there are difficult cases but that's not the same as having vague language guiding the protection of subjective identities.

Call Me Jimmy

Canadian department of justice:

Q. Will “gender identity” and “gender expression” be defined in the Bill?

In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/identity-identite/faq.html

Pac1Man

You're taking him out of context.

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Canadian department of justice:

Q. Will “gender identity” and “gender expression” be defined in the Bill?

In order to ensure that the law would be as inclusive as possible, the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” are not defined in the Bill. With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases.

Definitions of the terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” have already been given by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/identity-identite/faq.html

Do you think it should be allowed to discriminate against people because of their gender?

Call Me Jimmy

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think it should be allowed to discriminate against people because of their gender?

No. Do you believe gender is a spectrum and agree that misgendering someone who is anywhere on the spectrum is against the law in canada punishable by substantial fines and failure to pay can lead to jail time?

flexcon

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think it should be allowed to discriminate against people because of their gender?

WTF man. Of course not....

come back from the extreme suggestions and implying extreme end statements. Come back to us buddy...don't go there. It adds zero value and is a distraction.

wildlifeboy

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think it should be allowed to discriminate against people because of their gender?

yes absolutely and you both say, oh no thats terrible. why is it terrible?

wildlifeboy

i meant make jokes not discriminate

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

No. Do you believe gender is a spectrum and agree that misgendering someone who is anywhere on the spectrum is against the law in canada punishable by substantial fines and failure to pay can lead to jail time?

Doesn't seem to be the case.
Calling someone the wrong pronoun would have to pass the threshold of being a hate crime or advocating genocide in order to be actionable.

Call Me Jimmy

20Cent wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be the case.
Calling someone the wrong pronoun would have to pass the threshold of being a hate crime or advocating genocide in order to be actionable.

Any crime can be raised to the level of a hate crime resulting in harsher sentences not sure why that is relevant though? Workplace discrimination for example does not require there to be a hate crime. My question stands.

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Any crime can be raised to the level of a hate crime resulting in harsher sentences not sure why that is relevant though? Workplace discrimination for example does not require there to be a hate crime. My question stands.

Agree with the first part gender being a spectrum. Would someone calling another person the wrong pronoun result in fines and jail this does not seem to be the case.
If a teacher calls a black kid the n word or used derogatory names for minorities then I think we all agree this would be wrong. Why then is using the wrong pronoun considered ok?

flexcon

20Cent wrote: »

Agree with the first part gender being a spectrum. Would someone calling another person the wrong pronoun result in fines and jail this does not seem to be the case.
If a teacher calls a black kid the n word or used derogatory names for minorities then I think we all agree this would be wrong. Why then is using the wrong pronoun considered ok?

This is the crux of it all. JP seems to believe so that it is in fact punishable under law. That's all. End of. (Not agreeing it is, but, I'm an Irish citizen that doesn't have a law background so I must choose whom to believe carefully and willfully.


it may not be ok. But as JP has stated, he has been asked to call someone the proper Pro-Noun after he called them the wrong Pro-Noun by chance. He just met them, or they were a student in class for a few weeks and it only came to light that this Male actually wants to be referred to as Z.

The problem JP is suggesting is, if he forgets, and calls this person a He instead of Z a few times by mistake, then this law is saying it is punishable. By what degree is unknown.

It's forced speech. you may not agree on it, and I am somewhat on the fence to be honest - a storm in a teapot but, we need to stop suggesting that JP is saying using the wrong ProNoun is ok.

Call Me Jimmy

20Cent wrote: »

Agree with the first part gender being a spectrum. Would someone calling another person the wrong pronoun result in fines and jail this does not seem to be the case.
If a teacher calls a black kid the n word or used derogatory names for minorities then I think we all agree this would be wrong. Why then is using the wrong pronoun considered ok?

Because finding discrimination against someone in a spectrum of gender (which on facebook for example already has 70+ pronouns, with infinitely many possible such is the nature of a spectrum) is necessarily subjective to the person being discriminated against. There are no objective limits to what can be deemed a misgendering/discrimination/harrassment when it comes to dealing with people. Have listed them below. When you accept that these people are usually proponents of the idea of microaggressions you'd have to be naive to think that there isn't a lot of power to be wielded.

Now not only is gender a spectrum but gender fluid is an identity and you understand that that opens another dimension of discourse. As per Human Rights Commission:

"Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education."

Now I hope I don't have to explain how all of this makes for terrible law and you'd be forgiven thinking it's part of an ideological movement as Peterson does when you take it all into account.

For example, the linux community is being ripped apart as we speak in self-professed power games by people advocating very similar jargon. They literally state that meritocracy (in contributions to the linux OS) is a bad thing and needs to be dealt with by implementing a Code Of Conduct for the open source contributors. They want inclusion and diversity for people non-white lgbtqia+ to the point that quality of code is no longer the standard. I don't know if you've heard it about it but it's a **** show and I imagine if you looked into it you'd agree.

When I first heard peterson talking about this stuff I was like 'yea whatever, it's not some nefarious idealogy and at worst its just a local problem you're having and blowing way out of proportion', but in the intervening 2 years I can't help but agree. And everything he stated checks out re: the law as I've shown.


Take a look:
Asexual

Female to male trans man

Female to male transgender man

Female to male transsexual man

F2M

Gender neutral

Hermaphrodite

Intersex man

Intersex person

Intersex woman

Male to female trans woman

Male to female transgender woman

Male to female transsexual woman

Man

M2F

Polygender

T* man

T* woman

Two* person

Two-spirit person

Woman

The list of the 50 previous gender options

Agender

Androgyne

Androgynes

Androgynous

Bigender

Cis

Cis Female

Cis Male

Cis Man

Cis Woman

Cisgender

Cisgender Female

Cisgender Male

Cisgender Man

Cisgender Woman

Female to Male

FTM

Gender Fluid

Gender Nonconforming

Gender Questioning

Gender Variant

Genderqueer

Intersex

Male to Female

MTF

Neither

Neutrois

Non-binary

Other

Pangender

Trans

Trans Female

Trans Male

Trans Man

Trans Person

Trans*Female

Trans*Male

Trans*Man

Trans*Person

Trans*Woman

Transexual

Transexual Female

Transexual Male

Transexual Man

Transexual Person

Transexual Woman

Transgender Female

Transgender Person

Transmasculine

Two-spirit

20Cent

flexcon wrote: »

This is the crux of it all. JP seems to believe so that it is in fact punishable under law. That's all. End of. (Not agreeing it is, but, I'm an Irish citizen that doesn't have a law background so I must choose whom to believe carefully and willfully.


it may not be ok. But as JP has stated, he has been asked to call someone the proper Pro-Noun after he called them the wrong Pro-Noun by chance. He just met them, or they were a student in class for a few weeks and it only came to light that this Male actually wants to be referred to as Z.

The problem JP is suggesting is, if he forgets, and calls this person a He instead of Z a few times by mistake, then this law is saying it is punishable. By what degree is unknown.

It's forced speech. you may not agree on it, and I am somewhat on the fence to be honest - a storm in a teapot but, we need to stop suggesting that JP is saying using the wrong ProNoun is ok.

Disagree that his interpretation of the law is right. Intention is also a consideration anyway so if he forgot that z wants to be refered to as z then it's hardly anymore serious than calling someone by the wrong name. How often does a professor refer to someone in the class in the third person anyway! Very rarely I'd imagine.

If a teacher decided to always refer to a student using a derogatory nickname we'd agree thats wrong. Claiming it is the government controlling speech is a hysterical exaggeration.

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Because finding discrimination against someone in a spectrum of gender (which on facebook for example already has 70+ pronouns, with infinitely many possible such is the nature of a spectrum) is necessarily subjective to the person being discriminated against. There are no objective limits to what can be deemed a misgendering/discrimination/harrassment when it comes to dealing with people. Have listed them below. When you accept that these people are usually proponents of the idea of microaggressions you'd have to be naive to think that there isn't a lot of power to be wielded.

Now not only is gender a spectrum but gender fluid is an identity and you understand that that opens another dimension of discourse. As per Human Rights Commission:

"Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education."

Now I hope I don't have to explain how all of this makes for terrible law and you'd be forgiven thinking it's part of an ideological movement as Peterson does when you take it all into account.

For example, the linux community is being ripped apart as we speak in self-professed power games by people advocating very similar jargon. They literally state that meritocracy (in contributions to the linux OS) is a bad thing and needs to be dealt with by implementing a Code Of Conduct for the open source contributors. They want inclusion and diversity for people non-white lgbtqia+ to the point that quality of code is no longer the standard. I don't know if you've heard it about it but it's a **** show and I imagine if you looked into it you'd agree.

When I first heard peterson talking about this stuff I was like 'yea whatever, it's not some nefarious idealogy and at worst its just a local problem you're having and blowing way out of proportion', but in the intervening 2 years I can't help but agree. And everything he stated checks out re: the law as I've shown.


Take a look:
Asexual

Female to male trans man

Female to male transgender man

Female to male transsexual man

F2M

Gender neutral

Hermaphrodite

Intersex man

Intersex person

Intersex woman

Male to female trans woman

Male to female transgender woman

Male to female transsexual woman

Man

M2F

Polygender

T* man

T* woman

Two* person

Two-spirit person

Woman

The list of the 50 previous gender options

Agender

Androgyne

Androgynes

Androgynous

Bigender

Cis

Cis Female

Cis Male

Cis Man

Cis Woman

Cisgender

Cisgender Female

Cisgender Male

Cisgender Man

Cisgender Woman

Female to Male

FTM

Gender Fluid

Gender Nonconforming

Gender Questioning

Gender Variant

Genderqueer

Intersex

Male to Female

MTF

Neither

Neutrois

Non-binary

Other

Pangender

Trans

Trans Female

Trans Male

Trans Man

Trans Person

Trans*Female

Trans*Male

Trans*Man

Trans*Person

Trans*Woman

Transexual

Transexual Female

Transexual Male

Transexual Man

Transexual Person

Transexual Woman

Transgender Female

Transgender Person

Transmasculine

Two-spirit

Peterson probably has hundreds of students. Doubt he knows all of their names never mind preferred pronouns. Claiming he'll be carted off to jail because he refered to someone as he insted of z is hysterical. Claiming it is an attack on free speech and part of a marxist conspiracy theory is plain mad.

Call Me Jimmy

20Cent wrote: »

Peterson probably has hundreds of students. Doubt he knows all of their names never mind preferred pronouns. Claiming he'll be carted off to jail because he refered to someone as he insted of z is hysterical. Claiming it is an attack on free speech and part of a marxist conspiracy theory is plain mad.

The claim is that its possible and within the scope of the law is enough to establish his point. I'm not sure about the marxist part but there is some seriously weird stuff going on (look at the linux stuff for an example read the comments on any youtube video about it) and it appears to be a pattern that follows people who use the same tactics and jargon as those who set policy at the human rights commission in Canada.

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

The claim is that its possible and within the scope of the law is enough to establish his point. I'm not sure about the marxist part but there is some seriously weird stuff going on (look at the linux stuff for an example read the comments on any youtube video about it) and it appears to be a pattern that follows people who use the same tactics and jargon as those who set policy at the human rights commission in Canada.

It doesn't seem to be possible or on the scope of the law. Have identified your problem "Reading youtube comments" never do that.

Call Me Jimmy

20Cent wrote: »

It doesn't seem to be possible or on the scope of the law. Have identified your problem "Reading youtube comments" never do that.

You haven't mentioned anything about the law aside from claiming the CBA said something without even providing what they say. The youtube comments was simply for a quick reaction from people in the community about the issue. Try reddit then.

I've pointed to how it is possible from the bill which directly links to the commission's policy (which includes the definitions) and the department of justice. You've not provided a single thing to refute the point yet still believe it 'doesn't seem possible'. Alright, we may have to agree to disagree :P

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

You haven't mentioned anything about the law aside from claiming the CBA said something without even providing what they say. The youtube comments was simply for a quick reaction from people in the community about the issue. Try reddit then.

I've pointed to how it is possible from the bill which directly links to the commission's policy (which includes the definitions) and the department of justice. You've not provided a single thing to refute the point yet still believe it 'doesn't seem possible'. Alright, we may have to agree to disagree :P

The Canadian Bar Association responce to Bill C 16:
https://www.cba.org/News-Media/News/2017/May/CBA-position-on-Bill-C-16

C-16 Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression
Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace
concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human
rights and hate crimes legislation.

Human rights legislation and freedom of expression
For human rights legislation, the CHRA prohibits denying or differentiating adversely in the provision
of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public, commercial
or residential accommodation, or, employment on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The Act applies to federal and federally regulated entities.
The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens. Nor will it hamper the
evolution of academic debates about sex and gender, race and ethnicity, nature and culture, and other
genuine and continuing inquiries that mark our common quest for understanding of the human condition.
The amendment will, however, make explicit the existing requirement for the federal government and
federally regulated providers of goods and services to ensure that personal information, like sex or
gender, is collected only for legitimate purposes and not used to perpetuate discrimination or undermine
privacy rights. In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by
the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates
individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.

Apparently many jurisdictions in Canada have had similar laws about gender discrimination for years. C 16 added it to a federal level. No one charged or accused because of pronouns.

jace_da_face

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think it should be allowed to discriminate against people because of their gender?

Ask Justin Trudeau that, considering he appointed a 50/50 gender split cabinet 🤔

20Cent

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association are also ok with c 16 and don't think it infringes freedom of speech.

https://ccla.org/gender-identity-human-rights-act-former-bill-c-16-part-one/

Call Me Jimmy

20Cent wrote: »

The Canadian Bar Association responce to Bill C 16:
https://www.cba.org/News-Media/News/2017/May/CBA-position-on-Bill-C-16

C-16 Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression
Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace
concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human
rights and hate crimes legislation.

Human rights legislation and freedom of expression
For human rights legislation, the CHRA prohibits denying or differentiating adversely in the provision
of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public, commercial
or residential accommodation, or, employment on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
The Act applies to federal and federally regulated entities.
The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens. Nor will it hamper the
evolution of academic debates about sex and gender, race and ethnicity, nature and culture, and other
genuine and continuing inquiries that mark our common quest for understanding of the human condition.
The amendment will, however, make explicit the existing requirement for the federal government and
federally regulated providers of goods and services to ensure that personal information, like sex or
gender, is collected only for legitimate purposes and not used to perpetuate discrimination or undermine
privacy rights. In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by
the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates
individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.

Apparently many jurisdictions in Canada have had similar laws about gender discrimination for years. C 16 added it to a federal level. No one charged or accused because of pronouns.

Maybe I'm dense here but I can't see what that or the other link says that negates my point? Where do they say its not possible for wrong pronoun use intentional or unintentional is not punishable under the amendment?

20Cent

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Maybe I'm dense here but I can't see what that or the other link says that negates my point? Where do they say its not possible for wrong pronoun use intentional or unintentional is not punishable under the amendment?

that bit.


C-16 Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression
Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace
concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human
rights and hate crimes legislation.

Mountainsandh

This bit is the dodgy bit imo

In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by
the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates
individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.

Verbal behaviour is exactly that, speech.

"that offends or humiliate" is exactly what is open to interpretation.

This gives students (in JP's case for example) the go ahead to choose what speech may be offensive or humiliating to them, and supports them in declaring that that speech is offensive or humiliating.

Previously innocuous pronouns, or phrases such as "young man" for example, might be declared "offensive and/or humiliating", thereby forcing whoever was using these phrases to use whatever else the offended or humiliated person decides.

That's precisely restricting free speech, and imposing new, subjectively decided vocabulary onto someone else.