Erwin Müller

Dis­cus­sion about Jor­dan Peterson with a Per­son that have no His­toric Knowl­edge

That is a dis­cus­sion that start­ed on the Youtube video from Vee­du Vidz
called Jor­dan Peterson — Don’t be lunch buck­et! I start­ed with a joke how I cat­e­go­rize Jor­dan Peterson.

Wasn’t Jor­dan Peterson cry­ing be­cause of all the dis­en­fran­chised men that can’t han­dle women and don’t get laid? Wasn’t he talk­ing about en­forced monogamy? It seems like most of JP’s fan boys are lunch buck­ets.

I got 8 thumbs up which I didn’t ex­pect­ed at all, but more in­ter­est­ing­ly I got al­so a re­ply from user Mark Tak  which with I will have this dis­cus­sion.

Our first dis­agree­ment was about the Cana­di­an Bill C-16. Jor­dan Peterson’s claim was that Bill C-16 is a dan­ger to free speech be­cause it com­pels peo­ple to use a par­tic­u­lar lan­guage. There was a very vo­cal cri­tique of Peterson’s in­ter­pre­ta­tion from var­i­ous le­gal ex­perts and from high­ly re­spect­ed Youtube per­son­al­i­ties. Af­ter read­ing the bill I came to the con­clu­sion that the bill is not a dan­ger to free speech at all. C-16 is an an­ti-dis­crim­i­na­tion bill like we have for oth­er mi­nori­ties. Here is the bill’s sum­mery:

This en­act­ment amends the Cana­di­an Hu­man Rights Act to add gen­der iden­ti­ty and gen­der ex­pres­sion to the list of pro­hib­it­ed grounds of dis­crim­i­na­tion.

https://​open​par​lia​ment​.ca/​b​i​l​l​s​/42 – 1/C-16/

Ac­cord­ing to Bren­da Coss­man, a pro­fes­sor of law at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Toron­to, Peterson is “fun­da­men­tal­ly mis­char­ac­ter­iz­ing” Bill C-16.

Are Jor­dan Peterson’s Claims About Bill C-16 Cor­rect?

Mark Tak Where is the com­pelled speech in any of the bills?? Why wasn’t there any out­cry from any of the oth­er an­ti-ha­rass­ment bills, like against Jews or blacks? If I say that I would con­tin­ue to call black peo­ple nig­gas and that I wouldn’t pay any fine and go to jail, does that makes me a free speech war­rior like J.P.? Is the gov­ern­ment com­pelling speech by mak­ing it a ha­rass­ment call­ing black peo­ple nig­gas?

> “Not sure what you mean here maybe you can give me a Youtube link where he said this”

Sure.

Jor­dan Peterson ex­plains the prob­lem with women: you aren’t al­lowed to beat them

https://​www​.red​dit​.com/

Now please ex­plain how I took it out of con­text or mis­un­der­stand the most bril­liant man alive.

> “Straw­man when did Hitler say he would kill 11 mil­lion peo­ple No Dic­ta­tor ever says such things Mute Point ”

Karl Marx was a philoso­pher and an econ­o­mist. He was nev­er a dic­ta­tor. You can say that Marx was wrong, but he nev­er ad­vo­cat­ed for a dic­ta­tor­ship or to mur­der peo­ple. If Stal­in was a log­i­cal con­se­quence of Marx­ism then Hitler was a log­i­cal con­se­quence of Chris­tian­i­ty. Read Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism But the re­al world is nev­er so sim­ple. That is why J.P. is an ide­o­logue. Peterson por­traits the world in sim­ple terms, black and white, friend or foe. Just like Marx saw cap­i­tal­ism as the evil, Peterson sees Com­mu­nism as the evil.

> “They tried that With Eu­ropa too Thank God we sur­vived and moved to Amer­i­ca ”

I have re­al­ly no clue what he is go­ing at here. Amer­i­can set­tlers were Chris­tians pros­e­cut­ed and ex­pelled from so­ci­ety by Chris­tians. The first set­tlers were a pu­ri­tan Chris­t­ian sect called the Pil­grims, who were es­cap­ing the pros­e­cu­tion in Eu­rope by their fel­low Chris­tians. Then plan­ta­tions, the slave trade and gold pulled mil­lions of mi­grants from the Old Con­ti­nent to the Colonies. Mus­lims played no role here.

> “I guess first I agree with JP that the Judeo-Chris­t­ian world is su­pe­ri­or to the Is­lam­ic Mid­dle East”

What is the “Judeo-Chris­t­ian world”? Jews were pros­e­cut­ed through Eu­rope and Amer­i­ca af­ter Chris­tian­i­ty be­came the dom­i­nant re­li­gious pow­er and that per­se­cu­tion reached its peak at the Holo­caust by the Nazis. Please read the Evian Con­fer­ence of Ju­ly 1938 and how the “Judeo-Chris­t­ian world” re­ject­ed Jews seek­ing refugee from Nazi Ger­many. Please ex­plain to me how coun­tries like Unit­ed States, Great Britain, France, Cana­da, and Aus­tralia re­ject­ed Jew­ish refugees flee­ing the Nazi regime and the ob­vi­ous pros­e­cu­tion they faced in Ger­many and oc­cu­pied coun­tries.

Key Facts America’s re­stric­tive im­mi­gra­tion laws re­flect­ed the na­tion­al cli­mate of iso­la­tion­ism, xeno­pho­bia, an­ti­semitism, racism, and eco­nom­ic in­se­cu­ri­ty af­ter World War I. The Unit­ed States had no des­ig­nat­ed refugee pol­i­cy dur­ing the Nazi pe­ri­od. It on­ly had an im­mi­gra­tion pol­i­cy. Those es­cap­ing Nazi per­se­cu­tion had to nav­i­gate a de­lib­er­ate and slow im­mi­gra­tion process. Strict quo­tas lim­it­ed the num­ber of peo­ple who could im­mi­grate each year. Though at least 110,000 Jew­ish refugees es­caped to the Unit­ed States from Nazi-oc­cu­pied ter­ri­to­ry be­tween 1933 and 1941, hun­dreds of thou­sands more ap­plied to im­mi­grate and were un­suc­cess­ful.

Im­mi­gra­tion to the Unit­ed States 1933 – 1941

There was no so called “Judeo-Chris­t­ian world”, un­til the term got in­vent­ed prob­a­bly by Eisen­how­er to dis­tin­guish “Us” from Com­mu­nist Rus­sia dur­ing the Red Scare in the 1960s and is still used by the right to cre­ate an “us” vs. “them” nar­ra­tive.

> “Iran was very Sec­u­lar do you mean Ly­bia?”

No, Iran.

Iran dur­ing the 1960s

But the pat­tern is the very same. Coun­tries be­come sec­u­lar and lib­er­al and flour­ish, then some con­ser­v­a­tive re­li­gious group gains pow­er and the coun­try be­comes a shit hole. It doesn’t mat­ter what re­li­gion that is, be­cause all re­li­gions are the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *