/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12424812]

>SO I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A LOT....

[Anonymous No.12424821]

>>12424812
CLEAN

[Anonymous No.12424829]

YOUR ARCHETYPAL

[Anonymous No.12424837]

DRAGON

[Anonymous No.12424838]

DICK

[Anonymous No.12424839]

WITH JUNG'S

[Anonymous No.12424840]

>>12424812
HE HELPED ME GET OUT OF THE TYPICAL, AND SELF DESRRUCTIVE, CHAOS, OF THE METAPHYSICAL AND ABSTRACT IDEA OF THE UNSPOKEN ALL MIGHTY, AND ALL WATCHING DEMON, OF WHICH IS PICKING THE CLOTHES UP OFF MY FLOOR

[Anonymous No.12424848]

>>12424812
PROMULGATE YOUR BLOODY SHADOW

[Anonymous No.12424854]

>>12424837
>>12424838
WELL THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY DRAGON. AND IT ALSO DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY DICK. THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX QUESTION... ONE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE UNDERLYING VERISIMILITUDE THAT IS IRREVOCABLY NESTED WITHIN A MULTI-LAYERED METAPHYSICAL SUBSTRATE WHICH MANY PEOPLE FUNDAMENTALLY CONFLATE WITH THEIR IDEOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS WITH NO UNCERTAIN IRREGULARITY, CAUSING THE INADVERTENT DISMISSAL OF JUNG'S ARCHETYPAL EXTRAPOLATION OF THE QUINTESSENTIAL AXIOMATIC JUXTAPOSITION REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE RASKOLNIKOV'S MAGNITUDE OF NEO-MARXIST EXISTENTIAL NIHILISM...”

[Anonymous No.12424856]

YOU SEE THEY HAVE THIS PROCLIVITY OF...

[Anonymous No.12424857]

Pynchon's better

[Anonymous No.12424873]

WASH

[Anonymous No.12424877]

NIHILIST

[Anonymous No.12424883]

PENISES

[Anonymous No.12424887]

WHAT'S YOUR IQ BUCKO

[Anonymous No.12424889]

SO JUNG HAD THIS GREAT IDEA if every person ate their own shit -now here's the bloody thing about eating your own bloody shit IT'S CHAOS and that's bloody terrifying and that.. is the belly of the beast.. The consumption of one's own feces is representative of the cannibalistic chaos of post-modernism so then what do you do when you're face to face with this terrifying shit eating dragon? lobsters are well known autophagyists and we're like 90% lobster DNA so you know that really tells you something and that's the bloody thing about Sam Harris, that he has better hair than I do it.. it.. well depends first on what you mean by lobster it's like what solzhenitsyn always said “now Sam Harris is a jew, and they're cold blooded too just like lobsters” you see.. thats what Hitler got right, he wasn't crazy it also totally depends on what you mean by crazy Not washing your penis? Now thats crazy. I have thought about this quandary for a long time, particularly in regards to Jung; for thirty years I've been ruminating on the best way to wash your penis and I haven't thought about anything else AND THE 20TH CENTURY TAUGHT US THAT LESSON PRETTY BLOODY WELL If you wanna conquer your shadow; really grind your heel into the bloody groin of the bitch. Clean your penis and respect the Chaos Lobster. It's in the book of Genesis.
There's postmodernism to fight; and ya bloody better accept it. the jews are older than trees, man! like, god, it's so sad! It reminds me of Pinocchio *sniff* a-and how he just wanted t-*wheeze*to be a boy well that's just the bloody thing! So when we really get to explore these ideas we realize really... we arent the ones cleaning the penis... IT CLEANS US! AND THAT's the BLOODY THING, it's like, you don't KNOW anything for CERTAIN - DO YOU? Whaat do you think you are smarter than Socrates? It's like, YOU ARE NOT SMARTER THAN SOCRATES AND YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING, you might not even know ANYTHING. But people act like they know things all the time, and that's totalitarianism. It's like, wash your penis, read the Bible, YOU ARE NOT SMARTER THAN THE BIBLE, ok? So POSTCULTURAL NEOMODERNIST MARXISM IS KILLING US ALLL, we wuz lobstaz an shieeet CLEAN YOUR FUCKING ROOM AND THATS THE BLOODY THING RIGHT? YOU MUST SAVE YOUR RELATIONSHIPS FROM CHAOS LIKE PINNOCHIO SAVED HIS FATHER FROM THE DEEPS. GEPETTO IS IN THE BELLY OF THE BEAST AND THAT IS NOT A PLACE YOU WANT TO BE. SO WHEN YOU FINALLY TRIUMPH AND SLAY THE DRAGON OF CHAOS THEN YOU ASK YOURSELF “WELL WHAT NOW” AND ITS LIKE RIGHT TAHTS A BLOODY GOOD QUESTION. BUT YOU MUST NOT GIVE IN TO THE POSTMODERNNEOMARXISTS and furthermore AND THAT'S THE THING ABOUT DOMINANCE HIERARCHIES, THEY'RE BLOODY ROUGH, BUT THEY'RE NECESSARY, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CERTAIN PROCLIVITY TOWARDS DANGEROUSNESS WELL, SEE HOW FAR YOU GET WITH THAT BUCKO. And let me tell you, it was cold up in Canada AND THAT'S THE BLOODY THING ABOUT WASHING YOUR PENIS,

[Anonymous No.12424899]

this man is a genius... haven't read a book in years but now I'm listening to all his lectures

[Anonymous No.12424900]

IT'S A BLOODY EXTERNALISATION OF YOUR INNER WORLD MAN, AND THAT'S SERIOUS. HOW CAN YOU EXPECT TO CHANGE THE WORLD IF YOU CAN'T GET YOUR OWN BLOODY PENIS INTO ORDER So cold in fact that the nazis, in all their manical and pathological hatred wouldn't dare brave it. And *eyes begin to redden* I have been thinking, and trying to *pause while putting hand on left side of face* try to *ehem excuse me* trying to really sort things out in regards to a question I have been mulling over in my head for decades. *whipes a tear* If Nazi germany and Communist Russia just engaged in rough and tumble play instead of enveloping our world in chaos for those year, and the poor jews man, those bloody 6 million. who know what could have happend, its like, things might have gone a whole lot better.
Beef and water and beef and water and beef and water and beef and water and beef and water and beef and water and beef and water and beef and water and beef and water and salt
the scientific literature is very clear about this. Now I want to be careful before wading into this quagmire because--and let's get one thing straight, bucko--I pharse my words carefully. VERY carefully. Well, imagine something roughly approximating fully conscious paralysis for 8 hours every night and you'll have an idea what it's like to contend with apple cider. and thats the thing about phrasing your words carefully man, thats the logos, and that's no bloody joke

[Anonymous No.12424909]

i find it funny that most /lit/ despises him just because he say "postmodern cultural marxism", i mean what a petty excuse to hate him

[Anonymous No.12424921]

>>12424909
mocking him != hating him
I personally agree with much of what he says, I just find some of his cult like followers terribly annoying.

[Anonymous No.12424922]

>>12424909
It's more because he uses slimy snake words like "postmodern cultural marxism" to fool rubes and whip them into a tard rage that /lit/ hates him

[Anonymous No.12424923]

>>12424909
No it's because he throws out word salads, that which when deconstructed, has no value, and is just filler to prob make himself think he knows what hes talking about, I like his psychology stuff, but he needs to cut it with the smart guy act, people can tell if you know what you're talking about if you just seem well articulate and well spoken.

[Anonymous No.12424939]

>>12424909
He's like a walking fortune cookie of worthless aphorisms and deepities.

[Anonymous No.12424949]

>>12424921
>>12424922
>>12424923
>xx:33:12
>xx:33:35
>xx:33:39

[Anonymous No.12424954]

>>12424949
>don't disagree with my internet daddy!

[Anonymous No.12424963]

>>12424949
Can someone post the pic with the obese guy not listening to his mom when she tells him to clean his room.
But them listening when Jordy says it

[Anonymous No.12425006]

I think his overall impact regarding free speech and left wing indoctrination on universities is very good.

pros:
-stance for free speech
-gets people to read Dosto
-gets man children from single mother households to man up and not to turn into underground man
-interesting bible lectures
-great articulation, succeeds in communicating academic concepts to non academic people

cons:
-cult like followers
-paid personality tests, self authoring, he rides the gravy train (which is kind of understandable)
-merely puts old concepts together and reinvents them rather than coming up with something completely new

[Anonymous No.12425021]

>>12425006
>merely puts old concepts together and reinvents them rather than coming up with something completely new
That’s every post-Aristotle philosopher though.

[Anonymous No.12425026]

>>12424909
>>12423627

[Anonymous No.12425036]

>>12425026
rude

[Anonymous No.12425073]

>>12425006
First balanced, non-spergy criticism of him I've seen on /lit/

He's definitely into those things for the money but I don't think he makes out that he isn't. As for the followers, it's the same with anyone. He's quite mainstream and has a large fanbase which inevitably means more brainlet cultists.

As long as you ignore the clickbait videos on YouTube about him "CALMLY DISMANTLING" some feminist, he has some decent content. The bible lectures included in that.

[Anonymous No.12425074]

>>12425006
Pros:
for Christianity, against SJWs, great sophist, good self-help books, motivates people to clean their rooms
Cons:
pseudo-science, pseudo-philosophy, pseudo-linguistic, pseudo-history, malicious intentions, brain-dead cult

[Anonymous No.12425123]

>>12425074
>malicious intentions

like what?

[Anonymous No.12425138]

>>12425123
Well he’s a proponent of liberalism, so he’s neither reactionary-left or reactionary-right. Some people who view liberalism as doomed see this as the equivalent of trying to bail out the Titanic with a bucket instead of just getting on a lifeboat. I’m not sure if I agree but that’s the gist of it.

[Anonymous No.12425140]

>I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME, IT TOOK ME 10 YEARS TO FIGURE IT OUT
>FOUCAULT IS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE, THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT

[Anonymous No.12425146]

>>12425140
>FOUCAULT IS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE
Thats objectively true tho

[Anonymous No.12425175]

>>12425006
I like some of the videos where he talks about Jung.

[Anonymous No.12425199]

>>12425175
>>12407382

[Anonymous No.12425216]

I've reached a point where I hear people imitate Kermit the frog, and all I hear is Jordan Peterson.

>THAT'S THE BLOODY THING ABOUT COOKIES, COOKIE-MONSTER. YOU THINK YOU EAT THEM, BUT THE DAMN REALITY OF IT IS THAT THEY EAT YOU. GOD, IT'S TERRIBLE

[Anonymous No.12425242]

>>12425006
He misrepresents the spirit of common law and academic freedom, potentially out of ignorance, to further his reactionary delusions, wouldn't necessarily call that good.

[Anonymous No.12425256]

>>12425242
>He misrepresents the spirit of common law and academic freedom
How so?

[Anonymous No.12425261]

>>12424854
underrated post

[Anonymous No.12425274]

>>12425006
Good analysis, anon. Also for an alleged centrist, I doubt he has ever disagreed with the libertarian stance on any given topic.

[Anonymous No.12425276]

>>12425256
The entire compelled speech thing that got him famous in the first place for starters.

[Anonymous No.12425281]

>>12425276

[Anonymous No.12425288]

>>12425281
but it has nothing to do with compelled speech and common law has safeguards against soulless application of a law that was put into place primarily for bureaucratic and border control reasons.

[Anonymous No.12425292]

>>12425006
>-stance for free speech
Unless you happened to have spoken to a white nationalist while working in a journalistic capacity.

[Anonymous No.12425304]

>>12425288
If you can be punished for not using certain kind of spee h, it's compelled speech
https://youtu.be/b3GaYEjfX5s

[Anonymous No.12425305]

>>12424854
lmao

[Anonymous No.12425312]

>>12425304
but you wont because that's not how common law works.

[Anonymous No.12425315]

>>12425304
oh and as a Waterloo alum myself, WLU is a party school lmao

[Anonymous No.12425384]

>>12424812
>>SO I THOUGHT

Which is more than can be said about most of you.

[Anonymous No.12425403]

>>12425384
also more than can be said for any petersonite as well :P

[Anonymous No.12425411]

>>12425256
Read all the comments linked here:
>>12423627

[Anonymous No.12425430]

>>12425276
>resisting compelled speech
>violates the spirit of common law
No, he was reminding the fascist Canadian state of the sanctity of human rights.

[Anonymous No.12425436]

>>12424909
I mean by conflating the two he makes it abundantly clear that he has no clue what either actually is. He's a clueless intellectual ironically, the very sort of person the right wing claims to despise, but he panders to them.

[Anonymous No.12425455]

>>12425436
lol, seriously. Peterson might be one of the most important intellectual of this century

[Anonymous No.12425460]

>>12425430
But that compelled speech law that he was so vehemently against was in the spirit of respecting individual expression by recognizing an individual's choice to identify by their own gender on a national bureaucratic level. The only speech that it's truly interested in compelling is on the national bureaucratic level. You don't have to agree with it, but it's not the work of the nefarious feminazis and zionists

[Anonymous No.12425468]

>>12425436
um excuse me sweaty but last I checked that term has a highly specific technical meaning of "group of people I don't like/disagree with". Grow up.

[Anonymous No.12425472]

>>12425460
>it's just a little bit of infringement of speech!
You don't know what you're talking about. That law was not about respecting individual expression. It was about criminalizing speech and making a new class of fabulous citizens who have unequal protection under the law.

[Anonymous No.12425484]

>>12425472
It's not though it's more about not getting a stick up your ass because you don't pass at the border

[Anonymous No.12425490]

>>12424854
This made my morning
Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.12425510]

>>12425472
That's not accurate.

[Anonymous No.12425542]

>>12424812
IT'S ROUGH MAN, LIKE, REAL BLOODY ROUGH

[Anonymous No.12425555]

>>12425510
It actually is accurate. You would not be prosecuted for mis-identifying an Arab, or a Jew, or an Anglo, or a Chinese person. You WOULD be prosecuted for mis-identifying a woman who identifies as a man or vice versa.

That is the definition of unequal protection under the law. You should stay out of arguments until you learn to think.

[Anonymous No.12425560]

>>12425555
sure if you ignore all the legal context surrounding that.

[Anonymous No.12425563]

Searching "Peterson C-16 bill" I found this: https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/9s7og5/jordan_peterson_is_still_lying_about_bill_c16/

I don't know how accurate it is, just thought the post was extensive, so shared here.

I don't like Peterson personally for some of his pseudo-historical and pseudo-scientific claims.

[Anonymous No.12425608]

>>12425563
The entire man is pseudo- that's the problem

[Anonymous No.12425633]

>>12425436
He has explained -severals time- that he know that mix should be impossible.
But yeah better keep repeating what you hear on /lit/ without bothering to check.

[Anonymous No.12425649]

>>12425563
>there's a whole subbreddit about hating peterson

Lol
Anyway he already debated some law guy about this, the only counterargument the guy came up with was "you won't go to jail" to which JP answered "what if I don't pay the fine". Or something like that.

[Anonymous No.12425653]

>>12425633
internet dad defense force assemble!

[Anonymous No.12425675]

>>12425430
>>12425472
>>12425555

Goals of Bill C-16

Bill C-16 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination regarding employment, housing, goods/services, etc. (where it wasn't already covered by provincial laws[1]). These protections already existed for race, origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, and pardoned convictions. It added gender identity and expression to that list.
Furthermore, it amends the Canadian Criminal Code to include gender identity and expression in the definition of possible hate crimes. Hate crimes also include "hate speech", which has been found by the Supreme Court of Canada to mean speech that encourages violence. It does not include misgendering, racial slurs, slurs against people's sexual orientation, etc., in private speech.
Therefore, Bill C-16 can only be understood as an intrusion on people's rights to the same extent that the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code already were.
Bill C-16 became law on June 19, 2017.


Results of Bill C-16:

Since then, teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd was threatened by her supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana as being in violation of C-16. Rambukkana appears to have been wrong[2] and so nothing came from it. However, the threat itself was used as evidence that Peterson was correct all along. Ironically, if the people against C-16 hadn't been so successful at spreading their misinformation, this instance of "I told you so!" would have been less likely to have happened; people on both sides of the issue have been guilty of understanding the bill as it's been framed by Peterson instead of actual lawyers.
After almost a year, Jordan Peterson has not so much been looked at by the Human Rights Commission, let alone gone to jail and become a martyr. He had a whole thing about a hunger strike[3] and everything. Besides reading the laws themselves, there is no greater evidence for how unfounded his "fears" were than this.
Sources

The Canadian Bar Association's official statement on Bill C-16[4] and the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act[5] and Criminal Code[6] themselves.


[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_Canada#LGBT_Discrimination_Table
[2] - http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/what-the-wilfried-laurier-professors-got-wrong-about-bill-c-16-and-gender-identity-discrimination
[3] - https://youtu.be/WQ-M5MgqVOo
[4] - https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f
[5] - http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/page-1.html#h-3
[6] - http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-73.html#h-93

[Anonymous No.12425679]

>>12425649
You're likely not going to get fined unless you're say a border guard who rejects a tranny at the border because their passport has the gender they identify as. You don't have to agree with this, but it isn't zionist funded white genocide.

[Anonymous No.12425716]

>>12425675
>in private speech.

[Anonymous No.12425727]

>>12425716
based retard

[Anonymous No.12425735]

>>12425675
nothing wrong with lying and inducing hysteria among ~the right~ to kickstart your career as a self-help book writer and media personality

[Anonymous No.12425739]

>>12425735
true

[Anonymous No.12425742]

>>12425727
What do you think they consider private speech, dumb tranny
Clearly an intentionally nebulous term

[Anonymous No.12425753]

>>12424854
nice

[Anonymous No.12425757]

>>12425742
well good thing common law accounts for flexibility in interpretation :)

[Anonymous No.12425776]

>>12425679
I'm not a /pol/tard but as far as I've heard the HRT is just a garbage organisation all around.

>>12425675
>Bill C-16 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and expression

Yeah so that include pronoun

Here's the thing though, as Peterson said it recognizes non-existant biological gender. This mean that its the equivalent of legaly penalizing not playing along with a child pretending to be a pirate. It also pretend actual gender, gender identities and expressions are unrelated when its completly false.

[Anonymous No.12425785]

>>12425776

>but daddy said

[Anonymous No.12426130]

>>12424854
I'd like a Peterson impersonator to do this on vocaroo, I need a laugh. Any takers?

[Anonymous No.12426178]

>>12424963
https://www.google.com/search?q=jordan+peterson+mom+clean+room&tbm=isch
too lazy to post it for you though

[Anonymous No.12426196]

hue

[Anonymous No.12426205]

>>12425403
:P

[Anonymous No.12426209]

>>12425649
>oh no a WHOLE subreddit

[Anonymous No.12426210]

Why is /lit/ one of the most braindead boards on here?

[Anonymous No.12426218]

>>12425675
but me want say nigger

[Anonymous No.12426353]

Careful, not so loud. Joe Rogan might hear and jizz himself.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12426363]

Peterson is toxic and dangerous as he gives incels more confidence which makes it very risky to be around men as a woman

[Anonymous No.12426476]

sure a whole lot of /pol/ lurkers on /lit/

[Anonymous No.12426499]

>>12425675
Good post. I am the anon you replied to. So you're telling me speech in Canada was not free to begin with. I knew this already, as I've had friends in Canada for decades. I stand by my original post here: >>12425430

>>resisting compelled speech
>>violates the spirit of common law
>No, he was reminding the fascist Canadian state of the sanctity of human rights.

[Anonymous No.12426506]

>>12426499
oh you were being serious? lol

[Anonymous No.12426513]

>>12426499
>MOOOOOOOOOOOOM it's my right to call people nigger trannies !!!

[Anonymous No.12426566]

>>12426506
Yes. Speech should not be infringed, except where it creates the potential for immanent harm (as in yelling fire in a place that could cause injuries in a stampede).

Free speech. What a crazy idea, right?

>>12426513
It is my right not to go to jail for saying things. That is where you and I are different, leaf.

[Anonymous No.12426568]

>>12426476
this is /pol/ for smart people sweaty

[Anonymous No.12426573]

>>12426568
yup this goes into my cringe collection

[Anonymous No.12426580]

>>12426566
Adding to this: you are forgetting that free speech in the US is a natural right, expressly guaranteed by the Constitution. It is not given by the document, but rather protected by it. It is a right that comes from God and cannot be denied by a just government.

Canada does not understand this. It's no wonder you don't understand my argument.

[Anonymous No.12426591]

>>12426573
>yup this goes into my cringe collection
oof

[Anonymous No.12426592]

>>12426476
Don't be a whiny pussy about things you don't like.

[Anonymous No.12426597]

>>12426566
>Yes. Speech should not be infringed, except where it creates the potential for immanent harm
which is exactly what hate speech laws in Canada are for. No one cares what bullshit you spew with your incel buddies

>It is my right not to go to jail for saying things
Wow congratulations on contradicting yourself right off the bat. Why are all alt-right weenies such intellectual powerhouses?

[Anonymous No.12426599]

>>12426592
is this the flag of /x/?

[Anonymous No.12426606]

>>12426580
>muh jeezus

[Anonymous No.12426609]

>>12426597
hurting some mental patient's fee-fees does not qualify as immanent harm, you absolute spongebrained mongrel

[Anonymous No.12426612]

>>12426592
don't shitpost outside of your containment board :)

[Anonymous No.12426614]

>>12426606
the founders were deists, you fucking troglodyte-headed waste of human organs

that means no jeezus, retard

[Anonymous No.12426618]

>>12426609
>hurting some mental patient's fee-fees does not qualify as immanent harm
ergo c-16 isn't actually curtailing freedom of expression, keep up.

[Anonymous No.12426635]

>>12426618
you are misusing the word expression, you complete baboon.

"hate speech" is a hate crime, and gender has been added to the list of possible victims under the law. C-16 very literally did curtail freedom to say what you want (expression). why are you so dumb.

[Anonymous No.12426636]

>>12426209
>hating on a person so much you form a forum just for that

I truly wonder why Peterson is bothering these people so much

[Anonymous No.12426645]

>>12426635
yes, but hate speech is just speech leading to the real potential of personal harm as understood by our charter of rights and freedoms, something you yourself said was unacceptable here>>12426566

[Anonymous No.12426652]

>>12426636
because he's a rabble rousing moron

[Anonymous No.12426656]

>>12426645
except the immanent harm of hurting some psychological trainwreck's feelings is not a public concern, and arguably not any real harm at all.

>inb4 words are violence
I am disgusted with your reasoning.

[Anonymous No.12426658]

>>12426635
Except the Tribunal define gender as whatever the fuck one person want hence this law can potentially punish you for refusing to go along some crazy bastard delusion.

On top of that tranny are still objectively whatever sex they were born as and recpgnizing this is important for potential medical assistance, sport participation or biological science.

[Anonymous No.12426661]

>>12426656
>violent, harmful trannie discrimination doesn't exist

lol okay

[Anonymous No.12426664]

>>12426652
Well yeah that's why they formed this subreddit I'm asking WHY they're getting angry

[Anonymous No.12426665]

>>12426656
>except the immanent harm of hurting some psychological trainwreck's feelings is not a public concern

so then it's not covered by bill c-16 my triggered snowflake :)

[Anonymous No.12426671]

>>12426664
because he won't stop rabble rousing durrr

[Anonymous No.12426673]

>>12426661
we are talking about speech. you are moving the goalposts to include discrimination now, and further "harmful discrimination."

face it. C-16 and Canada's speech laws in general do not qualify as free speech. Every single Canadian lives in a shithole at the mercy of whatever mental patient decides to call himself.

[Anonymous No.12426676]

>>12426636
Well you're posting in a similar thread right now

[Anonymous No.12426686]

>>12426673
because bill c-16 is only concerned with discrimination you dense idiot

[Anonymous No.12426692]

>>12424909
I despise him because he's a tool

Also because his whole book is about "Look inward, stop trying to criticize or improve society, accept that others might know more than you" and then his whole live persona is ranting endlessly about how kids' movies and transgender people are destroying society.

He's just a boomer with boomer memes about how he's "being silenced" and "kids these days!!". He belongs in a nursing home

[Anonymous No.12426693]

Well to my understanding, hate speech is legal-speech that's liable to cause a breech of peace, injury, etc.
Why does it matter if you do not participate in hate speech?

[Anonymous No.12426695]

>>12426686
well enjoy your dystopia i guess.

[Anonymous No.12426700]

>>12426568
yikes

[Anonymous No.12426705]

>>12426580
>you are forgetting that free speech in the US is a natural right
>cannot be denied by a just government.

Every country has limitation to freedom of speech, even the USA.

It is the job of each society itself to decide what those limitations should be. The US system of going pretty all out and going close to almost allowing everything is good in that people always can recall those rules to stop people from taking away their rights. On the other hand it may be understandable why a country like Germany has an interest in stopping people from denying the holocaust.

To me personally the entire debatte is a very fine line between limiting citizens rights and allowing people to openly stir up violence against someone else. It is sadly a debatte that can never be finally settled with a perfect solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

[Anonymous No.12426712]

>>12426695
yeah sure sucks living in a country that doesn't consider violent discrimination deserving of protected speech status :)

[Anonymous No.12426714]

>>12426695
Are you delusional?

[Anonymous No.12426723]

>>12426671
Are you okay anon? You sound like you're having a stroke

>>12426686
If you wanted to fight transger discrimination you could make it illegal to repeteadly misgender someone suffering from gender dysphoria. That's a lot better than defining gender as "what you believe yourself to be" and then forcing everyone to go along with it.

The law is just bad.

[Anonymous No.12426730]

>>12426692
Insults insults insults.

[Anonymous No.12426736]

>>12426712
>>12426714
Postmodern Marxists, everyone, cheerfully installing the foundations for fascism north of the border.

[Anonymous No.12426739]

>>12426723
I'd be more worried about your e-daddy than some loser anon 2bh

[Anonymous No.12426746]

>>12426736
>MOM WON'T LET ME USE RACIAL SLURS IT'S A WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!

[Anonymous No.12426759]

>peterson saying "people miss having families" is rabble-rousing

lmao jesus christ the neoliberal pseudo-left is so neutered they take any standards or values at all as fascism

[Anonymous No.12426768]

>>12426746
You can't deny this is a slippery slope, anon. Speech (and presumably writing) is criminalized. You are not allowed to express impolitic thoughts. Groupthink is the government approved normal, handed over to corporations.

If you need me I'll be at the gulag.

[Anonymous No.12426776]

>>12426768
good thing we have common law courts to prevent this sort of thing :)

[Anonymous No.12426778]

>>12426736
There is nothing like Post-Morden NeoMarxist, are you that delusional?

[Anonymous No.12426787]

>>12426759
families still exist last I checked...

[Anonymous No.12426798]

>>12426776
>courts create slippery slope
>hey anon that's fucked up tho
>it's okay anon courts will protect us

[Anonymous No.12426799]

>>12426736
>>12426759
These guys are citing Peterson for defense, baka. Is this our new low /lit/?

[Anonymous No.12426825]

>>12426798
you sound like a lawyer with a firm understanding of the legal system

[Anonymous No.12426828]

>Peterson would have fizzled out and expended his 15 minutes of fame ages ago, if it weren't for people turning "whining about Peterson" into a self-renewing internet cottage industry
>because of this, everyone on the planet now knows about him

[Anonymous No.12426833]

>>12426739
>we can't attack his arguments so we'll just bring up that one time he told an exagerated story

I'm happy he told that though at the time I was sufffering from a rather bad skin disease and it showed me that it was because of my health. He really helped me with his story.

>>12426776
You're still gotta be judged by their tribunal and lose before going before the common law court. At least that's what happen with that comedian who made that edgy joke about some dying kid.

[Anonymous No.12426834]

>>12426828
As much as I hate Peterson, i can't disagree here, though it's more MSM than the internet that's at fault

[Anonymous No.12426857]

>>12426833
The problem with his argument is that not even the courts treat bills as the final say in something explicitly because of all the doom n' gloom scenarios all the petersonites come up with. But of course instead of constructively building on an arguably good faith attempt at curbing discrimination he, potentially out of ignorance, ignores legal context and appeals to and stokes a fanbase of emotional, irrational ignorance in the name of progress which is the truly sickening thing here.

[Anonymous No.12426873]

>>12424854
Huh I thought people on 4chan would love this guy.

[Anonymous No.12426876]

>>12426857
>constructively building on an arguably good faith attempt at curbing discrimination
Unconstitutional legislation that ominously impinges on free speech is not in good faith, and even if it were, concerned citizens like Peterson not only have no obligation to be magnanimously patient with the government in passing bills like this, they have the CONTRARY obligation to be incredibly, even excessively diligent about anything that might even be an impingement on essential rights and freedoms. It is the duty of the citizenry to be informed about their rights and to speak up whenever they even have an inkling those rights are threatened.

Peterson, and many others, think the bill has ambiguous implications. They did exactly what they should do.

[Anonymous No.12426899]

>>12426876
Good thing it isn't unconstitutional then lol

>anything that might even be an impingement on essential rights and freedoms.
>waaaaah jannies banned me because i said the n-word!!!

lol

[Anonymous No.12426901]

>>12426566
When you enter in democracy , you have to loose some rights, so that harm may not be caused to other members of the society and peace remains, like not drink driving, burning fire in the middle of streets, not touching others inappropriately, kicking babies, not entering other's house, making bombs - most of these rights are provided to us by nature(we are free to do these if we were not restricted by law), but democracy rejects it. It is the price you pay to enter democracy.

[Anonymous No.12426935]

>>12426901
>It is the price you pay to enter democracy.

or society

[Anonymous No.12426938]

>>12424889
Underrated.

[Anonymous No.12426941]

>>12426857
>The problem with his argument is that not even the courts treat bills as the final say in something explicitly because of all the doom n' gloom scenarios all the petersonites come up with

The problem is that the law itself is garbage. I already proposed something far more reasonable and that actualy acomplish what C-16 seek to do without making trans seems like loon with hundred of genders.

>ignores legal context
He already debated a bunch of legal people on that and I doubt you know more than that. Their opposition to his arguments were meek at best.

[Anonymous No.12426943]

>>12426901
I am aware. Other anon laid it out nicely, it is a compromise. Any school kid knows this. My disagreement is that speech should never be traded away because of someone's discomfort. Not discrimination, mind you, but merely addressing them how they want to be addressed is not democracy, and it tramples on our ancient protected rights.

[Anonymous No.12426953]

>>12426901
Again this bill force you to go along with the delusional since it has a terribly wrong definition of gender. Will you actually address that?

[Anonymous No.12426957]

>>12426566
>immanent harm (as in yelling fire in a place that could cause injuries in a stampede)
Oh boy, hate speech can cause a lot of harm ,just imagine a group of muslims following your mom and calling her white whore and other slurs. I bet that it would be mentally taxing for her, she even might even remain terrified to go outside for few weeks. They are not causing any imminent harm, they are just using their right to free speech.
>>12426499
>speech in Canada was not free to begin with
The same applies to you

[Anonymous No.12426994]

>>12426941
You proposed exactly what C-16 already does, ignorance is not an argument.

>He already debated a bunch of legal people on that and I doubt you know more than that.
>says the guy turning to a CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST for legal advice.
you people...lol

[Anonymous No.12427004]

>tfw you see someone defending free speech and feel a small amount of hope for humanity

thanks free speech bros

First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common.

There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.

[Anonymous No.12427007]

>>12426994
>you proposed exactly what C-16 does

Where does C-16 mention gender dysphoria? I fail to see where I'm recognizing anything beyond male and female as gender.

>says the guy turning to a CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST for legal advice
But he managed to win his arguments with those legal dudes why shouldn't you listen to him?

[Anonymous No.12427053]

>>12427007
oh you're just upset that the law doesn't consider it a mental illness like you think it should, okay.

>But he managed to win his arguments with those legal dudes why shouldn't you listen to him?
>I saw a debate on youtube and I really think that settles it
haha, just stop or better yet just link to it so I can laugh :)

[Anonymous No.12427088]

>>12427007
>I fail to see where I'm recognizing anything beyond male and female as gender.
I fail to see any god beyond Jesus, and I hate that people are allowed to worship anyone else.
>>12426580
>It is a right that comes from God
>>12426566
>It is my right not to go to jail for saying things.
My freedom to religion is restricted that was given to me by my God, because I am not allowed to vandalize Buddhist monasteries and Hindu temples.

[Anonymous No.12427111]

>>12427088
To clarify the last statement, the statement look absurd so is your argument. No one is stopping you from speaking in general, the law only restricts hate speech.

[Anonymous No.12427135]

>>12427053
>oh you're just upset that the law doesn't consider it a mental illness like you think it should, okay

Well either you're thinking your something that doesn't exist which sound delusional or you suffer from gender disphoria which is litteraly defined as a mental illness.
What are you trying to argue?

>I saw a debate on youtube and I really think that settles it

I'll take over arguing with some random asshat on /lit/.

https://youtu.be/kasiov0ytEc
I think the legal guy interject toward the end but he just get swated aside.

[Anonymous No.12427144]

>>12427111
Wait >>12427088 wasn't bait?

[Anonymous No.12427155]

>>12427144
both the posts are by me, I am clarifying myself

[Anonymous No.12427178]

>>12426499
>human rights.
except the government has compelled individuals in religious families to get blood transfusions against the will of the parents, so that "human" better be special and that "right" better represent itself as a good for all instead of a good for your indulgence. This aint the USA Bill'o'rights land of the free and you are not a lobbyist for the charter anyhow. This is canadian provincial law, with specificity erradicated by a technological flaw in the internet.

[Anonymous No.12427186]

>>12427135
You make it sound as if C-16 makes it so that you end up in big time bubba jail if you fail to acknowledge someone as an attack helicopter or something. That's the problem with Peterson's argument, he is able to identify certain issues but ignores (perhaps willfully) context and stirs up a bunch of empty, ignorant fear. And when you point out the irrationality of his complaints you get branded a postmodern neo marxist as if that actually meant something.

That's what's wrong with Peterson he LACKS RIGOR

[Anonymous No.12427244]

>>12424854

[Anonymous No.12427283]

>>12427186
>refuse to call someone xir
>gets fined
>refuse to pay the fine
>get sent to jail and have my money taken by force

>That's the problem with Peterson's argument, he is able to identify certain issues but ignores (perhaps willfully) context

Ah yes what context? The one where a bunch of retards are trying to redefine biology through ideological lense?

[Anonymous No.12427313]

>>12427283
>Ah yes what context?

The context that prevents your fantasy situation where you'll get fined just because you pissed off a tranny

[Anonymous No.12427335]

>>12427186

oh i guess its okay then if they dont throw you in maximum security for saying the bad word

[Anonymous No.12427337]

>>12426873
they do, its just for fun

[Anonymous No.12427362]

>>12424909
It's been 3 years since he came up with the word cultural marxism and still NO mention of habermas. The time makes this mocking really reasonable.

[Anonymous No.12427366]

>>12427313
But the law allow them to attack you for misgendering them. You're the one saying its to protect them.

Look at that gay cake guy in the US his trial was biased. Imagine canada

[Anonymous No.12427384]

>>12427366
You can be sued for insulting someone in every democratic country of the world.

[Anonymous No.12427392]

>>12427366
>But the law allow them to attack you for misgendering them.

LACKS
RIGOR

[Anonymous No.12427403]

>>12427384
Yeah but can you be sued for refusing to call someone xher? That's the issue you numbnut you can be attacked for that. Yes it has verry little chance to happen but that's not a reason to keep a shitty law like that.

[Anonymous No.12427422]

>>12427366
>the law allow them to attack you for misgendering them
For misgendering them repeatedly,it is not like by genuine mistake if you call someone something else, there will be lawsuit against you. But if you do harass people and bully them , the you deserved to pay the fine and be in a fucking jail you piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.12427436]

>>12427403
Yes, if I refuse call your mom straight women and call her gay whore, I can be sued.

[Anonymous No.12427446]

>>12427422
Alright I badly expressed myself. My point IS that the definition of gender included with this law is complete bullshit and force you to go along with potential crazy people. No matter how improbable this sound it is what this law allow.

Will you finally respond to this?

[Anonymous No.12427467]

>>12424889
lol

[Anonymous No.12427485]

>>12424854

Absolutely amazing.

[Anonymous No.12427504]

>>12427403
If I repeatedly call your dad gay, I can be sued for mental harassment and bullying.
(considering he is straight)

[Anonymous No.12427544]

>>12427504

Yeah but no one is a Xherian.You're either a male or a female (and maybe, rarely, some kind of freak inbetween) and those facts will then influence a bunch of other things, like your physic, your interest, your sexual orientation and so on.

You shouldn't be able to sue for something that doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.12427602]

>>12427446
The law doesn't force you to interact with mentally ill trannies if you don't want

[Anonymous No.12427607]

>>12427544
LOL, are you trying to say lesbian , gay , transgender people don't exist , are you living under rock?
No matter what you or I believe, such people exists.

[Anonymous No.12427626]

>>12424854
nice
haven't laughed that hard in a long time

[Anonymous No.12427714]

>>12427544
this

[Anonymous No.12427808]

>>12427714
oh great anon my boss saw this and now I am arrested wtf

[Anonymous No.12428573]

BLOODY MARXISTS

[Anonymous No.12429003]

>>12427362
he didn't come up with the term you retard

[Anonymous No.12429156]

>>12424909
I despise him because the worse than useless at tackling the actual philosophically corrupt threat postmodernism actually is because he misdefines it. I also despise him because I'm a Randfag and he's Jungian mystic.

[Anonymous No.12429180]

>>12426873
JP is the fox news of psychiatry. He's just the flip side of AIDS-liberal tier retardation, his core beliefs are the same as any other mainstream center rightwinger.

[Anonymous No.12429188]

>>12426873
Yes, you're right. 4chan is one single person.
All of our posts are made by the same person.
Fuck off to Reddit you nigger-loving piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.12429193]

>>12429156
Jung would've hated this little anglo faggot.

[Anonymous No.12429204]

>>12429180
He's just not redpilled on the Jews. That's it. He's a boomer who bought the propaganda. At this point he's got to know that unless he just didn't even read the copy of 200 Years Together he was given on camera that one time.
So he's just being a coward about this one topic. My suspicion is someone very close to him is a Jew

[Anonymous No.12429205]

>>12424889
Yeah this is more or less my experience with every Jordan Peterson lecture I've watched. I go in trying to hear a learned opinion about a certain topic and not even 5 seconds into the video I have no idea what he's even talking about anymore

[Anonymous No.12429229]

>>12427714
Just to inform anyone scrolling through this thread, maleness is actually defined by having a y chromosome and femaleness is defined by the lack thereof. So next time some tranny tries to say "but what about xxy, or xyy, haha didn't think of that, did ya?!", you now know that both of those combinations result in a male :)