I'd say all the part you bolded is true, and far from being "right wing drivel" I'd say it's a pretty widely held mainstream belief. I'd say it's why most people find SJW types ridiculous and think they are best ignored.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
it is a commonly held belief, it's also a right wing talking point, like "everyone should have healthcare" is a left wing talking point, sure everyone believes it, but you should know it's implications and how people mean it differently
It's not a 'liberal movement'. Right wingers talk shite and make poor arguments - people call them out on it and eventually ignore them/tell them to shut up. That's not a movement.
Stay off Youtube for a bit and you'll see these SJWs are pretty fecking few and far between. That's why it's right-wing drivel - it's grossly exaggerated.
I don't think they're the same tbh. If I had to guess, I'd say it would still be the dominant viewpoint for a large amount of the population rather than a minority, and one grounded in biology and fact unlike any of the ones you posted which centre more around warped personal opinions. That doesn't mean just because they're the majority that they're right, or that opinions can't change over time however, but I think to dismiss it as a legitimate viewpoint and one without reason other than "they're a transphobic bigot" is a bit harsh.
it's not grounded in biology or fact, even if you're an arsehole who thinks there is only sex and gender is made up over 100 million intersex people on the planet don't fit into the male/female sex category
transgender people have been vindicated by the last 3 decades of research in psychology and biology, it's also amazing that you're appealing to majority opinions when arguing that people shouldn't be shut down, i hope you understand the irony there
and yes, anyone who purposefully misgenders someone they know to be a trans man or trans woman is a transphobic dipshit, there are no other qualifiers there, if you know someone is trans and go out of your way to deny them that you're a transphobe and a cnut
Last edited:
Everyone talks shite and makes poor arguments, on both sides. And the divide is getting bigger between the two because no-one will listen to anyone else, because of the part you bolded initially.
It's only few and far between because they're still the minority. Most people know their opinions are silly, and the media play on this by amplifying them in an effort to get clicks from the right. And vice versa, rinse and repeat.
So it's not a liberal movement. Glad we cleared that up.
It's grounded in a lot more science than being a racist, or a sexist, or an anti-Semite etc. I don't agree with it, but I can understand why someone would have an issue with being asked to as they see it, pretend to ignore science. It's like the abortion argument. I'm pro-choice, but I get why the pro-lifers are so angry. If you genuinely believe babies are being murdered, you'd try and do something about it. If that's genuinely your viewpoint, I get why they wouldn't be fine just ignoring biology.
There's twats on both sides. It's definitely more a trait of the left though to shout down those who disagree with them.
Yes? It's pretty much accepted by the wider scientific community that some people are born "in the wrong body" so to speak, and most experts in the field agree that it's not a mental illness. It's widely accepted that the best treatment is transitioning. The controversy, as far as I can see, doesn't stem from actual experts, but lay persons and self-proclaimed experts on the topic (like that pediatrician that some decided to treat as an authority because she had a doctorate and railed against trans people).
But in any case, when you have laws in place that allows people to transition and legally change their gender, it stands to reason that you should afford them the same protections as everyone else.
it's grounded on the same reactionary politics that other discrimination is based on, nil science, there's a reason why the same people who promote jordan petersons transphobia also promote charles murrays racism about black people being stupid
All I'm saying is I get why some people would not want to be compelled to abide by laws which force this on them if it contrasts their own beliefs. If you're not a dick, you'd do it anyway out of politeness, and these things usually change over time anyway. And if you are a dick, and you refuse to call a trans woman a she, then just don't talk to that person. Do what you usually do when you're offended by something, just ignore the twat and move on.
It's based in at least some biology though, which is why I have a problem labelling every one of them a bigot. No doubt many of them are, but many will be looking at the scientific facts and reaching their judgement. This is why I said it is still a subjective issue and shouldn't have laws made about it, we're still a huge way away from a consensus.
if they insist on misgendering someone who they know for a fact is either transitioning or has transitioned they are a bigot and a cnut
at that point it's not analogous to a debate, i.e pro choice but more analogous to the people who stand outside abortion clinics shouting at women who walk in
The fecking state of this.
Did you ever hear about Fox News? Sinclair Broadcasting Groups? The Koch Brothers?
But yes, 'shouting down those who disagree' is a lefty trait. If you draw that conclusion from participating in Redcafe debates, I'd suggest signing up on Stormfront, 4chan and r/The_Donald and see how you like it over there.
That's the issue though, isn't it. What matters more, the trans persons feelings or that persons own personal beliefs? Say it's someone's personal belief that the number 5 comes between 4 and 6. But if someone was to say that fact hurts their feelings and so they should ignore everything they know about numbers, should they do so? Where do feelings become more important than facts? It's an interesting question.
there's literally an ongoing scandal in the UK about the police disproportionately targeting leftist activist groups and using the tactic of getting female activists pregnant before abandoning them
Ah yes, calling someone who disagrees with you a Nazi. Thank you for proving my point.
no one said the bigot isn't allowed to be a bigot, but you're going to be a bigot i'm going to call you a cnut and if you don't like it shut the feck up snowflake
That's your right, I just don't think it's justified in all cases
Boo hoo we have a snowflake here.
in jordan petersons case it's very justified, he's a misogynist, transphobic, racist cnut who can't handle criticism because he's a giant fecking baby
Finished?
I believe Peterson misinterpreted the Canada trans bill (not sure it's name) by claiming that if you were to make a mistake and call someone who is trans by the wrong pronoun (she, zhe, him etc) then you get fined or prosecuted. That is not the case, thus criticism of Peterson for not understanding the law he criticized is justifiable.
I can do this all day.
Peterson Shapiro et all remind me of the shite I would spout after 4 days of taking MDMA without sleep. I was so delusionally sure of the shit I was talking and drug in-fuelled certain that I was an intellectual for all times (as did my similarly drugged up friends mind you). The only difference is I have never been a bigot. So congratulations Peterson, Shapiro et all are as intellectual as a 19 year old me while having the bonus of being bigoted. Turns out I wasn't an intellectual guy but at least I'm not bigoted but they are both idiots and bigoted. Anyone who listens to their bullshit would be better off and learn more from watching Geordie Shore. Past intellectuals have an excuse for being ignorant because of a lack of access to information, anyone in the present day has no excuse for that but still we laud them as intellectuals because they managed to swallow a dictionary and are able to stubbornly argue their points (ironically the sort of things that colleges try to sway students from).
Some people believe women are inferior to men, and some people believe black people are inferior to white people. We don't have a problem calling them bigots, regardless of the cause of their beliefs. If they disagree that trans people are a thing, they're disagreeing with science. It really is no different than being a shit to someone for being black, gay or a woman.
Are you saying that if someone doesn't "believe" in trans people, they should be free to be shitty to trans people? Or that whether their beliefs or the trans persons feelings is more important is somehow a difficult question to find an answer to? Because it isn't. The answer is that trans people have science and the law on their side, bigots have their beliefs, grounded in nothing but hatred of something they don't understand.
As I said above, it’s not really the same. Refusing to go along with the idea that you can just decide what gender you are is not the same as being a racist. It’s not the same because it isn’t discriminatory. If you don’t think all black people are equal to white people, you’re a racist. But no one is saying trans people aren’t equal, or that they’re inferior etc. They merely disagree with the assertion that gender is fluid. I’m not even trying to stick up for them really, I’m just saying from their point of view i understand why they think as they do, and I don’t think they should be lumped in with the despicable cnuts who go round hurling racial abuse at Raheem Sterling.
Define “be shitty”.
Anyone denying that genders are fluid are the same as those who believe in God. We have so much evidence that genders are fluid. I've a mate who is gay who struggled for years before coming out to everyone. He never wanted to be gay, he just wanted to be 'normal'. Do you really think that a boy really wants to be a girl or vice versa. Society doesn't condition these people, in fact society conditions them to go against what they really feel or else they'll be a 'freak'. Peterson is no better than someone who believes in God, in fact he is worse because there is no definitive evidence for or against God but we have a huge amount if physical evidence that gender is fluid. As @Silva said it's not about forcing people to refer to them a certain way but rather protecting them from being discriminated against in everyday live as unfortunately we have had to do for people of colour. I'm pretty sure nobody who is trans ever wanted to be the way they are as much as any gay person I know wanted to be the what they were.
Peterson is smart and that's what make it worse for him. I can accept a stupid person being stupid but a smart person like Peterson being stupid with the amount of information available nowadays is unacceptable. He doesn't even have fresh ideas, he literally holds opinions that have been disproven. It's like someone thinking the World is flat is this day and age.
It's not like they just suddenly decide that "hey, I'm gonna be a woman now", but okay. Trans people have science and the law on their side. If you treat a trans person worse than you would treat anyone else, that is the very definition of discrimination. If the law recognises that this person was born a man but is now a woman, then it stands to reason that discriminating against this person should be a crime, same as any other kind of discrimination. Just because some disagree that you can change gender doesn't mean that treating a trans person worse on the basis that they're trans is somehow not discrimination. What it does mean, is that this person is a bigot. That shouldn't even be in question.
Treating them in a way that would be considered discrimination if you did it against a gay person. Calling them ******, refusing to hire them, refusing them service, deliberately misgendering them.
Peterson is just a massive troll isn’t he? That clip of him discussing his all beef diet had me in stitches but that’s the sort of shit that gets shared and raises his profile.
I’ve enjoyed some of his debates before but tbh I’ve reached the point where I just can’t believe he’s sincere about half the shit he says.
I’m torn between thinking it’s all an elaborate ploy or he has a mental disorder, or a bit of both.
I’ve enjoyed some of his debates before but tbh I’ve reached the point where I just can’t believe he’s sincere about half the shit he says.
I’m torn between thinking it’s all an elaborate ploy or he has a mental disorder, or a bit of both.
I will hold my hands up and admit I have been lead to believe that the bolded is true. A lot of what I said in my last post was related to the validity of his position in regard to the interpretation he presented. I'm curious - what would be your opinion if that was what the law said?
I am bad at formatting
With respect, I posted in this thread with the genuine intention of opening up discussion and challenging my own perspective. You have met me with exactly the hostility that I was alluding toward. There are so many aspects of my post that you could have addressed but you chose only to attack my character and to sneer at my own self-assessment.
I hope you can appreciate the irony in your response.
I think this is a great question. I'm open to hearing other perspectives on this and I'm not so fixed on my own view that I see it as the only possible answer. It goes without saying that I am of the opinion that human beings should treat each other with respect. As I understand it, this is a discussion about how much protection an individual should have under law.
I am absolutely of the belief that if somebody asks you to refer to them a certain way that it would be disrespectful not to. I don't, however, feel that you should be legally obligated to do so. I think it's absolutely right to criticise somebody for deliberately mis-gendering somebody. It's absolutely right to call out those who wish to belittle, bully or otherwise abuse their position to make another person feel small. And organisations can choose whether or not they employ those persons and people can choose whether or not to befriend those persons (etc. etc.) - but I maintain that it should not be a legal standard to refer to another person by the manner in which they wish to be addressed.
Obviously this isn't what Canada have chosen to do - but if it was (which is what you said we're to pretend in you post) I would be firmly against it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement
On a "local scope" I have seen evidence that people "operated together" to play white noise or sound foghorns to prevent Peterson from airing his views. I'll admit that I'm making the presumption that those people are "liberal." I'm finding hard to agree with you on even the petty semantics that have you have reduced this to in order to, presumably, not discuss the bulk of my post.
The bolded is how I feel as well. I think it's unlikely that we are the only 2 in the world.
And the police used water cannon and launched grenades at DAPL protestors. The reason you don't hear much about that is because snowflaky whiny little bitches like Peterson and Shapiro have the reach and the veneer of respectability due to their institutional proximity to air their grievances. So for someone who is clued up on those matters, maybe it's a little bit more than galling to hear the oft-repeated rightwing talking point about 'political correctness gone mad' and 'the left clamping down on discourse' from someone who profess to be a liberal socialist?
I have to completely 180 on my post on the first page of this thread about Ben Shapiro's debating skills, and the same can be said about Peterson and all the rest of the surface level internet debaters as well as morons like Crowder. After a lot of watching, participating in and researching debates since then, all he does is use underhand techniques to beat inferior and less prepared participants even though the vast majority of his stances would be and have been annihilated by any sort of rigorous scrutiny and someone with some debating clout. There are in fact point by point breakdowns on a few of his debates where people show exactly what he's doing to pivot/strawman whatever his way past people with 0 experience. leading him to "Win" a lot of debates his position is actually untenable on under any rational breakdown.
That sums most of these guys up nicely. They debate people that are either too emotional or else inadequately prepared to deal with the subject matter, and in the the process, come off looking like they are winning the debates.
Last edited:
#2. Wonderful.
He's a bit of a weirdo and I strongly disagree with him on some issues (religion, eurgh) but he has his purpose.