Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian?

Paolo Maldini 122 wrote: »

People are free to discuss whatever the want, it would be very boring if people only stuck to their area of expertise. Interesting that you mostly agree with everything he says. I'd probably agree with about 60-70 percent of what he says.

It’s painful how often I have to say this: he’s free to speak about whatever he wants. I’m free to disagree with him. He’s no more of an expert on the subjects than I am, so I owe him no deference.

His underlying principal for how people and the world should work appears to be whatever progresses civilisation. Marriage for example has been a key component of the advancement of civilisation over the millenia, therefore he tends to voice arguments which support the institution of marriage. I for one believe that marriage cause psychological pain for people because it fundamentally is contrary to human nature.

I don’t hold an opinion on marriage.

Silentcorner

There is too much disagreement here...We need to get some empowered 16 year old girls opinion on him....it's the only rational thing to do!

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

There is too much disagreement here...We need to get some empowered 16 year old girls opinion on him....it's the only rational thing to do!

Oh right. Yeah.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Actually it’s the people who make YouTube videos about him, quote him online and shell out money to see him speak live that do that.

The people bursting into his lectures and shouting him down came first..

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The people bursting into his lectures and shouting him down came first..

The people disrupted empty lectures?

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

The people disrupted empty lectures?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

He has published over 130 academic papers, written two books, one of which was fairly weighty, lectured at several universities..like, if he's not an intellectual, I don't know who is..I think half the problem is people aren't capable of understanding him..

People often speak beyond their area of expertise. The people disagreeing might be knowledgeable in one of the areas he’s not

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tony EH wrote: »

Of course. Peterson knows his base and he peddles his wears to a particular audience, who will find common ground in his vague statements and fireside words of wisdom.

But this is a problem with a lot of these nouveaux American "thinkers". They're salesmen, pushing a product to an audience that were already receptive to certain ideas before they even heard a single word.

Their interest in their business, not arenas for debate and thought, which they will often shy away from. I've lost count of the amount of YouTube vids that come into my feed that tell me about a Jordan Peterson "interview", which turns out to be nothing more that two like minded people (Americans usually) agreeing with each other. That's not an interview.

Like Ben Shapiro malfunctioning when he realised that Andrew Neil was interviewing him and not debating him. The best part was Shapiro bizarrely implying that Neil is left-wing. No, Ben, he’s right-wing. He’s just interviewing you and some of those questions might be challenging.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

People often speak beyond their area of expertise. The people disagreeing might be knowledgeable in one of the areas he’s not

Haha.. yeah..

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Haha.. yeah..

Excuse me?

Peterson is an academic. He’s not the only academic.

Tony EH

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Like Ben Shapiro malfunctioning when he realised that Andrew Neil was interviewing him and not debating him. The best part was Shapiro bizarrely implying that Neil is left-wing. No, Ben, he’s right-wing. He’s just interviewing you and some of those questions might be challenging.

Exactly like Shapiro who, frankly, is just a little shite and not even fit to lick Jordan Peterson's boots. He got schooled and schooled hard by Andrew Neil. I almost felt embarrassed for him, especially when he started spitting bile because Neil got his goat, as he couldn't even counter his very mild questions. I've seen Andrew Neil go harder on many other people.

The problem, as I've said, is that these internet right wingers aren't used to actual interviews. They're happy going on a stage and talking at people who want to hear their message, they're happy on their YouTube channel yapping bollocks and they're settled when they are "interviewed" by people of a like mind so they can both push a political point of view.

But when interviewed properly, where the interviewers job is to push the interviewee and see where their points fall down or where their strengths are, they fall to pieces and start whinging.

This is usually the case when they venture outside of America, who's media leaves a lot to be desired these days and who thrive on the current schism that causes such a stench in US politics.

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And the above is why someone like JP was welcomed so much by many males on the internet.

Because they feel threatened by transsexual people?

It’s a little sad to be honest

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Because they feel threatened by transsexual people?

It’s a little sad to be honest

No... it's the extreme reactions. Just like yours TBH. (although unfortunately, it's becoming more commonplace and less extreme. This push to place every kind of resistance to your views into the "very negative" category)

Someone can be unwilling to be forced to change their language due to a percentage of people they're rarely, if ever, to meet. In my whole life, I've encountered two trans-gendered people in the west, and there was no interaction with them. And that's including the time I hung around the gay/bisexual scene in Europe. I've encountered more in Asia, and had conversations with them, but there was no expectation for others to change their language to make them feel more comfortable about their life choices.

And it's not simply the case of when someone meets a transgender and being asked to address them in a chosen pronoun. We're being told that we must change our language usage for every instance related to transgender people, like referring to articles or people (who aren't present), just in case, a trans-gendered person might, possibly, be watching, and could, possibly, be made uncomfortable by that other phrasing. We're still talking about an extreme minority of the population, of which, many couldn't give a F what pronoun they're referred to by strangers. [We're also supposed to include people who haven't done any actual surgery or treatments to physically change, but inside (not physically), they're different... and then there's those who can change their gender or identity whenever they want.. they still need their appropriate pronouns.)

My problem with people like yourself, and the other poster, with regards to trans issues, is that there's no middle ground. You simply can't tolerate anyone who doesn't fully embrace the issue, and adapt accordingly. Instead, the trans-phobia label comes out or that we're feeling threatened by Trans-gendered people.

I have no issue with transgender people, or the choice they make as adults. I do have issues with adults encouraging minors to undergo transgender surgery or treatments to deal with teenage or even childlike issues. I've always felt that people can do whatever they want to themselves, as long, as they keep me out of it.. and if they want me to be part of it, well... perhaps ask me. Nobody has asked me. I've just been told that this is the way it's going to be, and if I don't accept it, without any qualms or resistance, then I'm a trans-phobic, or some other nonsense..

It's annoying because so many of those who are hellbent on pushing the "acceptance" of different pronouns aren't even trans themselves. It's a crusade with transgender people being absent.

You called the situation sad.. and I agree. That you, and others, would be so intolerant of other peoples opinions that you feel the need to diminish their own feelings on the matter. Personally, I imagine you're actually doing more damage to the gradual acceptance of transgender issues, because you try so hard to ram it down peoples throats. Accept everything or you're a bad person! Society and culture generally takes time to adapt to changes but you've got no patience in allowing those changes to happen naturally.

So, yes, it is sad. Sad that you and others always need to take the extreme angle to other peoples resistance regardless of whether they actually have any real issues with trans people, or whether they just need some time to adjust to the changes. God forbid, that we try to consider the long term implications of accepting and encouraging trans issues into society... let's not consider whether encouraging it for vulnerable teenagers is a good idea or not. Instead, lets just blindly accept everything, and sure, it'll be grand. :rolleyes:

Tony EH

^

The problem is this all or nothing approach that takes a lot of people today. Your needle has to be buried in one direction or the other, or else your some sort of "ist" or an "SJW", depending on who's condemning you.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tony EH wrote: »

Exactly like Shapiro who, frankly, is just a little shite and not even fit to lick Jordan Peterson's boots. He got schooled and schooled hard by Andrew Neil. I almost felt embarrassed for him, especially when he started spitting bile because Neil got his goat, as he couldn't even counter his very mild questions. I've seen Andrew Neil go harder on many other people.

The problem, as I've said, is that these internet right wingers aren't used to actual interviews. They're happy going on a stage and talking at people who want to hear their message, they're happy on their YouTube channel yapping bollocks and they're settled when they are "interviewed" by people of a like mind so they can both push a political point of view.

But when interviewed properly, where the interviewers job is to push the interviewee and see where their points fall down or where their strengths are, they fall to pieces and start whinging.

This is usually the case when they venture outside of America, who's media leaves a lot to be desired these days and who thrive on the current schism that causes such a stench in US politics.

Shapiro’s reaction to Neil highlighted how fucked the American media is. He was completely flustered by mildly tough questioning and instead of adjusting, he went on the attack. He couldn’t seem to conceive of being questioned by somebody quite close to him on the political spectrum. He apparently had to frame it as “Well, you’re the enemy” for it to make sense to him.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think that people with reactionary views were desperate for a champion with a degree of credibility -- Peterson was a good man for the job, being a Professor and all. Peterson is the personification of an 'appeal to authority' fallacious stance. Peterson is a Professor who has written books, and you're just some dude on the internet, what would you know?

QED.

Deleted User wrote: »

He has published over 130 academic papers, written two books, one of which was fairly weighty, lectured at several universities..like, if he's not an intellectual, I don't know who is..I think half the problem is people aren't capable of understanding him..

DEFTLEFTHAND

I could never get Peterson.

He just relays objective facts of nature and what we all feel deep down inside, our innate instinct. What's so revolutionary about this thought process?


Granted he's brave for publicly expressing these views in the strange world that we live in today but he's certainly not the great philosopher of our age.

take everything

Can't believe the nastiness of some people in this thread not wishing him a full recovery (and thanking such posts).

Crowd of kants.

Gynoid

Pagluica wrote: »

They're bullies, they want to see others in pain to make themselves feel better.

There are people in the Caroline Flack thread bemoaning bullying media and social media mobs, yet a week or so ago there was a pile on for a poster named Srameen where people could not say enough about how much some anonymous old guy on the internet annoyed them, and the schadenfreude in here about a person being addicted to anti anxiety meds and possibly now seriously unwell has been horrible. But social media bullying boo hoo.....

Pagluica

Pagluica wrote: »

They're bullies, they want to see others in pain to make themselves feel better.

I dunno. I think there's a wave of righteousness sweeping the Internet, and the media. Previously, it would have been related to religion, but now, people have their crusades for minority causes.

And with the importance/impact of the internet through the use of social media, it's difficult to get away from their moralising. They get to virtue signal on all manner of mediums, and "force" their opinions on to other people. In a way, I suspect, that many of these people consider themselves to be protecting the victims of society. As if being a minority means automatic victim-hood, and then, they're justified in being bullies. It's the "good" fight against the majority who are unreasonable for not accepting and embracing these minorities.

Rather than making themselves feel better, I feel it's an addiction to virtue signalling. They just can't stop mounting their ivory tower of high moral conviction, and cast thunderbolts of righteous indignation at those who don't embrace their cause. The mask slips though when they turn all nasty by insulting and demeaning others. It's a shame really. There's a lot of space for them to do good, if they stopped being so hostile.

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No... it's the extreme reactions. Just like yours TBH. (although unfortunately, it's becoming more commonplace and less extreme. This push to place every kind of resistance to your views into the "very negative" category)

Someone can be unwilling to be forced to change their language due to a percentage of people they're rarely, if ever, to meet. In my whole life, I've encountered two trans-gendered people in the west, and there was no interaction with them. And that's including the time I hung around the gay/bisexual scene in Europe. I've encountered more in Asia, and had conversations with them, but there was no expectation for others to change their language to make them feel more comfortable about their life choices.

And it's not simply the case of when someone meets a transgender and being asked to address them in a chosen pronoun. We're being told that we must change our language usage for every instance related to transgender people, like referring to articles or people (who aren't present), just in case, a trans-gendered person might, possibly, be watching, and could, possibly, be made uncomfortable by that other phrasing. We're still talking about an extreme minority of the population, of which, many couldn't give a F what pronoun they're referred to by strangers. [We're also supposed to include people who haven't done any actual surgery or treatments to physically change, but inside (not physically), they're different... and then there's those who can change their gender or identity whenever they want.. they still need their appropriate pronouns.)

My problem with people like yourself, and the other poster, with regards to trans issues, is that there's no middle ground. You simply can't tolerate anyone who doesn't fully embrace the issue, and adapt accordingly. Instead, the trans-phobia label comes out or that we're feeling threatened by Trans-gendered people.

I have no issue with transgender people, or the choice they make as adults. I do have issues with adults encouraging minors to undergo transgender surgery or treatments to deal with teenage or even childlike issues. I've always felt that people can do whatever they want to themselves, as long, as they keep me out of it.. and if they want me to be part of it, well... perhaps ask me. Nobody has asked me. I've just been told that this is the way it's going to be, and if I don't accept it, without any qualms or resistance, then I'm a trans-phobic, or some other nonsense..

It's annoying because so many of those who are hellbent on pushing the "acceptance" of different pronouns aren't even trans themselves. It's a crusade with transgender people being absent.

You called the situation sad.. and I agree. That you, and others, would be so intolerant of other peoples opinions that you feel the need to diminish their own feelings on the matter. Personally, I imagine you're actually doing more damage to the gradual acceptance of transgender issues, because you try so hard to ram it down peoples throats. Accept everything or you're a bad person! Society and culture generally takes time to adapt to changes but you've got no patience in allowing those changes to happen naturally.

So, yes, it is sad. Sad that you and others always need to take the extreme angle to other peoples resistance regardless of whether they actually have any real issues with trans people, or whether they just need some time to adjust to the changes. God forbid, that we try to consider the long term implications of accepting and encouraging trans issues into society... let's not consider whether encouraging it for vulnerable teenagers is a good idea or not. Instead, lets just blindly accept everything, and sure, it'll be grand. :rolleyes:

I have never used any of these new pronouns that we are all apparently having foisted on us.

If I met someone who asked to be identified as a different pronoun I would be accommodating to their wishes rather than taking it as a personal attack on my own freedom of expression.

The thing I feel is sad, is that the likes of Peterson have blown up this SJW malarkey into some kind of existential crisis for white male identity. It is sad that there are so many insecure ‘snowflakes’ who are so easily offended and so weak that they cannot stand up for themselves.

Society is becoming more open to diversity and accepting of people who want to express what they feel is their true identity. Your Mrs Lovejoy ‘Won’t somebody think of the children’ attitude is bullsh1t when you consider how pervasive homophobic attitudes were in Ireland mere decades ago, and how much more welcoming and joyful it is to be in 21st century Ireland where my gay friends can live their lives openly and without shame.

The tiny number of freaks who want to force their world onto unwilling children should not cause you to stand in the way of the majority of transgender people who are just trying to get on with a life that they can feel comfortable living.

Unfortunately children will always be vulnerable to being exploited and abused by adults in their lives, but I would suggest to you that it is far from transgender activists who are the biggest threat to children

Akrasia

Tony EH wrote: »

^

The problem is this all or nothing approach that takes a lot of people today. Your needle has to be buried in one direction or the other, or else your some sort of "ist" or an "SJW", depending on who's condemning you.

No it doesn’t. The vast majority of people will accept nuanced views. There are some sh1t stirrers on social media who will ‘call people out’ but you have to go actively looking for these people to even know they exist and likes of JP and the rest of the MRA people on social media feed into their own sense of self importance in a sad little exchange between a bunch of nobodies thinking they’re at the forefront of a global culture war

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I dunno. I think there's a wave of righteousness sweeping the Internet, and the media. Previously, it would have been related to religion, but now, people have their crusades for minority causes.

And with the importance/impact of the internet through the use of social media, it's difficult to get away from their moralising. They get to virtue signal on all manner of mediums, and "force" their opinions on to other people. In a way, I suspect, that many of these people consider themselves to be protecting the victims of society. As if being a minority means automatic victim-hood, and then, they're justified in being bullies. It's the "good" fight against the majority who are unreasonable for not accepting and embracing these minorities.

Rather than making themselves feel better, I feel it's an addiction to virtue signalling. They just can't stop mounting their ivory tower of high moral conviction, and cast thunderbolts of righteous indignation at those who don't embrace their cause. The mask slips though when they turn all nasty by insulting and demeaning others. It's a shame really. There's a lot of space for them to do good, if they stopped being so hostile.

There is a good book called ‘The Authoritarians’ by Robert Altemeyer

https://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

which talks about people with personality types that are high on the Right Wing Authoritarian’ (RWA) scale https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

Even though a lot of these SJWs claim to be liberal or left leaning, many of them are High RWA personality types, and so are many of the Men’s Rights or JP fans. There are two tribes who are clashing because they both want to force everyone else to behave a certain way

Both the SJW and MRA groups have language and codes and modes of thought that they use to signal amongst themselves that they are in the same group and can therefore be trusted and identify members of opposing groups and target them.

With high RWA people, they’re typically very loyal and trusting of their authority figures they choose to follow, they congregate under a ‘Double high’ RWA Individual who becomes their leader and he feeds off their support and can direct them to do his will.

Akrasia

Just for the laugh, here’s a link to a RWA test if you’re interested in your own score

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/

(My score was 9.66%)

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

I have never used any of these new pronouns that we are all apparently having foisted on us.

If I met someone who asked to be identified as a different pronoun I would be accommodating to their wishes rather than taking it as a personal attack on my own freedom of expression.

The thing I feel is sad, is that the likes of Peterson have blown up this SJW malarkey into some kind of existential crisis for white male identity. It is sad that there are so many insecure ‘snowflakes’ who are so easily offended and so weak that they cannot stand up for themselves.

Society is becoming more open to diversity and accepting of people who want to express what they feel is their true identity. Your Mrs Lovejoy ‘Won’t somebody think of the children’ attitude is bullsh1t when you consider how pervasive homophobic attitudes were in Ireland mere decades ago, and how much more welcoming and joyful it is to be in 21st century Ireland where my gay friends can live their lives openly and without shame.

The tiny number of freaks who want to force their world onto unwilling children should not cause you to stand in the way of the majority of transgender people who are just trying to get on with a life that they can feel comfortable living.

Unfortunately children will always be vulnerable to being exploited and abused by adults in their lives, but I would suggest to you that it is far from transgender activists who are the biggest threat to children

I read /watched quite a bit of Petersons stuff about his stance on this stuff when it first happened and I'd say your views are on a par. He never had issue with using the pronouns people wanted. His issue was with the compelled speech part.
I can't remember all the details now but that Canadian law was/is (I think it passed) quite far reaching and not something I'd like to see brought in over here, despite supporting LGBTQ+ rights

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

Just for the laugh, here’s a link to a RWA test if you’re interested in your own score

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/

(My score was 9.66%)

28%
I feel like some of those questions need updating. Some of the groupings seem odd to me

nkl12xtw5goz70

Akrasia wrote: »

Society is becoming more open to diversity and accepting of people who want to express what they feel is their true identity.

The left's definition of "diversity" is restricted to race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, society is becoming ever more closed to diverse beliefs. It has become a monoculture filled with hectoring sycophants, whose purpose in life is to lecture everyone else on what is and isn't "acceptable."

Someone who identifies as a pro-life Catholic knows how exactly how "accepting" this left-liberal monoculture will be.

Akrasia

xckjoo wrote: »

I read /watched quite a bit of Petersons stuff about his stance on this stuff when it first happened and I'd say your views are on a par. He never had issue with using the pronouns people wanted. His issue was with the compelled speech part.
I can't remember all the details now but that Canadian law was/is (I think it passed) quite far reaching and not something I'd like to see brought in over here, despite supporting LGBTQ+ rights

Bill c-16 just added gender identity to the list of protected classes in Canadian anti discrimination law.
It was no more compelled speech than forcing someone in authority at a university to not refer to black students with the N word

It was a well intentioned harmless piece of legislation that became politicized by Peterson such that he used it to gather a large support base and a platform from where to launch his very conservative agenda

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

I have never used any of these new pronouns that we are all apparently having foisted on us.

If I met someone who asked to be identified as a different pronoun I would be accommodating to their wishes rather than taking it as a personal attack on my own freedom of expression.

That's the point though. If you met someone and they asked you to use their preferred pronoun, you probably would. So would I, because then it's about common politeness to an individual. I might make the occasional slip but overall in my interactions with them, I'd be trying to make them at ease. there would be an effort for both of us to respect each other.

However, this isn't about meeting a transgender person (an individual), and them asking us. This is about a complete change of language usage regardless of whether they're there or not, but also, there's no asking involved. It's a demand for change. It's also a demand for change for an issue that is still constantly changing.

How do we behave with those who have made the full transformation?
Or those who have done a partial change?
Or those who haven't made any physical change, but demand the same recognition?
What about those who are offended by the pronouns used for full transgenders because they want something different for themselves?
what about.... etc

It's an area that hasn't sought any true definition for themselves. Oh, there's plenty of catchphrases (too many in some respects), but there's no structure. And yet, we're all expected to fall into line and accept a way of speech that is likely to change often over the next decade, as some defining groups are established. And yet, part of the whole movement is a resistance to be defined, and so, there will continue to be shifting expectations in how they're addressed and treated by others.

The thing I feel is sad, is that the likes of Peterson have blown up this SJW malarkey into some kind of existential crisis for white male identity. It is sad that there are so many insecure ‘snowflakes’ who are so easily offended and so weak that they cannot stand up for themselves.

I think you're underestimating the hostility of many SJW's and the hopeless feeling that many males feel. Let me give you an example. I attended a male rights meeting a year ago in London. This was a meeting for men how had recently been divorced, and had been prevented access to their children. Not simply shared parenting but actual access to them. It was a drive to raise funds for these men to legally appeal and fight the injustice done to them.

A group of SJW's/Feminists (two different groups although they intermingled) were present, holding up signs, and chanting slogans. They were predominately female, and very hostile to any male not wearing a uniform T-Shirt displaying their objection to a male rights meeting.

And here's the important part. First, personal space... coming up to our faces, shouting abuse and spitting in our faces as they spoke. Second, actual physical aggression, by pushing, and slapping the arms of the males there. and three, throwing paint/liquids at the males entering or leaving the premises. There was nothing that the males could do. Any physical effort to stop them would be trumpeted as being evidence of male aggression. Any effort to speak to them, and explain the situation was met with shouting and insults. The police who were called to handle the disturbance did nothing, since they were all males, and just as incapable of physically restraining the women. On three different instances, they broke into the actual event, and were escorted out screaming by the events female staff... and then the calls to the hotel to cancel the event, which eventually caused the event to finish three hours earlier than we were supposed to. Yay! A victory for the fair minded SJWs who support other peoples rights.

There are so many protections for women in the law, and society that these SJW/Feminists use to their advantage, and men are stuck unable to respond effectively. Women can be physically and verbally abusive because of gender stereotypes but any male engaging in similar behavior, is just adding fuel to the bonfire.

I'm 192 cm tall, and built like a lamp post. I'm skin and bones. Very little fat on my body, and I'm not very strong. I came back from that meeting covered in bruises. Snowflake? Nope. Powerless to defend ourselves from a mob? Yup.

Society is becoming more open to diversity and accepting of people who want to express what they feel is their true identity. Your Mrs Lovejoy ‘Won’t somebody think of the children’ attitude is bullsh1t when you consider how pervasive homophobic attitudes were in Ireland mere decades ago, and how much more welcoming and joyful it is to be in 21st century Ireland where my gay friends can live their lives openly and without shame.

Ahh well, I'm bisexual, and have been since my teens. I'm also 42 so I can remember what it was like to be gay in somewhat traditional Ireland, and worse yet, I'm from the midlands rather than the more cosmopolitan cities..and the movement to make Trans people accepted is nothing like the movement to make gay people accepted, and even more importantly, the environment or social resistance is completely different. Society has changed. Trans issues will be accepted far more quickly than traditional gay issues, because they are such an extreme minority. There's no traditional resistance to them to be overcome. So.. making such comparisons is kinda insulting to those who did fight for gay rights.

The tiny number of freaks who want to force their world onto unwilling children should not cause you to stand in the way of the majority of transgender people who are just trying to get on with a life that they can feel comfortable living.

You say freaks, I say misinformed.

Fact is, that this movement which challenges the right of people to resist being changed, also prevents us for establishing a clear idea of what Transgender issues will do to both society and people in the future. The blanket usage of trans-phobia discourages organisations from engaging in important research for fear of being labeled something so negative. Once more, it comes back to my example above about SJWs. They're often extremely hostile, and sometimes violent. Cancel culture is a thing. As are personal attacks against employees on the Internet, even to the point of physical attacks being encouraged online.

There is so much BS floating around about Trans issues. Everyone has become an expert. Psychology has joined in by giving it a free pass, even though they truly don't have any definitive research to back up their claims. The internet is full of misleading, biased, and often completely wrong information about trans issues, and procedures, and there's little chance that it will be countered. Instead, trans procedures will be tolerated because not tolerating them leads to condemnation.

Unfortunately children will always be vulnerable to being exploited and abused by adults in their lives, but I would suggest to you that it is far from transgender activists who are the biggest threat to children

Suggest away... but they're still a threat alongside all the other threats within society. Increased diversity without real research into the long-term effects is irresponsible and dangerous. And I say this as someone who has never fitted into mainstream society, both because I'm bisexual, and also because I have a very strong shaking disorder. I know what it's like to be targeted, minimalism, and bullied for something beyond my control. It doesn't change my perception that this drive for diversity without controls being in place (limits) is dangerous. And irresponsible.

Akrasia

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

The left's definition of "diversity" is restricted to race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, society is becoming ever more closed to diverse beliefs. It has become a monoculture filled with hectoring sycophants, whose purpose in life is to lecture everyone else on what is and isn't "acceptable."

Someone who identifies as a pro-life Catholic knows how exactly how "accepting" this left-liberal monoculture will be.

You are perfectly entitled to be a pro life catholic and anyone else is entitled to disagree with you. Do you want others to be prevented from voicing an opinion critical of your beliefs?

How should that be enforced?

People object to pro life catholic beliefs when they want to back them up with legislation forcing others to live according to that belief structure