BUY THE BOOK! [I did] https://www.betterbundobook.com/

It's #1 on amazon at the moment, beating the other bunny book as well Jordan fucking Peterson too.

This makes me so goddamn *happy

Adding video to channels (Happy) - requested by ChaosEngine.

This worked for me in Canada.

https://ca.proxfree.com/permalink.php?url=s54aaHA%2FaGsaD5vHs0QZLcUclS%2FcUxrnNZwEMCiA0I9IRJ1MomZ6Acgn4NIJZkKSZBmNUbFzdvBsXJvVFz1Uc239pNvqdWXaueR0sT1p
iw3mxEboSRG5eo6Ah%2F5tvKXS&bit=1

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Pence is obviously dealing with his own sexual issues. That's always what it's a bout. Probably similar to the "wide stance" guy.

*edit nm - no the same video

Hah, it's sold out everywhere! That is so *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by ChaosEngine.

I met Omarosa back in 2003. Despite her political leaning, she was very friendly at a personal level. At the time, she was still studying for her doctorate at Howard University in Washington D.C. and worked in Northern VA where I met her. Jokes aside, she actually studied religion at Payne Theological Seminary and when she says "Jesus didn't say that!" I'd trust her more than lego-haired pouting motherfucker!

Quick poll of the mostly left leaning sift.

The evangelical christian belief that homosexuality is immoral isn't going to disappear, it's being listed in both old and new testaments as sinful makes that a lock. However, that's no different than the Judaic list of foods that are sinful to eat, which orthodox Jews still observe.

So the question is, if the evangelical christian position is simply that homosexuality isn't "Kosher", no different than the Jewish belief that eating pork isn't "Kosher", is that an agreeable live and let live position?

My 2 cents....
It might be, but that's not their position.

Religiously, as I read it, it's not much different from wearing a cotton poly blend or working on Sunday, also immoral according to the bible, but realistically the bible is just used as an excuse for them to attack things they don't like.
No American has been murdered or even ostracized by evangelicals for wearing blended fabrics or mowing on Sunday even though it's incontrovertible that the bible says they should be, but many have been murdered for being gay, and millions ostracized. Proof enough to me that it's not about what the bible says, that's just an excuse to attack what they hate or fear.

Compared to greed, the love of money, homosexuality seems barely mentioned, yet there's no outrage about the elevation of greed in our culture, it's celebrated.
Same for idolatry, forbidden by direct commandment from God not some interpreter, so if you've ever worshipped at a church with statues of any kind, including the cross or stained glass, God hates you far more than gays and demands we stone you to death.

Jews don't try to legally outlaw pork for everyone, not even other Jews. Christians have made homosexuality illegal for everyone, repeatedly.

Well, I don't agree with this premise.

As @newtboy points out, there are plenty of other things the bible lists as sinful that no one really gives a damn about.

IMO, the evangelical right's abhorrence of homosexuality isn't really about religion. There are two factors at play:

1 - "gays are icky". Some guys (and it is mostly guys) are seriously disturbed by the idea of male homosexual acts. Lesbians? Eh, they're obviously evil, but also kinda hot, so we'll let that one slide.

2- fear of being gay and/or being labelled gay. "Me? I'm not gay! I hate gays!"

Ultimately, I think that for the majority of evangelical christians, homosexuality will be more and more accepted, especially as the older members die off.

Alright, let me rephrase the question.

Would a group/church that takes the stance of homosexuality isn't 'Kosher' and treated it as such be considered sufficiently tolerant to you?

I know the real example had other issues, but should a baker with that belief be allowed to refuse to make a cake with a non 'Kosher' message on it?

Short answer, no, not if they make cakes with messages.

Because there's no way to tell if it's really a firmly held belief or just douchbaggery, and it's far more likely to be the latter (examples of that above), no. The next step might be no cakes for blacks, because they're unclean descendants of Cain, or Jews because they don't serve Jesus, or people wearing blended fabrics because they should be stoned to death, and certainly no cake for atheists.

If you have a public business, serve the public, otherwise partner with your church and limit your customers to like minded people instead of singling out certain groups to publicly deny service....or move to a religiously intolerant country where your intolerance is allowed and not antithetical to the national morals.

Do you mean no, you believe by force of law if your business is making cakes, you must print any and all messages(barring illegal hate speech) requested by customers?

A Muslim baker should be required by law to produce a cake depicting the prophet?

Pro-Choice bakers should be required by law to produce cakes with graphic imagery of aborted fetuses?

Jewish bakers shouldn't be allowed to refuse to make a birthday cake for Hitler's birthday?

I get that right to refuse to do certain kinds of business can be touchy, but IMO it's even more dangerous to start demanding business owners lose the freedom to decline business that although legal goes against their own values.

Thanks to asshats abusing their religious privileges, that's where we are today. Many places do require businesses offering a service to not discriminate based on personal preference.

If that Muslim baker makes Buddha cakes and Jesus cakes on request, yes....so he should limit his creativity across the board or not at all....or work in his mosque bakery.

If they make made to order pro choice cakes, yes, they should make made to order anti choice cakes.

If they make on request cakes for other notable figures, no....but I would expect Hitler to look pretty horrible.

Easy solution here, stop doing made to order cakes. Offer only what you're comfortable making, not requests, not personalized...have a catalog. Once you offer to make what the customer requests, you give up your right to be offended by it, for cash.

Edit: Keep in mind, this is often about being offended not by what they're asked to make, but who the customer is. Not rainbow wedding cakes with leather clad grooms and cocks everywhere, but fancy white cakes with flowers for a gay wedding.
Side note, Jews can't refuse service in their public establishments to any German, can they, and they have a much better reason to do so.

So in keeping with that, if guys working at the police department that shot Stephon Clark go to a black baker and ask for a cake saying "Hey Man, nice shot!", it should be illegal for the baker to refuse?

Maybe...depends on their business. If they make other personalised inflammatory cakes, probably. If they make "hey man, nice shot" cakes celebrating cops being shot, definitely.

If they make personalised hate cakes, I would expect them to either pay a large fine for refusing or use the 'special' chocolate icing, and record the person ordering it for public exposure.

Most places have a no vulgarity, no hate speech, no sex rule applied across the board, which is fine....but you must use common definitions for those terms applied equally for everyone.
If "congratulations Pat and Chris" is ok for you if that's Patricia and Christian, you cannot decide it's not ok for Patrick and Christian, or Patricia and Christine, no matter how icky you find it, or how afraid you are that you'll lose control and kiss them.

Simple rule, if the reason for refusal is who the customer is, not what they want you to make, that's unacceptable.

Most places have a no vulgarity, no hate speech, no sex rule applied across the board, which is fine....

I look at it differently. In a business, especially any creative business, the decision to pursue or participate in a particular transaction/venture should heavily prioritise individual freedom of choice. On the whole, I'm on board for requiring that business not decline service to people based upon attributes they are born to. Even there however, gender segregated spas are something that I still think should be allowed. That's not an arbitrary choice, up here in Canada a spa is under fire for declining access to a spa based on someone having a penis.

More succinctly, I think everyone should have as much right to think, do or act however they like. Equally though, people should have the right to not participate in other people's lifestyles as well.

But it does prioritize freedom of choice...the customers. Freedom to discriminate against others based on race, sex, sexuality, age, or religion in public business is a freedom most people don't want to foster.

I do agree, there are exceptions, like the one you mentioned. Forcing a women only spa area (or any other business where group nakedness is part of the service) to allow people with a penis to enter is touchy (pun intended)....far more than allowing them in a rest room....and above my pay grade, so I won't be opening a women only spa, at least until that's well settled.

Edit: no one is forced to participate in a lifestyle, period. First, creating an object used by someone who's 'lifestyle' differs from yours is not participating in it, second, you are not forced to remain in business. If you CHOOSE to have a public business you are required to operate it according to the law and not discriminate against customers based on race, age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, .... with very few specific exemptions.
Bigots got over having to make cakes for interracial couples, they'll get over this bigotry too.

I guess I count distinguishing customers and business owners as separate a bad notion too, class wars almost rival race wars historically. I prefer treating customers and business owners as equal parties with equal rights, freedoms and responsibilities in a transaction.

Honestly, I really don't care what the beliefs of any church are.

If a church wants to take the stance that gays are evil and people with green eyes are demons... well, they're idiots, but as long as they don't do anything illegal, they're entitled to their stupid beliefs.

But religious beliefs shouldn't grant you any special privileges under the law. Basically, I believe you should be free to have whatever religion you want, as long as it's within the confines of the law that applies to everyone. No special exemptions.

So, no, a baker doesn't get to decide whether they can refuse service to a gay couple because of their religious beliefs. They can potentially refuse service if the LAW says they can refuse service to anyone for any reason, but religion shouldn't enter into it.

Why should a religious bigot get some special treatment that a regular bigot doesn't?

Now, after all that, the question of forcing businesses to provide service under the law is a tricky one as you and @newtboy have discussed. But generally, there are specific "protected classes" (not sure about the exact term), that you are not allowed discriminate on (i.e. gender, ethnicity, disability, religion, etc). I would be in favour of adding sexual orientation to that list.

So yes, you can refuse a nazi or a cop or a pedophile, but you can't refuse a native american lesbian in a wheelchair.

Society disagrees.
Part of participating in society to sell your wears and goods is doing so by societies rules.
The customer is not under the same onus.
It's not an equal partnership.
The customer can be as idiotically prejudiced and discriminatory as they please, but not the business owner. That's the law, and how society operates. Your preference notwithstanding.

Hmmmm...I stand corrected and change my position.

You're correct, occupation is not a protected class, so I think the black bakery could legally refuse the police for being racist dicks.

If they want to be totally fair and balanced, they shouldn't refuse them, but I think the law allows it. The extreme of that 'slippery slope' ends with red and blue businesses (here in the US) and political affiliation identification required for service anywhere, so I don't recommend discriminating against customers for any non essential/personal reason....also, duh, money is money...dolla dolla bills yall!

Glad to hear you stating things as you did, I largely agree with you.

The trick playing out in Canada now is that because we've expanded the definition of protected classes more quickly than the US, the protected classes rights are interfering more and more.

I do not believe that religion should be a protected class in the same way as race, gender or ethnicity. Similarly sexual orientation and gender identity shouldn't be either. Race, Gender and ethnicity are all assigned at birth and can largely be determined by blood test and demonstrated to be something entirely outside an individuals control, choice and behaviour.

Religion is the most easily demonstrated as deserving a different status of protection than the others in that most religions ALL hold the others as heretical. Declaring other faiths immoral is necessary to religious freedom and I take as the very positive basis of America's freedom of religion notion being a wonderful agreement between Catholics and Protestants to agree to disagree over war.

More controversially, I would also class your sexual preferences and identity in with religion as a different degree of protected class. There is an element of behaviour and choice here that can not be determined at birth with any manner of blood test or parental bloodline.

More simply, the right to discriminate should not exist for immutable things people are born to and remain beyond their choice or control, while the right to discriminate based upon behaviours is entirely necessary and important. If you want to believe Scientology can help you heal broken limbs and transcend the world your free to it, but I'm gonna treat you differently than a sane person. To similarly treat someone different based upon race or gender though is unacceptable.

Do you recall the day you chose to be heterosexual? ;-)

While far from settled, there are indications sexual orientation may be genetically influenced at least, if not genetically determined.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/speculative-genetic-link-to-homosexuality-found

There's more conclusive evidence of a genetic component to transsexuality.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality

, I said it was more controversial.

I dare say even agreeing that we don't solely choose our sexual interests, when it comes to our actions I insist we treat those as the result of free will, aka choice.

When I'm not typing from a 4in screen I can pull up the references, but the peer reviewed studies on genetics hardly illustrate that sexual orientation and identity are dominated by it. Twins studies do show that identical twins more often share orientation than non-identical, which gives a correlation to genetics. However, I'll pull up the studies but last I reviewed them, more than half the identical twins in the studies did NOT share the same orientation. That is an arguably compelling indicator that genetics does not solely determine orientation.

Other twin studies comparing other behaviours like religion show a similar pattern. Studies with twins on violent and aggressive behaviour show an even stronger "genetic" component than the orientation studies, and nobody has any qualms about being politically incorrect declaring that violence is a choice and not a birth attribute...

As promised, the most promising results when polling google scholar:

"Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample"

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Bailey2/publication/12572213_Genetics_and_Environmental_Influences_on_Sexual_Orientation_and_Its_Correlates_in_
an_Australian_Twin_Sample/links/0deec518bc0435c0cd000000.pdf

Probably one of the better studies, it breaks down orientation to a scale versus straight binary, though the results are then statistical correlations and my stats classes are too long ago for me to work that back into something resembling my claims above.

"Sexual Orientation in a U.S. National Sample
of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs"
http://ioa126.medsch.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/47.pdf

19 identical twins in the study with at least one twin with non-hetro orientation, within those 19 pairs, 6 showed concordance. So 6 of 19 identical twins sharing orientation, 13 of 19 not. This supports my statement above that in studies identical twins more often than not don't share homosexual orientation. This study also lists the statistical correlation of this result as 0.68, the previous studies statistical correlation was lower at 0.51(1.0 would be perfect correlation). If I'm reading the statistics remotely right, the above study then is similarly in keeping with my statement.

"Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets"
http://hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1993-homosexual-orientation-in-twins.html

Smaller sample size and different polling methodology, specifically sought out respondents of non hetro orientation. Shows a higher correlation, 25 of 38 identical twins being concordant. That's 66% concordance so opposite of my claim that more often than not they are discordant.


Running out of time here to post results. If you keep digging though it's more of the same, identical twins don't come close to showing 100% correlation, highest study of the samples I've pulled is 66%, and it's by far the highest. This is in contrast to race and gender, where you fully expect 100/100 identical twins to match.

"A twin study of self-reported psychopathic personality traits"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886902001848

Perhaps the above is more to the point. Similar twin study showing identical twins having similarly significant genetic component to psychopathy as the prior studies show for sexual orientation.

Should we be similarly upset at people assigning morality to psychopathic behaviours?

"Genetic and Environmental Influences on Religious Interests, Attitudes, and Values: A Study of Twins Reared Apart and Together"
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40062599?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents

Religiosity shows the same thing, strong correlations for identical twins, raised apart from one another, and much weaker correlations for non-identical twins also raised apart.

If Tom Cruise claims his belief in Scientology is a birth right and how dare we judge him, is he really backed by the science?

Where I am coming from, is insisting that for all the factors involved in human decision and behaviours, I still want to conduct ourselves as though free will exists.

More importantly, the freedom to discriminate against people based upon their behaviours must be defended as strongly as the right to discriminate based upon purely in born, unchangeable attributes like race, gender and ethnicity must be opposed.

Twins aren't genetically identical, even at birth. They begin separating from each other genetically when the zygote splits. Environmental factors determine how genes are expressed, and those factors are not identical. That makes twin studies a piss poor method of gene study. All it can tell you is how much the environment might effect their expression over time, and they aren't very good at even that.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/

Now that genetic testing is cheap, we're finding out most identical twins aren't identical at all. Proper gene testing doesn't assume twins are identical clones for life, it actually disproved that hypothesis. The space study with twins showed that in under a year their genes permanently diverged a full 7% (with a larger temporary change initially that lowered as they returned to similar environments).
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-twins-study-confirms-preliminary-findings


I feel that people often misuse mistaken assumptions to validate their prejudices. If the science isn't clear and validated, using it against others is improper in the extreme.

Discriminating against people for their legal, culturally accepted, natural behavior makes the person doing the discriminating an asshole. Homosexuality is quite present in nature, is now culturally accepted in western cultures, and is legal. Tolerance is a learned behavior I wish was taught better, especially by churches.

@newtboy

"Discriminating against people for their legal, culturally accepted, natural behavior makes the person doing the discriminating an asshole. "

Slavery also exists in nature, so it's natural, and once upon a time it was legal and culturally accepted. Discriminating against slave owners though, even back than, is contrary to your claim, quite noble.

"The space study with twins showed that in under a year their genes permanently diverged a full 7%"

You gotta be careful there exactly what is being measured, they did not find that fully 7% of his DNA changed and now was that different. Depending what you measure people also claim that human and chimp DNA only differs by less than 2%...


"Twins aren't genetically identical, even at birth. ...That makes twin studies a piss poor method of gene study."

If you read your own linked article it states:
Twins share the same genes but their environments become more different as they age. This unique aspect of twins makes them an excellent model for understanding how genes and the environment contribute to certain traits, especially complex behaviors and diseases.

If you bother to read the list of peer reviewed articles I linked, they are comparing mono-zygotic twins to di-zygotic twins. The very basic and largely accepted theory being that if a trait has a genetic component, 1000 twins split from the same zygote should share the trait more often than di-zygotic twins.

My argument though really doesn't care much though. I simply argue that beliefs, choices and behaviours are the result of free will and grounds to judge(discriminate) for and against those you deem good or bad, hurtful or harmful. Similarly, gender, race and ethnicity being things that are in zero way the result of free will and beyond the control of an individual and NOT grounds to judge(discriminate) for or against.

Legal, yes. Culturally accepted, not so much, slavery always had cultural opposition by the non ruling class. Natural, WTF?! Show me an example of pure non human slavery (not harems, not parasites) and I'll discuss it.

Granted, I don't know exactly how they measured, but his gene expression is what they measured, not his pure DNA. This goes to my point, that environment determines how your DNA is expressed, so twin studies are flawed from the onset by thinking they begin identical, they don't. They don't even start with identical DNA, just close.

"Genes and the environment", but not pure gene study....at least not like people think. People think twins are carbon copies, so one can be a control to study effects of what they're studying. That's not quite right. Certainly they are useful in genetic studies, but not that way. From before birth, they diverge in how nearly identical DNA is expressed. They might be good for finding what genes/traits need closer scrutiny, but only with large samples.

Grounds for individuals to (privately) discriminate, perhaps, but not (public) businesses....at least not in America. Our national identity is a melting pot of cultures, intolerance for the different is antithetical to that idea.


Gender, nope, you can totally choose that now.
Race, many people change their racial identity...Rachael Dolizal comes to mind....as does the term "passing".
Ethnicity, people pass as ethnic groups they weren't born into, sometimes unknowingly, daily.....again, Dolizal springs to mind.

So, I'll argue that all you mentioned for all intents and purposes are today often the result of free will and not beyond the control of every individual, but a full grasp of brain chemistry and design and well understood methods to change them are well beyond our current knowledge, so their behaviors and actions are, in part, out of their control and not the result of free will but of brain construction.....now what?

@newtboy:
Gender, nope, you can totally choose that now.

If we must play semantics, sex then. Human beings are born with either a penis or vagina. Same as humans are born with 5 fingers and toes. In extremely rare circumstances humans sometimes have more or less fingers and toes than that, but we aren't being hateful towards those individuals by generally observing that humans have five fingers and toes. Similarly, hermaphroditus happens too, but saying humans are born with either a penis or vagina isn't a hateful statement against people.

As for gender being something different than sex, if you define it that way, than gender is nothing but a set of social expectations. Who cares what social norms and expectations people are or aren't drawn to and abide by?

Race, many people change their racial identity. My DNA and my skin colour don't change no matter how loudly I protest and how many like minded people I get to affirm me.

Ethnicity, people pass as ethnic groups they weren't born into Not looking like your ancestors enough to pass as someone else still doesn't change your parentage. Nobody passing me on the street is liable to be able to identify my Mennonite heritage, but neither can I cease having been born into that cultural heritage.

"saying humans are born with either a penis or vagina isn't a hateful statement against people."
It absolutely is hateful to hermaphrodites, clearly saying they aren't human. Use the qualifier "usually" or "almost always".

"As for gender being something different than sex, if you define it that way"
No, you said that. I'm saying all the physical attributes of gender are changeable besides the brain, and many humans with male gonads have female brains, and vice versa. Today, gonads can be surgically changed, so where is gender? I argue it's in the brain, which today can't be changed.
Gender is different from sexuality, clearly, no?
Edit: I guess I do think gender is different from "sex", if sex is determined solely by your gonads.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction
....as to who cares about gender....the bigoted bakers do. ;-)

We're talking perceived race, gender, sexuality, ethnic group, as identified by the discriminating individuals. They don't DNA scan or brain scan customers before serving (or denying) them, they react based on perception.

Skin color, that's totally changeable. Never heard of spray tans or bleach? Try watching Eddie Murphy's 'White like me'.

Odd you might argue against perception being the measure, since you seemed to argue that gays could be perceived as acceptably heterosexual by not acting on their uncontrollable urges and desires, bypassing the bigoted discrimination, essentially by lying.

Again it's about perceived ethnicity, not actual genetic heritage. Like you say, your actual heritage is unidentifiable by strangers, so less important to this discussion of public business discrimination.
If I want my wedding cake for me and Chris, and I wear my pink paisley silk shirt, leather chaps, choker, and heavy makeup to buy it that doesn't make me gay but the bigot baker would still deny me because he would assume I was.

@newtboy

"saying humans are born with either a penis or vagina isn't a hateful statement against people."
It absolutely is hateful to hermaphrodites, clearly saying they aren't human. Use the qualifier "usually" or "almost always".

Alright, if used to deliberately dehumanise someone, almost anything can be hateful. Omitting "almost always" is just convenient, like stating the sky is blue. Sure, the sky isn't always blue, but it's correct often enough to be treated as an accurate general statement. As I gave in my example, saying humans have five fingers and five toes isn't hateful or dehumanising to people with a different number, it's just a generally true statement.

I argue it's in the brain, which today can't be changed. Gender is different from sexuality, clearly, no?

Let me try to be more succinct.

Physical sex is a birth attribute, not as my opinion, but as a provable objective fact.

Gender is in the brain, is an opinion. I do not share that opinion. This is a point on which we should have the liberty to agree to disagree.
Edit:My opinion is that if not defined as biological sex, gender has no real meaning aside from societal norms.

Missed the Jordan Peterson reference. Being Canadian I've seen a lot of hate thrown his way from the left, but only hyperbole as reasons. Would you have specific things he has done or said to justify this?

Edit: The summary of my familiarity with Peterson is here
https://videosift.com/video/Secret-recording-of-Canadian-Uni-blocking-free-speech

Like saying humans have white skin, or blue eyes, or blond hair isn't dehumanizing to non Arians? If you make a blanket statement about who's human that leaves out a group, you dehumanize them, intentionally or not. Simple. Saying humans have five fingers on their hand dehumanized anyone who doesn't. Saying the sky is blue during sunset just makes you moronic.

No, you don't get to change or erase the meaning of words because you disagree with proven, peer reviewed, long standing science. Sorry. Brain scans show physical differences between genders that don't always correspond to sex, but do correspond to gender.

You expect me to believe that if asked how many fingers and toes a person has, you would NOT answer 5 on each hand and foot, but instead would cautiously add any and all caveats necessary to be inclusive?

I don't expect you to believe or not believe anything, I don't know you, you don't know me, but I do try HARD to not make blanket statements about anything without caveats, because invariably they are wrong and usually exclusionary.
Details matter.

My best friend in preschool was a thalidomide baby, and had 2 fingers per "hand", so yes, I would definitely say "most people have 5, but not all." or "which person?"
I'm usually totally infuriatingly specific like that. I have a wide, uncontrolled 'newtboy ruins everything' streak. Teachers hated me because I would interrupt them any time they ignored the outliers or exceptions to the rules they were teaching, but a few also loved me because I was clearly paying attention.

Nope, I don't have any one specific instance. I just think he's kind of a dickhead and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

I don't agree with not letting him speak, but that doesn't make him right or even interesting.

I'd recommend listening to the recording I linked.

A TA/student, that disagrees with Jordan herself, played a debate between Jordan and another professor in a class. She secretly recorded a meeting held to reprimand her because that was an act of violence towards the students in the room, and even included likening Jordan to Hitler. The wording the 3 staff use in the meeting is every form of Orwellian thought police type stuff you could imagine.

I fail to see the relevance of that. Whether the staff are right or wrong only changes my opinion of the staff, not of Peterson.

If I tell you I hated Hitler because he was a vegetarian, I'd imagine you think that was a pretty stupid reason to hate Hitler, but I doubt you'd change your own opinion on Hitler just because I'm being unfair about one thing.

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

First, I'm not American, I'm an Irishman living in NZ.

Second, once again, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend. Just because I disagree with a university not allowing Peterson to speak, doesn't change my opinion of him.

Finally, I've read a few legal opinions that do contradict that you can be convicted for failing to use the pronouns requested by others, however IANAL and again, that's not relevant.