Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?

[Rev. Rye]

Looking at the latest Bible Reloaded video on Jordan Peterson. Just got to the point where Jordan's talking about Crime and Punishment and using Raskolnikov as an example of what a true athiest would be like, saying the murder Raskolnikov commits is motivated by him taking his atheism to its logical conclusion. As someone who's kind of obsessed with Dostoevsky to the point where he's on my license plate, I have to say: WRONG FUCKING CHARACTER, JORDAN!!!

It's Smerdyakov in Brothers Karamazov who uses atheism as an excuse to murder people, specifically using Ivan's "If there is no God, then everything is permitted" to justify his murder of his father Fyodor. Raskolnikov's motivations are complex and very weird by the standards of normal humans, as is common in Dostoevsky, but at least in this novel, a lack of belief in God is not part of it. To be fair, Sonia is a representation of Christian Love which causes Raskolnikov to finally come to terms with his act and turn himself in, and his theory of the great men is like a proto-Nietzschean Ubermensch ideal, but it's one where the death of God is conspicuously absent. As someone who has SEVEN of his books on my nightstand, I seriously have to ask: of all the examples you could pick to show the immorality of atheists (by an admittedly pretty bloody reactionary writer), are you seriously picking the one who actually says this?:

“Then you believe in the New Jerusalem, do you?”
“I do,” Raskolnikov answered firmly; as he said these words and during the whole preceding tirade he kept his eyes on one spot on the carpet.
“And... and do you believe in God? Excuse my curiosity.”
“I do,” repeated Raskolnikov, raising his eyes to Porfiry.
“And... do you believe in Lazarus’ rising from the dead?”
“I... I do. Why do you ask all this?”
“You believe it literally?”
“Literally.” 
(Book III, Chapter 5)

Svidrigailoff is an even more depraved character than Raskolnikov, given his being a rapist and murderer who actually lives up to the ideal that Raskolnikov held up.

Christ, Jordan, you put Demons on your list of all-time best books along with Crime and Punishment, you'd think that a book about nihilist terrorists would give you better material!

[robvalue]

Lol. Well, he's incompetent or a liar, as per usual then.

[The Valkyrie]

Dostoevsky's on your licence plate?

I have a boyscout on mine. Damn that's a hard stain to remove.

[bennyboy]

I dug this up while researching the actual bill C-16 (which I've already said I think is perfectly harmless)

Jordan Peterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, criticized the bill, claiming that it infringed freedom of speech and enacted compelled speech. Some academics challenged Peterson's interpretation of the legal effects of the bill.

The Canadian Bar Association supported the passage of the bill, by writing a detailed letter to the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Speaking for the CBA, the President, René J. Basque, Q.C./c.r, argued that the bill would provide necessary protections for transgender people; made explicit the protections for transgender people which were already contained in the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation; and did not pose any risk to freedom of expression.

In November 2017, Lindsay Shepherd, a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University who showed a video of Peterson's critique of Bill C-16 in her "Canadian Communication in Context" class, was reprimanded by faculty members, who said that she had created a "toxic climate" for students by showing parts of Peterson's argument, compared it to "neutrally playing a speech by Hitler, or Milo Yiannopoulos", and claimed that she had violated Bill C-16. Commenting on the incident, University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman noted that the Canadian Human Rights Act (which C-16 amended) does not apply to universities, and that it would be unlikely for a court to find that the teaching assistant's actions were discriminatory under the comparable portions of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The last paragraph is fairly interesting. I think the faculty reprimand constitutes an attempt to limit free speech, in the clear interest of the politics of the PC left-- in this case, they are clearly attempting to limit free speech, and referencing Bill C-16 in that attempt. However, the end of the paragraph makes it clear enough-- no real legal action is likely to come out of this.

So I'd say Peterson's real beef is with the tendency of universities to lean left, than with any real worry about application of the law.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or maybe they were covering their ass as an institution should Peterson decide to go full retard and find a way to break a law that didn't do what he said it would do?

Though, it's interesting that you bring it up..because if I was laying out how peterson became a paranoid crank..I would include that letter. It's not the only instance, just in the public domain, that would exacerbate an existing personal tendency to batshit crazy. Maybe he should should sort himself out and stop imagining that he's being persecuted?

[bennyboy]

Here's a video of Lindsay Shepherd's reprimand at Wilfrid Laurier a few months after the passage of C-16.

She was teaching an English class, specifically the grammar of pronouns (on one day), and played an excerpt about pronouns which was a debate between Peterson and another professor.  She says she was just presenting the arguments on both sides, and was not promoting Peterson's position.  You can hear the entire situation play out.  To me, it sounds like she is absolutely being victimized, her free speech attacked; she even says that she DISAGREES with Peterson-- she even brought up in that class the possibility that refusing to use people's pronouns was a kind of discrimination.  And yet they continue to castigate her on the basis of the same kind of politics that I was talking about. Note how she is specifically compared to a Nazi.

I would really love for anyone here to listen to this hearing, and not tell me that this teacher is being victimized by an institutional use of PC Left memes in order to bully her due to the political position of her interviewer.






Here's a breakdown of that video.  I'm not sure if the times line up, as they may be from different sources:

During a seminar with first-year communications students, Wilfrid Laurier University teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd screened a TVOntario debate to illustrate the sometimes-controversial politics of grammar.

The video, an episode of The Agenda with Steve Paikin, included University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson presenting his case against the use of non-gendered pronouns. It also included panellists taking the opposite viewpoint.

Nevertheless, after an anonymous student complained, Shepherd found herself reprimanded for violating the school’s Gendered and Sexual Violence policy

. In a subsequent meeting with university officials, she was accused of creating a “toxic” and “problematic” environment that constituted violence against transgendered students. She was also falsely told that she had broken the law.
Shepherd recorded the meeting. Audio and selected transcripts are below. The voices are of Shepherd, her supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana, another professor, Herbert Pimlott, as well as Adria Joel, manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support at the school.


00:00:56 “SO YOU WEREN’T, LIKE, ONE OF JORDAN PETERSON’S STUDENTS?”
Shepherd: Obviously this person (the complainant) who had an issue did not express it to me, they just went straight to whoever, I don’t know what really happened.

Rambukkana: Just for some additional context so, you came from U of T is that right?

Shepherd: No, SFU.

Rambukkana: From SFU, okay. So you weren’t, like, one of Jordan Peterson’s students?

The meeting had just begun when Shepherd received this oblique accusation that she might be a protégé or supporter of Peterson’s. Later in the meeting, Pimlott will expound on how people like Peterson live in a fantasy world of false conspiracies. However, it should be noted that upon encountering a teaching assistant who had mentioned an unpopular idea, one of Laurier’s first assumptions was that she was somehow an agent of those ideas. Several times during the meeting, Shepherd will reiterate that her beliefs about gender had no bearing on her decision to screen the video. “I disagree with Jordan Peterson, but you people seem to think I’m pro-Jordan Peterson,” she says at one point.


00:03:10 “THESE ARGUMENTS ARE COUNTER TO THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS CODE”

Nathan Rambukkana, Assistant Professor, Communication Studies, WLU. Credit: Wilfrid Laurier University
Rambukkana: …[Peterson] lectures about critiquing feminism, critiquing trans rights —

Shepherd: I’m familiar. I follow him. But can you shield people from those ideas? Am I supposed to comfort them and make sure that they are insulated away from this? Like, is that what the point of this is? Because to me, that is so against what a university is about. So against it. I was not taking sides. I was presenting both arguments.

Rambukkana: So the thing about this is, if you’re presenting something like this, you have to think about the kind of teaching climate that you’re creating. And this is actually, these arguments are counter to the Canadian Human Rights Code. Even since … C-16, ever since this passed, it is discriminatory to be targeting someone due to their gender identity or gender expression.

By C-16, Rambukkana is referring to a recently passed federal bill that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or expression. His read of it is dead wrong; it’s obviously not a violation of C-16 to screen a TVOntario program at a university. For one thing, the bill only applies to federally-regulated industries, which does not include universities. Even if it did, legal experts contacted by the National Post were extremely dubious that Shepherd’s actions constituted anything remotely resembling discrimination.

00:04:22 “IT HAS CREATED A TOXIC CLIMATE FOR SOME OF THE STUDENTS”
Shepherd: Like I said, it was in the spirit of debate.

Rambukkana: Okay, “in the spirit of the debate” is slightly different than ‘this is a problematic idea that we might want to unpack.’

Shepherd: But that’s taking sides.

Rambukkana: Yes.

Shepherd: It’s taking sides for me to be like “oh, look at this guy, like everything that comes out of his mouth is B.S. but we’re going to watch anyway.”

Rambukkana: I understand the position that you’re coming from and your positionality, but the reality is that it has created a toxic climate for some of the students, you know, it’s great —

Shepherd: How many? Who? How many? One?

Rambukkana: May I speak?

Shepherd: I have no concept of how many people complained, what their complaint was, you haven’t shown me the complaint.

Rambukkana: I understand that this is upsetting, but also confidentiality matters.

Shepherd: The number of people is confidential?

Rambukkana: Yes.

According to Shepherd, the seminar actually went pretty well; students considered the video, and soon got to discussing the use of gender neutral terms such as “they” instead of “him” or “her.” As Shepherd explained at the opening of her meeting with supervising professors, “there were people of all opinions.” Whoever took offence, she noted, did not approach her directly or even raise their concerns in class before filing a gendered violence complaint with university officials.

00:05:58 “… CREATES AN UNSAFE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR STUDENTS.”
Rambukkana: Do you see how this is something that is not intellectually neutral, that is kind of “up for debate,” I mean this is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Shepherd: But it is up for debate.

Rambukkana: You’re perfectly welcome to your own opinion, but when you’re bringing it into the context of the classroom that can become problematic, and that can become something that is, that creates an unsafe learning environment for students.

Shepherd: But when they leave the university they’re going to be exposed to these ideas, so I don’t see how I’m doing a disservice to the class by exposing them to ideas that are really out there. And I’m sorry I’m crying, I’m stressed out because this to me is so wrong, so wrong.

Joel: Can I mention the … Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy?

Once again, Rambukkana accuses Shepherd of breaking the law. But as with C-16, there is nothing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that prohibits what Shepherd did. The Charter says the exact opposite, in fact; one of the document’s four “fundamental freedoms” is the “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.” If someone ever launched a legal case against Shepherd for this, the Charter would be the document most likely to protect her from prosecution.

00:07:28 ALL PERSPECTIVES ARE NOT VALID.
Shepherd: What I have a problem with is, I didn’t target anybody. Who did I target?

Joel: Trans folks.

Shepherd: By telling them ideas that are really out there? Telling them that? By telling them? Really?

Rambukkana: It’s not just telling them. In legitimizing this as a valid perspective—

Shepherd: In a university all perspectives are valid.

Rambukkana: That’s not necessarily true, Lindsay.

The tug-of-war between Shepherd and her supervising professor basically boiled down to single point. Shepherd argued the case that ideas, however controversial, deserve mention in the classroom. Rambukkana, however, held fast to the notion that some ideas are “problematic” and cannot be raised without being clearly labeled as such. In this, arguing against gender-neutral pronouns was compared to banning women’s suffrage or claiming that cigarettes are harmless. Using a rhetorical tactic typically more at home on Reddit forums, Rambukkana and Pimlott would also thrice use the example of Nazi Germany. “This is like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler,” Rambukkana said at one point.


00:17:19 “THE NAZIS ACTUALLY USED … ISSUES AROUND THE FREE SPEECH IDEA.”

Dr. Herbert Pimlott, Associate Professor Communication Studies, WLU. Credit: Wilfrid Laurier University
Pimlott: I would find it problematic if my tutorial leaders were representing positions that didn’t have any substantial academic credibility to that evidence.

Shepherd: But he’s still a public figure … this was on a TV show. He’s still a public figure.

Pimlott: He’s a public figure, and a lot of people there like (American white supremacist) Richard Spencer of, I don’t like calling them alt-right, it gives them too much legitimacy, but Richard Spencer, right? The Nazis actually used, this is a historic—issues around the free speech idea in the 1920s in Weimar Germany as an issue around which which is what they’re using now. We know that someone like Richard Spencer is using theories and ideas that don’t have any academic credibility. He’s a public figure. But in terms of, if we introduce someone, we give them greater credibility in a certain condition. I agree that there are public figures out there that bring people, uh, bring hatred, target groups and if you look at statistically the degree of suicide attempts of trans people, young people, it’s the highest of any group in society. And, you know, it’s, you go through — Indigenous people — and so on. There are things that don’t have academic credibility and I just don’t think—I personally think I have some problems, I have no problems with the fact that these things are out there and people are going to engage them but we have to think of the atmosphere that we also create for the learning process.

It’s worth reiterating that this whole debacle happened within Wilfrid Laurier University’s communications department. The program’s whole job is to teach students how to legibly convey ideas. Despite this, the rambling semi-coherent answer above is quite typical of the other 43 minutes of the recording. Pimlott’s mention of “academic credibility” is notable. It’s not like the group is discussing an issue like climate change or evolution, in which there’s a pretty clear scientific consensus on the truth. They’re discussing language, and Laurier appears to be telling Shepherd to ignore the language ideas of any “public figure” who doesn’t have appropriate academic credentials. Such a broad definition could presumably include anyone from William Shakespeare to J.K. Rowling.


00:22:06 YOUR NEUTRALITY IS “KIND OF THE PROBLEM”
Rambukkana: Do you understand how what happened was contrary to, sorry Adria, what was the policy?

Joel: Gendered and Sexual Violence.

Rambukkana: — Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy. Do you understand how —

Shepherd: Sorry, what did I violate in that policy.

Joel: Um, so, gender-based violence, transphobia, in that policy. Causing harm, um, to trans students by, uh, bringing their identity as invalid. Their pronouns as invalid — potentially invalid.

Shepherd: So I caused harm?

Joel: — which is, under the Ontario Human Rights Code a protected thing so something that Laurier holds as a value.

Shepherd: Ok, so by proxy me showing a YouTube video I’m transphobic and I caused harm and violence? So be it. I can’t do anything to control that.

Rambukkana: Ok, so that’s not something that you have an issue with? The fact that that happened? Are you sorry that it happened?

Shepherd: I know in my heart, and I expressed to the class, that I’m not transphobic and if any of them — again, I don’t know what they said — but I don’t think I gave away any kind of political position of mine. I remained very neutral, and uh—

Rambukkana: —that’s kind of the problem.

Unlike with C-16 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is much more believable that Shepherd actually did violate the schools’ Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy. The document is quite broad, and defines gendered violence as “an act or actions that reinforce gender inequalities resulting in physical, sexual, emotional, economic or mental harm.” The policy further stipulates that the“violence” can take the form of graffiti or text messages. Under these parameters, a YouTube video that made a student feel uncomfortable would seem to amply qualify.

00:25:16 STUDENTS DON’T HAVE THE “CRITICAL TOOLKIT” TO UNDERSTAND THESE THINGS
Rambukkana: These are very young students, and something of that nature is not appropriate to that age of student, because they don’t have …

Shepherd: 18?

Rambukkana: Yes.

Shepherd: They’re adults.

Rambukkana: Yes, but they’re very young adults. they don’t have the critical toolkit to be able to pick it apart yet. This is one of the things we’re teaching them, so this is why it becomes something that has to be done with a bit more care.

This is a theme that Pimlott takes up later in the recording; that Wilfrid Laurier University is bringing in young naïfs from a prejudice-filled society who aren’t yet ready to handle complex ideas without proper training. He said it takes a while to properly challenge “the faith-based, family and other types of structures in society that they’ve been inculcated with for years.” The meeting concludes, by the way, with a note that Shepherd must now run her seminar notes past Rambukkana and obtain specific approval for any future media she intends to show. “I’ll ask you not to play any more Jordan Peterson videos, or anything of the like,” Rambukkana said.

---

Or maybe they were covering their ass as an institution should Peterson decide to go full retard and find a way to break a law that didn't do what he said it would do?

Though, it's interesting that you bring it up..because if I was laying out how peterson became a paranoid crank..I would include that letter.  It's not the only instance, just in the public domain, that would exacerbate an existing personal tendency to batshit crazy.  Maybe he should should sort himself out and stop imagining that he's being persecuted?

I do not support Peterson's interpretation of that bill.  It clearly (at least to me) does not say what he says it says.

That being said, you posted just before I posted my follow up.  I cannot listen to Lindsay Shepherd's hearing at Wilfrid Laurier and do anything but cringe.

Are you going to start saying, "Oh poor white girl, life is so hard for her?"  You should, IMO. In my opinion, this video is pretty compelling evidence that the PC Left(or at least this particular member of the PC left) IS very deliberately using its growing power to dictate thought, at least in Canadian institutions.

Are you going to defend the interviewers, or are we going to have another No True Scotsperson on our hands?

[The Grand Nudger]

Shock, surprise, horror..except...the narrative about that bit above isn't any more true than any of the other narratives in this thread. I'll let you figure that out for yourself, in the specifics..so that your compelling need to argue with me about the pc left in your mind doesn't get in the way, lol.

[bennyboy]

Shock, surprise, horror..except...the narrative about that bit above isn't any more true than any of the other narratives in this thread.  I'll let you figure that out for yourself, in the specifics..so that your compelling need to argue with me about the pc left in your mind doesn't get in the way, lol.

Me:   PC Left attempts to use demographic division to dictate what people are allowed to say, and to decide whose opinions are worth of consideration.
You:  Nuh, uh.  Never happened.  So hard to be white!  I don't want to believe you are an alt-right nazi, so I'll just say you're weak-minded and impressionable!
Me:   *give several specific examples*
You:  Those aren't real PC Leftists.  No True Scotsmen there!
Me:   Link audio in which some poor girl is harassed, specifically in reference to Jordan Peterson, and specifically in reference to C-16
You:  Fake news!  That narrative isn't true!

It's a fucking audio recording, dude.  You can clearly hear the girl state she was playing clips from a Canadian TV show in which Peterson and some other guy were discussing pronouns in English grammar-- and since she's a fucking GRAMMAR TA, she thought it would be stimulating for the students to see the "he/she/they" issue as it plays out in a real discussion.

The best part, for sure, the part where they told her that being neutral was "kind of the problem."

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you wanna argue with me or go figure out why the thing you're linking..now..isn't any more of what you think it is than anything else has been?

[bennyboy]

Do you wanna argue with me or go figure out why the thing you're linking..now..isn't any more of what you think it is than anything else has been?

Steps to debate: 1) have a point that you are willing to assert; 2) support your assertion with actual facts.  I've done that, you haven't.  Instead, you've trotted out a series of fallacies and metacommentary, peppered with racist comments and personal aspersions, which leads me to the conclusion that you either don't have a point to make at all, or you cannot support it with anything other than rhetoric.

Between you and Tiz, we've had enough poop flung to start an organic farm.