I totally agree with what he is saying, and am very glad that people are saying it.

...That being said, is it hopelessly shallow to wish that the person making the argument looked just a little bit less like the Crypt Keeper? Sex sells, man. I just don't see any 19-22 year old kid that has been sheltered enough to buy into SJW stuff listening to this guy. Unfortunate, but there it is.

*dead - removed by user

Only published or personal queue videos may be flagged dead - ignoring dead request by CrushBug.

Rex Murphy is a long-time, respected Canadian journalist. Unfortunately the joke goes "Rex Murphy, a mug too ugly for even radio" (he used to do the Sunday afternoon call-in show for CBC).

Alternate URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25xX8P_D1Vc

*backup and replaced dead video

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by eric3579.

Replaced video embed code with backup #8874 (supplied by member eric3579) - embed replaced by member eric3579.

You know, I'd love to hear from one of the people who shut down these events.

'cos in general, I'm pretty much on their side. I consider myself a feminist, I think most people arguing against "PC" are just looking for an excuse to be racist or sexist and I fully support their right to protest against speakers they find objectionable.

But shutting down debate is completely counter to the point of a university. "Safe spaces" are fine, but you learn NOTHING until you step outside your comfort zone.

So please, if there's anyone reading this who participated in these events, I genuinely want to hear your side.

I'd like to know why Rex has seemingly been de-platformed from the CBC video archive?

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, March 24th, 2017 1:15am PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

I did find a CBC article which quotes a statement released by a coalition of student groups and faculty opposed to the invitation of Peterson. Quotes are in the bottom paragraphs.
Honestly though I doubt you will get much from them, I really can't think of a rationally justifiable reason for this kind of behavior.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/mcmaster-debate-with-controversial-professor-jordan-peterson-disrupted-by-activists-1.4031843

I don't mind Rex's appearance, and I can say I usually agree -- and intrigued when I don't -- with his views, but what irk me most about watching his shows lately (that is, about the past 4~5 years) is his creeping smug delivery. It isn't showing in this particular segment though. But man... when he does it, I always goes "Is this at all necessary?"

Back to the topic at hand. Progressives really needs to get its act together. Juvenile crap like these zerg rushes are not serving anyone or any worthy causes. Just more ammunition for the Right to dismiss your argument.

You think Peterson's a wacko? Then let him talk all he wants to let others form their opinion that he's a wacko. I'd rather listen to him and try to figure out what the hell made him act/talk that way then give him the opportunity to say he's a PC "victim."

It appears Rex named the wrong university when talking about the lawyer cancelling their appearance. So this stand-alone video was deleted, but his segment remains in the full show, plus the correction at the end of the next evenings show.

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.

1. You don't speak for all trans/POC/gays etc, so you can only describe your personal experience. There are a number of documented trans people who agree with Peterson and don't want the state strong arming people in to mouthing the words...

2. Peterson does not promote transphobia, he resists being forced to speak certain words. They are not synonymous. If the fuckwits yelling their heads off spent the time to listen, they'd understand that.

3. Peterson was fine with the idiots at the event chucking a trantrum because it showed them up to be the intolerant idiots, not him. He was calm and reasonable, and if they had listened to him then put questions to him, they may have advanced whatever cause they claim to represent. Instead they came across as a pack of morons. /shrug

4. You talk about drawing lines around things, lines that should not be crossed, but without people daring to propose going outside those lines, gay rights would not be a thing... You see? It takes a brave person to step outside the lines and propose something that may be offensive to some. Same with women rights, transgender folk etc.

5. You have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to not be offended.

6. Mobs strongarming people in to silence has far more to do with Nazi ideology than resisting being forced to speak certain words. It's okay to punch Nazi's right?? \= )

I never claimed to or would say I speak for all of any group. Congrats on assuming.

I fail to see how fighting against equal protection for trans people under hate crime laws isn't transphobic. And his flimsy defense of "it will force me to call someone something i dont want to" isn't true of the bill in the slightest if you read the thing and mostly a smoke screen for his distaste for trans acceptance. The place where Peterson works adopted almost identical protection for trans individuals in 2014. But he hasn't noticed or been effected... because it doesn't do what he thinks.

And your analogy is stupid and reductive. Someone being upset they can't call people "faggot" anymore because of PC nonsense doesn't put you on the same level of marginalized groups fighting for basic rights anymore than his refusal to accept that trans people get to self identify / get equal protection puts him anywhere close to the trans and gay people fighting at Stonewall for the right to exist.

Regardless of all of that, I wasn't talking to you and I was offering someone who seemed genuinely interested in the other side some view of that side. I'm not interested in the vitriol from some rando on the internet who has made being "anti-sjw/anti-feminist" an identity.

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.

Oh, you weren't talking to me? Sorry cupcake, you put it out there on the internet, and despite Sift being leftward leaning, I don't recall seeing signs that this was a safe space where only your opinion was allowed to be ventured and no one was allowed to respond.

Typical SJW. If I'm not with you, "Shut up. SHUT UP!!! KEEP YOUR HATE SPEECH OFF MAH FORUMS!!!!" /eyeroll

I would have given you a more thorough and reasoned reply, but let's face it, it wouldn't make a dent on the white noise of your position. You've made your assumptions about me clear as day and nothing I say will change that, so why bother?

In which case, all I have to say is: Have a cup of concrete and harden the fuck up princess.

when radical right wingers,who lean towards an authoritarian,dogmatic way of approaching certain subjects,yet will attempt to disguise their bigotry,prejudice or hatred under the banner of "free speech",or nationalistic pride" and even sometimes "common sense" (because in THEIR world view,thats what it is to them:common sense).

they receive pushback,and rightly so,because you have to allow them to express their ideas in a public forum for the diseased and twisted philosophy to be exposed for the shit ideas they were in the first place.

but if you disagree with their philosophical viewpoint,and deal with that disagreement by shouting them down,calling them horrendous names,disrupt their chance to express those ideas you disagree with,and in some cases..engage in violence..you lose the moral high ground,and whatever solid argument you had to either destroy,or at least reveal their position for the shit idea you think it may be.will be automatically dismissed by those looking from the outside in.

because you have engaged in tactics that lessen what could have been an extremely important point by becoming the very thing you state you oppose.

you do not fight authoritarian fascism.....with authoritarian,and sometimes violent...fascism.it does not work,in fact the only thing it does it weaken your position and make you look like the very thing you are opposing.

in the free market of ideas,philosophies,ideas,viewpoints,political positions all need to be openly aired in this market to be either accepted as 'good' and "worthwhile" or "of substantial consideration",or be rejected for the shit ideas they are,but they need to be openly spoken and/or written in order for people to even consider those ideas.

when you shut down any and all opportunities for a person to even SPEAK about these ideas,and using tactics that can only be considered "bullying' and "shaming".you shut own any and all conversation without the idea itself being challenged,and BOTH sides go to their respective corners still convinced of their own "righteousness",and nothing was actually addressed.

both the ultra left and the ultra right are guilty of this tactic,and in the end we all lose,but especially those players in their particular realm of ideologies.

because now they can sit happily and contentedly in their own little,tiny echo chamber bubble with their other,like-minded people,and congratulate themselves on their own righteousness.even though they were the ones who shut down all challenge,all criticism and all scrutiny.

if your ideas,and/or philosophies cannot withstand a modicum of scrutiny or criticism,then maybe those ideas were shit to begin with.

so shouting someone down,and being so disruptive as to make it impossible for that person to even begin to articulate their position,is not a "win".you did not strike a blow for equality or justice,because you pulled a fire alarm,or violently attacked a person you disagreed with.

you lost your moral high ground,and anybody who may have been on the fence,or was simply curious and wanted to hear a differing opinion.saw how you behaved when your ideas were challenged,and they outright dismissed you and your cause.

the only people you have left in your circle are the very same people who agree with you already.so enjoy the circle jerk of the self-righteous,but do not delude yourself for one second that you are "right",or have struck a blow for "justice" and "fairness".

i have been accused of being "anti-sjw", a 'closet bigot" and (this is my favorite) 'a cis-gender white privileged oppressor".

as if the goals i seek are not dissimilar as everybody elses:equality,fairness and justice.

but when i point out the wrong headed tactics of attacking innocent people just trying to listen to a persons opinions,which may possibly be:racist,bigoted and antithetical to a fair and just society.that is when i am attacked,and it is done so with the most arrogant of presumptions,with little or no evidence to back up their personal attacks upon me.

because i had the audacity to question the tactics of the protesters,and defended that speakers right to free speech.

you are free to express whatever little thought pops into your pretty little head,and i have the right ridicule you relentlessly.you are free to espouse your opinions and philisophical ideologies,but you are NOT free from offense.

because,ultimately,in the free market of ideas,if your ideas are shit.someone WILL call you out on them,and if you think the tactic of shouting people down,disrupting their lecture and/or attacking the attendees somehow makes you "right" or your cause "morally justified".it does not.it just makes you look exactly like the people you are disagreeing with,and not for nothing..it kinda make you look fucking stupid.

so let those people talk.
let them make their ill-thought arguments.
allow them to spew rhetoric and propaganda,and do what should be done in a free market of ideas.

destroy their argument,with logic,reason and a sense of fairness and justice that appeals to the majority of us.

and i mean,come on,let's be honest.there are certain portions of the population that are true believers.you are not going to change their minds but for those who are NOT fundamentalist,dogmatic thinkers,use your brains,talk to them,destroy those who propose ill-thought and bullshit arguments to reveal them for the sychophants they are.

don't be attacking them.
do not engage in violence,or disruptive behavior.
because then you lose any credibility before you have even begun.

that's my .02 anyways,take it for what it is worth.

Would have liked to see somebody with more wit and intellect than I deconstruct Peterson's argument.

Just...don't be Edgelords k? I read Peterson's words for like, half an hour and my toes never stopped curling. and now I have cramp. I'm trying to get more comfortable at being made uncomfortable but, you know, don't be an abrasive jerk just for sake of it.

and don't hate on princesses - they were born that way.

also it's "Her Royal Highness, Princess of Videosift" to you plebs. lol compelled speech.

@Jinx
the whole jordan peterson thing confuses me as well,though i do not know if for the same reasons.

i understand his argument on language,and it's uses,prefixes etc etc.ok,i get that.what i do not really get is his objection to c-160.

on the surface,his argument seems to suggest that it is about criminalization of pronoun usage,which,if true,i could understand his objection,but how i read c-160 that is not the case at all.

the new addendum appears to only add to already existing laws on the books to protect a subset of people that were in need of at least SOME protection.

his argument seems to be ripped out of the pages of a minority report type abuse,but not anything that is actually in practice.

now this is not necessarily un-warranted.there have been many instances where well intentioned laws were perverted to produce something entirely not expected.
see:14th amendment and the creation of the corporation,an amendment set in place to protect newly freed,land owning slaves.

but to extrapolate an addendum,to already existing law,and make the case of future abuse,with little or no evidence.is a pretty thin argument.

in my opinion,dr petersons only real gripe,and valid argument,is against the university of toronto,and how they handled the situation.

i have watched a number of dr petersons videos on language,and the psychology behind language,and the societal and cultural impacts of language,and even the abuses that can arise with the misuse of language and the inevitable conflicts that can arise.

i have also seen peterson speak to a group of protesters and have watched them settle down and actually have a conversation with him.

so i think peterson has a beef with the university,and not the addendum to an already existing law,although that is not his contention.i simply do not see where he can take it to that extremity,when there is little evidence to support it.

i dunno..seems kind of a waste of time in many aspects to me.

No assumption made. I looked at your past comments.

But, this comment only solidifies why there is no point in engaging with you.

Obviously didn't look very far, I've been very supportive of minority rights in general. I just don't think much of people shutting down debates with white noise (or the lickspittles that support them).

So don't engage then, I'm not twisting your arm. /grin

Watch further, particularly his videos on authoritarian regimes. His issue is that controlling language with force is a hallmark of classic far left regimes (ie. Lenin/Stalin's Russia, Mao's China etc), so his beef is not only with the uni, it's with the government and the deluded (or worse, calculated) morons who think that state sanctioned and enforced speech is a "good thing".

He has spent decades studying authoritarianism and makes compelling arguments as to why the current "SJWs" are almost identical to the precursors of other authoritarian regimes.

I don't ask anyone to take anything said at face value, but Peterson does the due diligence for his arguments, and will often defer answering a question if he doesn't think he can offer a well reasoned response. I've yet to see a single video where he has said anything negative about trans people (as opposed to saying negative things about a government law to force language), yet he is described as a homophobe because it's far easier to label him to discredit him than to actually listen to what he is saying.

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."

@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.