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

[bennyboy]

What would you like to talk about, Benny?  How St. Pete doesn't actually understand human behavior?  Evolutionary Biology?  How St. Pete cons you..his viewer, with irrelevance to sell political inanity?  How many times and by how many actual experts in multiple fields he's been corrected..even to his face..and nevertheless drove through that and repeated the same misinformation elsewhere?  The actual origins of all of his weird ass spider brained fears..with receipts?

Want me to link to the man crying in a very explanatory way (and I mean actually choking up, lol)?

He made himself a public figure.  All of this is out there in the public domain..for you too.  You're going to have to put down the koolaid, though.

Let's start in talking about the bill, first of all, and it's so ridiculously short and simple that I'm surprised nobody has done it yet. This is its COMPLETE form believe it or not.

First Session, Forty-second Parliament,
64-65-66 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016-2017
STATUTES OF CANADA 2017
CHAPTER 13
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
ASSENTED TO
JUNE 19, 2017
BILL C-16



SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.
Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address:
http://www.parl.gc.ca



64-65-66 ELIZABETH II
CHAPTER 13
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
[Assented to 19th June, 2017]
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
R.‍S.‍, c. H-6
Canadian Human Rights Act
1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)

1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Purpose
2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)

2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
R.‍S.‍, c. C-46
Criminal Code
2014, c. 31, s. 12

3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
Definition of identifiable group
(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
1995, c. 22, s. 6

4 Subparagraph 718.‍2(a)‍(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,
 

Basically, in addition to the lists currently in the Act, race, religion etc. etc., they've tagged on "or gender identity or expression."

The stuff about pronouns cannot possibly be attributed to this, except indirectly: the government of Ontario has rules which MAY make a refusal to "accommodate" trans people against the law, though not criminal.  So I suppose taken together, it could mean that he could be fined if he refuses to accommodate a request to use "ze" or "zir," as Ontario involves a tribunal system and who knows what people will decide.  There is certainly an imaginable future where if things keep going as they are, there could be a kind of Big Brother PC Canada, but that time is not today, and it's such an abstract and distant risk that I'm perfectly willing to risk it.

Overall, I'd say it's a tremendously minor risk, and now that both sets of laws are in effect, I'd still be extremely surprised if anyone, ever, ended up with more than a fine or some community service over them.

So this one clearly goes to my former and renewed heart throb, the Prime Minister.

Given that, I'm also going to say it's likely that his comments about the Minister that you quoted are likely to be as abstract and poorly founded, and for the same reason-- he's thinking to hard about future hypotheticals, not about the actual state as it is today.


So here's my current stance on Peterson.  I think some of his candid remarks are very valuable.  I also dislike the radical PC, and I'm glad that someone will speak against them.  I have very much enjoyed some of his lectures about establishing meaning in life and so on.  But when it comes to the politics of left and right, I'm going to have to take him with a grain of salt, or possibly a pair of ear buds.

That being said-- I personally still hate the PC left, I still think that socially, if not in government, there is a real fight to dogmatize identity politics in a way that disgusts me.  So while my position on Peterson is now more informed, my position on the PC left is unlikely ever to change.

And just to distinguish what I mean by PC left, I should describe those leftist opinions which I fully share:
-I'm pro-choice, and pretty rabidly so.
-I'm for equal rights for all, so long as they are in good standing with the social contract themselves
-I believe in basic income, welfare, and free or affordable health care for all
-fuck Trump and the majority of Republicans

As for ideas I dislike:
-my opinion is irrelevant because of my demographic identity
-I should expect to tolerate a certain degree of insult or abuse due to the hardships of others, which constitutes a reasonable expression of frustration if coming from people of certain demographics, but must never insult or abuse people of certain demographic identities because my elevated level of privilege
-I have to use euphemisms: words like "differently abled" when someone is handicapped.  If you want to say someone is handicapped, I feel you should just say so.  If you want to refer to him, try using a name: "I saw John yesterday."
-I DO agree with Peterson about equality of outcome.  I think an employer should pay whoever they want whatever they want, and if someone thinks they are undervalued, they should fight for a raise or leave.

---

I tried to burn the book, but it won't catch alight! I think it's got some sort of spell protecting it. Any ideas?

Mail it to me.  I still haven't read it, and I want to see what all the hubbub's about.