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://openparliament.ca/bills/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”
Jordan Peterson explains the problem with women: you aren’t allowed to beat themhttps://www.reddit.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?”
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.