Oh FFS. Seriously?

It's 1000x more common for people to believe the words "liberalism" and "socialism" to be seen in a derogatory light by Americans, even though the overwhelming majority of people subscribe to classical liberal ideas, such as freedom of speech, religion, and basic human rights, or in *some* socialist ideas, like a basic safety net in some way shape or form. I mean, hell, because of Glenn Beck and Fox News, there's even a move to make "Progressive", as in the "Progressive Movement" a dirty word. You know, the movement that, while it did overstep its bounds, also helped to institute meritocracy within government, cleaned up corruption, began conservation efforts, and ensured for the first time widely basic safety with food, buildings, etc.

Just stop. Nobody gives a rat's ass if you come to work and say a prayer. Trump Supporters get beaten up?! Yeah, it's almost like they're black in the South, or they're Muslims somewhere in the US. Oh poor white Christians! They've never had it so hard!

Absolutely ridiculous.

Just stop. Nobody is buying your BS.

Exactly. Meeting Kim is the one thing that Trump has done that on the surface looks good. There is no conclusive evidence about any real results, AFAIK Kim did not promise anything new while Trump made concessions, but Trump fans are happy because their star appears to have scored.

I say good for you, I for one hope that pronounced achievements really get accomplished, that peace will be made and US gets to invest in NK, private ownership and human rights get established, people there get to eat, and everyone will live happily ever after.

However I am not sure that China, NK, SK, Japan and Russia consider this meeting anything more than a fleeting episode in a long struggle over bits and pieces of the far east. Trumps come and go and say things.

So now he is friends with two dictators, one has personally pledged not to interfere with US elections and another has promised not to nuke the US. That would be better if those same dictators had a history of keeping their promises.

Freedom is a human right, and it should be an animal right too.

And presumably the sea lion is not being punished for a crime.....

Kids Channel by James Roe
Sandbox for Sift Tots. This is a realm for videos that are suitable for children to enjoy. Non-kid-friendly videos that simply happen to contain a kid do not belong here.

He is intentionally posting adult content on the channel reserved for children after repeated warnings by multiple sifters and a short hobbling for the same thing. Perhaps another longer one is in order?

And because he continuously misassigns videos about racism as war on terror......

War on Terror Channel by raven

This Channel is for the aggregation of all videos related to the "Global War on Terror"...
As defined by Wikipedia.org:
"The War on Terror (also known as the War on Terrorism) is a campaign initiated by the United States government under President George W. Bush which includes various military, political, and legal actions ostensibly taken to "curb the spread of terrorism," following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States... Both the phrase “War on Terror” and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, perpetual war, human rights abuses, and other violations of international law."

This Channel aims to become a place that will foster discussion of the war, and the numerous controversies surrounding it as well as the video material coming out of it; both in the form of News Media reports, and videos shot by the soldiers themselves.

One of Jordan Peterson's claims, that the left has settled into higher ed and wants to shutdown debate in favor of indoctrination, is openly on display in the video. All 3 staff from Wilfrid Laurier state it as contrary to the university environment to present a debate on use of pronouns, or to allow the subject to be debated, save that student's are FIRST taught and thoroughly prepared to know which side of the debate is right before hand.

One of them even dismisses Peterson's claim that you can be convicted for failing to use the pronouns requested by others as baseless and contrary to all evidence. Mean while the Ontario human rights tribunal clearly states that is exactly the case. link below.

If you are find with higher education abandoning reasoned debate in favor of indoctrination then you don't need to care. Of course, here in Canada we aren't facing the same risk you American's are of finding the tables turning and the indoctrination landing in the hands of tea party or trump types.

Still, keeping free speech and reasoned debate a cornerstone of education is extremely important to maintaining a free society in my opinion and the video is a window into dark corners hell bent on shutting that down.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns

*quality human right there

Ugh...

Yes, they all deserve to go to prison, but...

President Pence?

President Ryan?

Isn't it better to have an incompetent jerk who wants to take from everyone else and give to the rich over a barely competent jerk who wants to take from everyone else, give to the rich, and take basic human rights away from women?

And don't give me any of that "Ryan's a policy wonk" bullshit. He only looks smart in a room filled with his Republican colleagues.

Our legal system up here already has codified that 'idiocy', and it's been in place quite awhile.

The women's only clothing optional spa that tried to say 'no penises allowed' is legally at odds with the provincial human rights code:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/male-genitalia-policy-spurs-backlash-at-toronto-women-s-spa-1.3456844

The Canadian charter of human rights also lists freedom from discrimination as being no different for choice/behaviour things like religion, alongside birth traits like race or gender. So legally our system doesn't think rejecting a clergy application for being atheist as any different to rejecting it because of race.

And I kind of hate using a 'trivial' and much trumpeted example from America but a bakery not wanting to make a cake based on people's sexual preferences was declared illegal:
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'll try to summarise my last paragraph better.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to people that didn't vote Hillary. They are instead choosing to condemn those that didn't vote Hillary as racists or friends of racists. They need to be doing the exact opposite. They need to find things to compromise on and reach out to the people that didn't vote Hillary. That doesn't have to necessarily be on any of the ideas I've tossed out above, but they've gotta do something.

A last point, the moral relativism or correctness of the cause here isn't the only thing that matters. If you can't convince a majority of the population that you are on the side of their self interest and liberties and freedoms, then you are going to lose. The things I've listed are examples of the left taking away freedoms that many on the right consider important or even fundamental to them. If no compromises can be made, the Democrats haven't got much reason for optimism about the next election looking any better.

I'm Canadian so maybe that's only a problem here from my country. We have complaints and confrontations against churches for not hiring or rejecting a hire based on sexual practices, or even in one case for being an atheist. We also have a 'women's only' nude spa facing human rights complaints for keeping out people with penises because they are women too.

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/will-atheist-rev-gretta-vosper-obtain-no-fault-divorce-from-church

A 5 second google at least has some American tracking of demanding sexual practices be untouchable when religions or other clubs add new members or hires:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/lgbt-employment-discrimination-churches_n_6082846

It is happening, and more importantly, whether the laws are all there already or not, the fact a complaint likely would travel to the supreme court at least is certainly a pretty legitimate concern about where that line is being drawn.

And hey, maybe the Dems don't want to try and find common ground with that particular demographic. The fact is though that there are plenty of anti-nazi people in that demographic and many others that the Democrats have currently cast as 'enemy' thinkers. The Dems need to pick some things they are willing to compromise on that will help them reach out to voters that didn't show up for Hillary.

We've always got room to improve though because as a fellow Canadian I don't feel my country men are all similarly free.

Mike Ward, a comedian up here was sued for $35k because of a joke he made on set.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-verdict-1.3688089

Greg Elliott disagreed with a feminist blogger over twitter and was hit a three year criminal trial over criminal harassment, including a bail condition throughout the trial banning him from internet access. His job relied on that internet access so even though he was cleared of all charges...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott

You aren't supposed to dress up as Mulan unless you are Asian, or even worse as Pocahantas unless your first nations.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/universities-crack-down-on-offensive-halloween-costumes-at-campus-parties/wcm/b1b50639-0157-4a7d-b7fc-fd45718c4d6d

If you run want to run a Women's only naked spa, you still must allow those with male genitals entry or face a human rights commission complaint which is still in progress:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/body-blitz-transgender-policy-1.4158397

Those a re recent examples easy to mind, but this is pretty frequent.

I think Milkman's angle on things is relevant in a different way.

We don't need to form our morality to coddle, consider or otherwise care in the least about cultural or other reasons for doing stuff. However, when it comes to affecting change in a groups behaviour, those cultural traditions are a factor, whether we agree with it or like it or not. Bull fighting is really pretty small in that picture. Women's rights in a country like Saudi Arabia is a much bigger deal.

When we want to help out those we believe are negatively affected by what we see as immoral, we can't ignore the weight of cultural momentum holding it in place. We can easily say women should have equality and that it is morally the right position. When it comes to lobbying for changes or protections for human rights in those places though, identifying how to be least disruptive to existing culture is helpful. No, it's not our job to adapt their culture for them. However, if we want to see the change, we might have put in some of that work anyway when those we see as behaving immorally show no interest in doing it.

@Asmo @Phreezdryd

i get his arguments using historical precedent,and i actually agree,but i dont see how c-160 in its current form can be used as a bull whip.there would have to be heavy complicity from the judiciary to abuse which in essence is simply an addendum to an existing human rights statute.

and as i stated,or thought i did,i really enjoy his arguments for free speech and the usage of language in cultural and societal dynamics.

if you take away the more rabid of protesters who rallied against peterson,without really even listening to his lectures.a.k.a muglypuff.those people are true believers,and their minds will never be changed,because they refuse to even allow a discourse to even transpire.

the only actual abuse i saw was by his his own employer:university of toronto.

many of the protest i saw against him were fairly tame in comparison to other supposed "anti=sjw",because if you listen to peterson he is nowhere near an anti-sjw.

in my opinion,it was the decisions of the university of toronto that created this false image in regards to peterson,and for those who are unfamiliar with dr petersons take on free speech,and the misuse and abuse of the current trend of pronoun-political-footballing you really should give him a listen.

he certainly has a libertarian lean to his lectures,but his arguments are sound.

thanks you two for clearing some things up for me.
much appreciated.

Bill C-16 adds "gender identity or expression" to the list of things protected by anti-discrimination law under the Canadian Human Rights Code.

The transsexual and gender non-binary communities are insisting that not using their preferred pronouns qualifies as discrimination, and therefore now punishable under this amendment.

Dr. Peterson argues that forcing people through the law to use pronouns created by this minority resembles how fascist ideologies of the past have functioned. A bad precedent to set, and not how natural societal mechanisms of language adoption function. He also seems to object to the long list of made up pronouns the gender-fluid types are insisting on.

One example of language adoption I ran across, without going into detail, was the creation and use of "Ms."

i agree that, generally speaking, the best way to deal with stupidity is to let it expose and screw itself. but there is definitely a limit to that, a point where the stupid becomes too big to stop, and you have to take a stand before its too late.

I dont think that was the case here (though all I know of peterson is what was in the CBC article). But I would definitely protest if my university was paying an idiot a ton of money to give a speech where they could make themselves look smart; and lets not be naive, for all the calls for "free speech" and "debate", usually these speakers take few questions and dodge anything critical with the host moderators protecting them from embarrassment. So if my university wants to pay kissinger or hillary hundreds of thousands of dollars to talk about human rights or ethics, yes I would protest that...

this guy is small fry and is basically looking for it to validate his position, as the article stated other speakers declined precisely because they could foresee that the free speech vs political correctness summit having a speaker whose contribution to the discussion is: "[he] does not recognize another person's right to determine what pronouns he uses to address them." I dont care what whose beliefs are, if you dont want to call someone how they want to be called, you are looking for a fight. and if the other person does not recognize your right to self determine how to address them?! Wow, so deep. this is really what university is for!

my response also comes from a recent discussion elsewhere, regarding the pervasiveness/frequency of the "safe space, snowflake, trigger warning" phenomena that occasionally comes up in videos like these. how many people actually have personal experiences, even indirectly, with professors giving trigger warnings or of a safe space? i have several professors in my circle of friends and family and none have ever witnessed it.

Wasn't there, but I'm sympathetic to their cause.

I would say, like the people quoted in the article linked by Scud, these people aren't against "stepping out of their comfort zone" to learn. But there are certain norms and boundaries to ideas we hold in both every day discourse and academic discourse.

Some of that is how we don't entertain the idea of bringing back phrenology or that the earth is flat in serious discussion. But, unlike those antiquated ideas, other sorts of ideas lead to real and harmful consequences to marginalized groups. Ideas like entire classes of people either not being worth basic human rights or specifically targeting them for dehumanization/harassment.

I think people who shut down events like that or ones where Milo Yiounappolos specifically singled out trans individuals are weighing whether giving a larger audience to ideas like "these people aren't normal/don't deserve basic rights" is worth the real harm and harassment that follows. People see it as essentially saying, "Hey now, lets hear what these National Socialist fellows have to say about Jewish people without all the whining, ok?"

And these things aren't really as cut and dry "they don't want to hear differences of opinion" when every single trans person, person of color, gay person, etc has had these "differing opinions" yelled at them or forced into their life on a daily basis.