Topic: Excellent column on trangender hater Jordan Peterson

[itsApril]

Jordan Peterson appears to have fallen on hard times: under treatment at a private clinic in Russia (go figure!) for drug addiction and depression.

Jordan Peterson's year of 'absolute hell': Professor forced to retreat from public life because of addiction

Joseph Brean
February 7, 2020
5:33 PM EST
The National Post

https://nationalpost.com/news/jordan-petersons-year-of-absolute-hell-professor-forced-to-retreat-from-public-life-because-of-tranquilizer-addiction

Jordan Peterson is recovering from a severe addiction to benzodiazepine tranquilizers and was recently near death in an induced coma, his daughter Mikhaila said.  He is being treated at a clinic in Russia after being repeatedly misdiagnosed at several hospitals in North America, she said.

* * *

The last year, which saw him retreat from public life after swiftly becoming one of the most famous authors in the world, has been an “absolute hell,” said Mikhaila, also a well known speaker on diet, who advocates eating only beef.

* * *

His condition worsened through the winter, Mikhaila said. He was driven to thoughts of suicide by a movement disorder called akathisia, a well known side effect of various drugs for mental illnesses. It is a sense of restlessness and an inability to sit still.

“It became apparent that he was experiencing a paradoxical reaction to the medication, meaning the benzos did the opposite of what they’re supposed to do. These reactions are rare but are not unheard of,” Mikhaila said in the script for a video shared with the National Post.

[JanePlain]

This article isn't about religion, it's about a university professor regretting hiring Jordan Peterson.  Professor Peterson if you haven't heard has become famous for suggesting his rights are being taken away because the Canadian government added adding "gender identity or expression" to Canadian Human Rights Act.

Peterson is a nasty piece of work in many ways.  He's a fascist and a misogynist but he started by using transgender people as scapegoats for most of the problems of modern society.

I've watched quite a few things he has done and either your thinking of the worst thing to call someone (Which a Fascist is) or you I don't think you understand what a Fascist is.  Throwing that term around when its not true makes it valueless because there are still real ones out there and they are pure evil.  I watched Jordan do a class on WWII fascists and people who worked in concentration camps because I think most people can't understand how anyone could be talked into being part of the Nazi Party or part of a death camp.  Its clearly a good thing to know how to avoid being sucked into evil and I think he did a sobering job of spelling out how someone becomes one.  I have very little knowledge of Canadian law but my "yank" understanding of his issue was that gender pronouns were made illegal hate speech.  I don't know if its fines or jail but something.  I obviously don't enjoy hearing this kind of <poo> but making it a crime is against something more important which is freedom of speech.  Who decides what is against the law is just too much power in whatever random collection of politicians you might have.  There is that disagree 100% with what someone is saying but defend to the death your right to say it.  And of course if someone IS sluring <transgender> people I want to right to speak out in response and my reply might be considered hate speech if there is a change in power. 

I'm truly sorry to hear about his problem with Benzos.  I think something new should be tried when someone needs drugs with addictive properties. I had my eyes opened to "Pill Mills" (Netflix The Pharmacist)  where a local doctor set up shop to write prescriptions for crazy strong narcotics, benzos and something called soma?  In any event nobody was doing jack about this other then this lone pharmacist who was printing out (From one Pharmacy he worked at) who was writing scripts for Oxycodone 80 MG tabs and it was one doctor 99% of the time.  So he went to video this "Cash only" doctors visit at her Clinic that was only open at night.  He got a kid who he helped not be fried on this stuff go there and report back that the Doctor tried to pay him for fixing her printer with prescriptions!  So he goes to the FBI who say see someone else who tells him they are already on the case but DO NOTHING.  He ends up going to some Doctors group who get her license to prescribe removed but she ends up doing no time in prison.  The thing that just floored me is that the number of opiate deaths over a fairly short period of this program was 400,000 people in the USA?  I keep thinking that can't be right.  Didn't we loose something like 40 or 50,000 soldiers in the Vietnam War?  The FBI and DEA just don't have a plan for dealing with Doctors who are Criminally prescribing things.  Or they just don't do a very good job.  Well way off the topic but drugs drugs and more drugs seems like the solution and cause of so many of our ills.

[AnneK]

I have very little knowledge of Canadian law but my "yank" understanding of his issue was that gender pronouns were made illegal hate speech.

I've lived in Canada all my life and have never heard such a thing.  It's another example of someone taking a protection for someone from bigots and turning it into violating rights.

[KathyLauren]

I have very little knowledge of Canadian law but my "yank" understanding of his issue was that gender pronouns were made illegal hate speech.  I don't know if its fines or jail but something.

That is flat-out untrue.  This is why I hate Jordan Peterson so much, because he created that lie and ensured that it was spread by the media reporting on his talks.  Now everyone believes it because it was reported.  This is how propagandists take over the world.

There is nothing in the hate-speech law about pronouns.  The amendment that Dr. Peterson was objecting to reads as follows:

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,

That's it!!  And out of that, he somehow invented this idea that pronouns were being regulated.  His lies disgust me.

[zirconia]

Personally, I believe "hate speech" in itself is another unnecessary artificial politically correct concept.

Yes... everyone is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. But anyone can be charged and tried even if eventually found not guilty. Thus, the existence of the law in itself in and of itself dissuades people from using their right to free speech.

And it will be used to also intentionally curtail it, if it already hasn't.

By the way, while I've by no means watched all of his lectures or interviews, in none that I have did he express any hate toward anyone transgender. Or the group itself... so I'm a bit unsure where that conception was born.

Does anyone know? If so, can you point me to the source?

[AnneK]

Personally, I believe "hate speech" in itself is another unnecessary artificial politically correct concept.

Yes... everyone is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. But anyone can be charged and tried even if eventually found not guilty. Thus, the existence of the law in itself in and of itself dissuades people from using their right to free speech.

And it will be used to also intentionally curtail it, if it already hasn't.

So, you don't have a problem if someone makes a habit of attacking some visible group?  It doesn't have to be just LGBQT.  It could be based on ethnic background, skin colour, religion and more.  There are some people who will attack whoever is different.  There has been a lot of bigotry over the years, often leading to violence.  Are you OK with that?

[Janes Groove]

He's a grifter. I can spot em' a mile away.

[zirconia]

So, you don't have a problem if someone makes a habit of attacking some visible group?  It doesn't have to be just LGBQT.  It could be based on ethnic background, skin colour, religion and more.  There are some people who will attack whoever is different.  There has been a lot of bigotry over the years, often leading to violence.  Are you OK with that?

Hi, Anne

As I'm sure you are aware, violence and speech are two quite different things.

Where freedom of speech is concerned, yes. I'm perfectly OK with it.
As for freedom of violence, regardless of where it stems from—there is none, is there?

...but perhaps I'm wrong. As I was writing this I remembered something. Unless someone enrolled in the U.S. military misinformed me a few years ago. According to him "trigger words" are a now a valid defense in court. If true, it means that while speech can now be criminalized, violent reaction to mere words is considered condonable.

Is this actually true? If so, in my view something is not quite right...


P.S. Again, does anyone happen to know where Jordan Peterson expressed hate toward transgender people?

[JanePlain]

I'm not sure its directed to me but if so its insulting... Yes I DO have a problem with people who have a habit of attacking LGBQT, Ethnic background, color, religion (And more) but I think the right of free speech is more important. I've seen too many laws end up being twisted around for the worst possible result and in matters of individual vrs the state I'm normally on the side of the individual. I think the freedom of speech is more important then what a skin head is babbling about. I think my freedom of speech is to be able to respond in kind.  If they want to talk trash they should get ready to have some trash talk aimed at them. 

Jordan Peterson is a topic I'm not a big student of.  But I've heard him do some youtube talks and a couple of classrooms. I've never heard him slander trasnsexual people.  If thats the case please cite the source?  Or better yet a link.  My impression was adding more groups (Whoever they were) was additions to what he thought was an already flawed law.  I also would really appreciate people who say so and so is a Nazi to back it up with something. Or define Nazi better.  If Nazi is anything you don't like you don't understand what a Nazi is.  Did you know that all these evils of the Nazi's were legal?  That was the defense made after the war.  Yes - they passed laws so it would be legal to exterminate people or have them made sterile so the "problem" could be resolved. 

When I was growing up I was told that we have free speech until someone yells "FIRE" and people get killed rushing out of a building.  If I incited a riot that was a crime free speech or not.

In my youth I spent some time in Canada and my impression is that its a wonderful country with great people.  I have nothing but respect for Canadians.  The US is the great experiment and we place a lot of faith in the individual above the state and in this particular situiation the freedom of speech.  As far as I know this is unique.  There is no similar law anywhere else.  Not in the UK not in Canada or Ireland or anyplace that I can think of.

In regards to Canada I did some digging and if I've got this all wrong?  Don't be afraid to tell me... I'm NOT an authority on law. 

Section 319(2): Promoting hatred
Section 319(2) makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.[15]

Who defines "promotes", "hatred" and who defines "any identifiable group?"  Whoever is in charge at that time. Correct?  Canada has a very positive image so its difficult to imagine someone twisting the laws but there seems (To me) to be lots of 3 / 4 decisions so what happens when those obvious 3 / 4 decisions flip to 4 / 3? 

There are people who I would say are ignorent (Or I am)  about Transexual issues.  For example some truly believe that using puberty inhibiters on people under the age of 18 damages them.  If I thought that was true I understand why they are vocal and yell and scream child abuse about this.  *Assuming they were right.  Personally I thought it was great but...  I'm not a doctor or a scientist so I'm open to finding out that I might be wrong.  Others think that there is no such thing as a person who can ever change gender and call people who do so vile stuff.  Do I agree?  Of course not.  Do I think they should be fined or locked up for up to 2 years?  No...  Just as I think I should have the right to cuss them out if I choose.  Personally I find people of differnet views having a polite debate very pleasing.  But sometimes you do have to join together march down a street with a sign to get your point across.  Who decides where your sign is a promotion of hate?  Who decides your sign is aimed at an identifiable group? 

I think it gives what ever government that is in power too much power. They get to decide what "hate" is and then if there is a identifiable group involved.  What more can I say except we should agree to disagree.  Maybe Canada has the right plan?  I don't think so but your country and your rules.

[KathyLauren]

I've never heard him slander trasnsexual people.

You are correct.  Peterson has not said anything directly against transgender people.  He is too shrewd a propagandist to make such an amateur mistake.

However, he was perfectly happy with the existing hate-speech laws for years until gender identity was added as a protected category.  Suddenly he is ranting about how he is supposedly required by law to use certain pronouns.  So I have to conclude that he is fine with hate laws in general; he just doesn't want trans people to be protected by them.

In regards to Canada I did some digging and if I've got this all wrong?  Don't be afraid to tell me... I'm NOT an authority on law. 

Section 319(2): Promoting hatred
Section 319(2) makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group, by making statements (other than in private conversation). The Crown prosecutor can proceed either by indictment or by summary process. The maximum penalty is imprisonment of not more than two years.[15]

Who defines "promotes", "hatred" and who defines "any identifiable group?"  Whoever is in charge at that time. Correct?  Canada has a very positive image so its difficult to imagine someone twisting the laws but there seems (To me) to be lots of 3 / 4 decisions so what happens when those obvious 3 / 4 decisions flip to 4 / 3? 

Thank you for researching the hate laws.  Most people comment on them without even knowing what they say.  As you can see, there is nothing there about pronouns.  Peterson made that up.  "Twisting the law" is precisely what he is doing.

Identifiable groups are implied by the prohibited grounds of discrimination.  In the case of gender identity, any particular gender identity would be an identifiable group, including MTF, FTM, NB, or even cisgender.  The courts have adopted a rather strict view of what constitutes hatred.  More cases get thrown out than convicted, because it is really hard to prove that a remark or action was motivated by hatred and that it was intended to promote hatred.

[JanePlain]

You are correct.  Peterson has not said anything directly against transgender people.  He is too shrewd a propagandist to make such an amateur mistake.

However, he was perfectly happy with the existing hate-speech laws for years until gender identity was added as a protected category.  Suddenly he is ranting about how he is supposedly required by law to use certain pronouns.  So I have to conclude that he is fine with hate laws in general; he just doesn't want trans people to be protected by them.

Thank you for researching the hate laws.  Most people comment on them without even knowing what they say.  As you can see, there is nothing there about pronouns.  Peterson made that up.  "Twisting the law" is precisely what he is doing.

Identifiable groups are implied by the prohibited grounds of discrimination.  In the case of gender identity, any particular gender identity would be an identifiable group, including MTF, FTM, NB, or even cisgender.  The courts have adopted a rather strict view of what constitutes hatred.  More cases get thrown out than convicted, because it is really hard to prove that a remark or action was motivated by hatred and that it was intended to promote hatred.

This is good. I think it indicates that Canadians deal with their law in a rational way I just worry how the law in the US is so often used against people by people that should be convicted by it.

I believe Jordan Peterson might be (Correct me if I'm wrong) one of the misguided people who still think TS folk are just mentally ill or that its some sex fetish. We get what used to be rained down on gay and lesbian people that it was something you decided to do for fun so just find a "deprogramming" group and be "cured"   SIGH...  The DSM (?) which defines mental illness used to list ts people as having a mental health problem but that has finally been changed.  I read a lot and see some serious study in what makes ts people the way they are and it all seems perfectly clinical to me. I wish there was (sooner) some easy test to check so if for some reason I was crazy I would know for sure. ha...  While looking around at some of this I watched a video where some goon said that there is no gender no transition you can't change from a man into a fish sigh...  If there IS a way to induce insanity its me watching people like this babble on like they are experts.  Somedays its just too much.

[AnneK]

I believe Jordan Peterson might be (Correct me if I'm wrong) one of the misguided people who still think TS folk are just mentally ill or that its some sex fetish. We get what used to be rained down on gay and lesbian people that it was something you decided to do for fun so just find a "deprogramming" group and be "cured"   SIGH...

No, he's part of the Conservative crowd, who are generally opposed to a lot of things.

[Jenny_Oh]

he's part of the Conservative crowd, who are generally opposed to a lot of things.

Oh, I'm not sure it's opposition so much as a deliberate refusal to look outside of a limited world view. After all, being a Conservative essentially means keeping things the way they are because, well, they've always been that way. Case in point:

Men and women won’t sort themselves into the same categories if you leave them to do it of their own accord. It’s 20 to 1 female nurses to male, something like that. And approximately the same male engineers to female engineers. That’s a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies

Oh, he's not interested in questioning why women choose nursing as a career over engineering. For him it's always been that way, it's part of the natural order. Women just like nursing a lot more than men and nothing can or should be done about it.

Those are ineradicable differences

Oh my god! Any other interviewer would have fallen on the floor in hysterics by now. Props to Cathy Newman that she is still in her seat. But then she probably didn't know that nursing was a male dominated profession pre-Crimea. Poignantly perhaps, the same magazine that questions Newman's interview technique with Peterson has a great article on the pressures different gender's experience when choosing a career choice. Tellingly, the critique of Newman is written by a man, the explanation of the role gender plays in career choice is written by a woman

Oh, and for those who truly love a laugh, just read the lobster non-sequitur. He's simply so enamored with his own rhetorical flourishes (as a man putting down a woman) he doesn't even notice the absurdity of his own argument!