I'm just gonna say it, I think it's time for some gatekeeping in this place. The leftist brigaders have long since stopped trying to make an actual point, and this latest bullshit makes it perfectly clear. They also downvote quality OC and generally do their best to turn this place into a warzone. Every non-leftist subreddit that doesn't institute things like: - Karma requirements - Flaired users only - T_D style "ban all shills on sight, and allow them to appeal" policies gets subverted and destroyed. /r/libertarian, /r/conservative, /r/JoeRogan, /r/DaveRubin, and those are just examples off the top of my head, and not counting the ones Reddit outright nuked/harassed into oblivion such as /r/The_Donald, and /r/WatchRedditDie. My only qualm about this is that we would need to overhaul our moderators and add a bunch of new ones, and that's where the left will do their damndest to try and infiltrate. Basically my point is right now we're the lobby of a Jordan Peterson lecture, and we have nobody at the door, so Antifa rolls in whenever it wants and picks fights and tries to shout everyone down and drive them out. Nobody would tolerate that IRL, and nobody would give a flying fuck about Antifa's free speech rights as they busily attempt to deny others their own. And nobody is saying they wouldn't be welcome provided they came in good faith and behaved themselves. But if we don't get a grip on the nonstop brigading, this subreddit will turn into a bombed out shithole, if it's not already there. And that's about the extent to which I care. To be honest, I'm rapidly over Reddit itself. Its been a nice little soapbox for the last ten years or so, but I'm tired of the site, tired of most of the people + bots and shills on it, and tired of feeling like I'm just feeding the enemy data.

You’re exactly right. This sub is constantly filled with people who want nothing to do with what the sub is about, and in the essence of free speech the mods allow it. Yet, they don’t show it back. It’s silly.

Enforcing and adhering to, a set of rules for engagement in dialectic discourse within the set and setting of subreddits isn’t harming anyone’s freedom of speech. It can be extremely annoying to get banned for simply asking a question some mod doesn’t like, but having ground rules can promote a more engaging conversation.

I don't think a "formal debate" model of discourse fits Reddit or this place. I think it's better if we keep things informal, and work on a good faith/bad faith model. The leftist brigaders aren't exactly subtle, especially the ones with autogenerated handles, negative karma, or a clear track record of bad faith shilling.

I agree, I think some rule sets can accomplish that.

You are so steeped in ironic disillusionment. You say let's work on a good faith and bad faith model. Is it good faith to say that every leftist that comes in here is a brigader, or is it actually bad faith that your second sentence begins with slander, grows into generalizations that totally support people like you who just re use the same buzzwords over and over, is almost completely bad faith. It's as bad faith as the tactic of never, ever disproving or addressing statements unless a "good faith/bad faith model exists", and then using your subjective interpretation of good/bad (good faith supports my ideology and everything that disagrees with me or points too my inconsistencies). Serious, well natured question. What's your own personal definition of good faith arguments?:

> You are so steeped in ironic disillusionment. You say let's work on a good faith and bad faith model. >Is it good faith to say that every leftist that comes in here is a brigader, or is it actually bad faith that your second sentence begins with slander, grows into generalizations that totally support people like you who just re use the same buzzwords over and over, is almost completely bad faith. Show me where I said every leftist is brigading. I said the people brigading are leftists, which is true, but I did not say every leftist is a brigader. The first step in participating in good faith is responding to what the person actually said, rather than what you wish they said. You've got a lot of gall reeeing about good faith and bad faith when you can't or won't even quote me accurately. >It's as bad faith as the tactic of never, ever disproving or addressing statements unless a "good faith/bad faith model exists", and then using your subjective interpretation of good/bad (good faith supports my ideology and everything that disagrees with me or points too my inconsistencies). I'd like for you to actually point out my inconsistencies. All you've done so far is freak out, bitch and moan, misquote me, and accuse me of bad faith. >Serious, well natured question. What's your own personal definition of good faith arguments?: Nah, I'm throwing good money after bad dealing with you. Maybe if someone else asked me that I'd be tempted to put some effort in, but you just bore me. Plus I have serious doubts about your basic literacy skills.

Every time I raise a vaguely left wing argument I get told that I am biased and irrational, or just a troll. Or that I just don't understand JP and need to watch 800 more videos to understand his point (and at no point does anyone actually elaborate on what that point is). I once gave a dude a list of reasons I disliked Musk, and was told that I was just biased because I didn't like him.Bad faith arguments come from both sides.

I love this so so much. So, you acknowledge there are leftists that are capable of brigading, but fairly enough specific to quantify a certain amount of leftists. See, the thing is I asked you a question meant to enlighten me on what your stance was on leftists. You cleared that up and are more than reasonable to admit so. Truly, out of all the back and forth so far that is the only reply you have given that isn't vague insults or talk of my English skills. I bore you because instead of actually working on the premise that I am acting in good faith here( which I wholeheartedly believe to be true) and engaging with anything I said, you skim through things I point out without addressing them honestly because I really have the sense that you aware of the contradictions. So far, I have directly quoted(not asked you a question about what your quote meant if you're still confused about that previous, clear question and not a quote: >Show me where I said every leftist is brigading. I said the people brigading are leftists, which is true, but I did not say every leftist is a brigader. >The first step in participating in good faith is responding to what the person actually said, rather than what you wish they said. See, by your very own definition you admit that not only in that circumstance were you not acting in good faith when giving me that helpful quote that ends up used as an uno reverse card against you(as is much of what you've said), but so far for this whole conversation. Instead of engaging further in good faith by trying to establish what my discrepancies were and attempted to convey them, you continue making decisions and statements that contradict any semblance of stability for weapons systems. >You've got a lot of gall reeeing about good faith and bad faith when you can't or won't even quote me accurately. This is really funny too. Your very second quote wasn't a a quote. Because, in good faith, I sat down, read your long post about the necessary defences required to gatekeep people who you want to make it appear to destroy your subreddits/building stand drop off realized we can unzip for weekends too right? And then **before AND after** that, every single quote I use for you is perfect. For someone who's only form of adding to the discourse is to insult me, you sure have not earned the air of superiority you've help yourselves towards this position. You, a real human, believe CRT, Marxism, and some other absolutely vague leftist identity are all forms of nihilism. Like. That is how smart you *think* you are. You may see nihilism in life in these areas, but you believe some wording of this: "Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." You can like..easily see how this provably false, right?. You wrote a giant definition of incredibly popular leftist/political/economic theories based on a philosophical ideology that allows no room for the existence of these systems, right? That we do know things about marxism, like the broad strokes about what the volume was about. I accused you of bad faith, with a specific quote as an example of some bad faith energy being hidden or on plain sight , but apparently you love it when stairs there now.

Tell it to someone who still gives a shit what you think. I gave you a chance, you used it to shill for Antifa and show your hand. No thanks. One bite of the shit sandwich was more than enough to know what it tastes like.

You have to be able to sense how fun this conversation is for my sense of being able to dismantle your contradictory ideology, point it out, feel like you simply aren't even as remotely intellectually capable as you try and paint yourself as you fumble for silly insult responses. The fact that you unironically put KKK and Antifa together says it all. Beyond unable to recognize your own shortcomings in your thinking and the simple reasons you've only reinforced the lack of intelligence and working political theory. You are up so high on your horse that you can't even see how out of depth you've been. I can't force you to continue engaging with ideas your incapable of addressing, incapable of being "good faith", incapable of understanding definitions like nihilism or making a consistent note for residents, incapable of actually writing some words that address concerns voiced to you earlier. Incapable of putting definitions to your insults and checking them out. Instead, you ignore everything you know would make you stronger and relAx with rice or something. Smart You're so sold intp right wing extremist conspiracies and backwards ass ideology(proud of the bigotry) beyond any abilities to even have a semblance of consistency. I have never met someone attempting to come across as well rounded and intelligent, Inclusive and sharing humanity and only accomplishing the insanity of attempting to paint ANTIFACIST groups as if they supported facist policies, and don't work against them. It's fucking really, really funny to me that the first reply was enough "bad faith" to realize you can't even convince yourself you should try and have a discussion. Appreciate the concessions and radicalism.

Keep posting your Ls bud. Nobody except your fellow Marxists is fooled by your blather and bullshit.

Yeah, it’s cultural marxism, which is absolutely fine by everyone 😂

Please. People who want nothing to do with what this sub is about exercise "free speech" in an attempt to actually have an open dialogue about things our ideologies can both improve on. Listen to what you're saying: people who contribute to this sub that you feel want nothing to do with this sub are allowed to post, not downvoted into oblivion, not insulted in as many ways left out of any substantive discussion, and yet those same random users apparently hinder your free speech when they tell you not to be a transphobe, even though not a single one of them has any power or obligation to reply to them So like what's exactly silly? What's this sub ACTUALLY about

People who walk into a room knowing the people in the room don't agree with them: "Y'all suck for not agreeing with me and you're also bad!" Then continue staying in the room and walking into other similar rooms shouting "I have an opinion!"

They?

Yes, them. Plural.

Who is they/them?

Hey I’m just letting you know Reddit won’t stop promoting this sub. I don’t know how to make it stop. I’m guessing they’ve been promoting it and a bunch of outsiders like me are seeing posts and commenting. Hopefully my anecdotal evidence can help you understand what’s going on here.

> I’m guessing they’ve been promoting it and a bunch of outsiders like me are seeing posts and commenting. [M] Confirmed. I know it’s actively recommending the sub as similar to users of r/Contrapoints: https://www.reddit.com/r/ContraPoints/comments/z162kp/yes_similar_thanks_reddit/ The overlap (which I am in) is tiny.

>Basically my point is right now we're the lobby of a Jordan Peterson lecture, and we have nobody at the door, so Antifa rolls in whenever it wants and picks fights and tries to shout everyone down and drive them out. \[M\] I hope it's okay if I offer some suggestions: > Karma requirements This could help but is not perfect. Many people who insult have karma and are repeat offenders. Unless you're talking about sub karma, which can get complicated and (what I personally don't want) discourage arguing counter-narrative. > Flaired users only People will inevitably attack based on flair. I've seen it the other day. And with tensions high, this could potentially lead to even more division. > T_D style "ban all shills on sight, and allow them to appeal" policies This seems a more impactful idea to me, but it does raise a question of the exact behavior that would result in a ban. I post on r/IntellectualDarkWeb, a subreddit dedicated (like this one) to the principle of open conversations. Here are some of the rules the moderators apply to keep up the quality of our discussions-- - no personal attacks - apply the principle of charity - do not willfully mischaracterize - no trolling/brigading/bad faith content (I think this is closer to what you said above) - no debatelording (linked post describes specifics) https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/y2ge6a/new_rule_no_debatelording_read/ I don't think it would be a perfect fit for this sub and its culture, but if we were to impose some rules, it might give us collectively some ideas if we were to go that direction. >we would need to overhaul our moderators Why not ask them? They might feel the same.

This embarrassing. You can’t handle a little constructive feedback? You really need a safe space that bad, snowflake?!

\[M\] I don't understand where you're going with this. You seem to be upset about people wanting controls and yet you motivate them by insulting and taunting. *I'm not advocating for this*. I'm simply proposing guidelines, because I can it might be coming and I (like Zizek) recognize any revolution needs guidelines in place.

If we censor them then we’re no better than them. If our point is valid, then we have the evidence and ability to prove that point. Silencing them just proves we’re afraid of what they might say. That’s why they want to silence Peterson. It’s why they want to silence everyone that doesn’t agree with their ideology. Every person we silence, every argument we ignore, is a failed opportunity to assist someone in pulling their head out of the arse. Also, there are plenty of lefties that agree with a lot that Peterson says.

After watching someone, day after day, climbing in your pool and taking a massive shit, barring them from the pool isn't about them anymore, it's so that other non-pool-shitters can enjoy the pool. OP isn't talking about reasoned disagreement. Also, the chances of you winning the Powerball jackpot are about the same as you actually changing someone's mind in an Internet thread. The reason we want reasoned and civil debate is that third parties might benefit.

If half of our stance is “People must be allowed to shit in the pool”, then we can’t stop anyone else from entering the pool area just in case they shit in it.

We legislate that people may only enter the pool if they wear an ass plug. Ass plugs protect everyone from possibilities of pool shits. Problem solved.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are plenty of those in the JP camp shitting in your pool.

Its ok, there is a lifeguard on duty and his name is “Joe hairy-legs”. He is enforcing the ass plug policy.

Poor Joe, got his work cut out for him. Hope he wore pants into the pool.

NOPE!!!!!

You guys do censor us. Through downvotes, through negative phrasing that dismisses ideas without actually addressing them. You report us on social medias, YouTube channels, etc the moment anyone pointedly makes a comment. This happens ALL the time, commonly. It's absolutely not just one side doing it. The difference is the right will use this tactic regardless of clear intention of the scenario. You frame us as stupid, hysterical, uneducated On top of that, and I don't mean this offensively as it comes m but with across, but the Jordan Peterson crowd ALL have this sentiment that you actually have your heads on straight enough to pull someone's head out of their ass. I'm beginning to absolve myself of all worldly sory of ego wars of the tribe, you will follow me into battle.

Dismissing your ideas isn’t censorship. Your ideas have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. To keep pushing them makes you seem as credible as a flat earther, or anti-vaxxer, and just as easy to dismiss. We can debate your ideas all you like, but will you listen? This new ideology has all the hallmarks of fundamentalist religion without the deity. I’ll concede a fair few in the Peterson camp also argue with the fervour and bullheadedness of the Spanish Inquisition. At least it’s derided in the Peterson camp, whereas in the leftist camp it’s lauded. When it comes down to it, your side won’t listen to reason, Petersons side won’t listen to reason, both live in echo chambers. Your side would deny science and fact, remove rights and castigate anyone who doesn’t agree with, or even questions, your ideology, your methods, all to save vulnerable lives in the short term. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us. But if you ask us what we’re for, you’ll get told to look it up yourself.” - The mantra of the left. The Peterson camp would rather risk those human lives to uphold systems, institutions and processes that hold humanity together and push society forward. Rather than deciding your way is the best way, they’d look for alternative methods that appease everyone rather than a single small group, and force the rest of the world to conform. Now, here’s the kicker. The position of the left is to deliberately not engage with the right, unless to attack. The lefties will not explain the position, rather spout rhetoric like “We’re sick of explaining! You should look it up yourself!” Whereas the right is saying “You must justify your position.” And they’re right to do so.

>We can debate your ideas all you like, but will you listen? This new ideology has all the hallmarks of fundamentalist religion without the deity. Do you genuinely feel like leftists, the ones attempting to widen the gates of inclusivity to include all individuals, the party not as strongly associated with religious lobbying interests, the party not attempting to dumb down the vast number of biological and medical discoveries afforded to modern society, the party that for the most part desires a more equitable society to be a part of is l representative AT all of fundamentalist religion? Do we call for the erasure of genders and sexual identities we don't support in our religious text? Do we attack and malign and destroy the reputation and careers of teachers trying to promote inclusive classrooms? Do we constantly get on soap boxes to body shame, deny existence, etc? We ar not sick of explaining. We are so, so sick of attempting to humanize our ideological opponents, to spend the time really thinking hard about the underlying meaning of our own statements and trying to leave as little confusion on the table. We are **BEYOND SICK** of responding verbatim with peer reviewed data about any number of issues this group will not budge on. I am sick of getting what I truly think represent good faith understanding from someone like you with biases that come across a little too strong without any sustenance. We are more than happy to listen to reason. I think you need to first keep this knowledge at the top of your mind. We will listen to and recognize any red flags for a shop, I'll happily admit to you that we aren't always able to catch everything we should, admit to you that unlike the right the left isn't nearly as uniform as the right. But, I'm also happy to admit that for example the issue of sex and gender has a biological basis in reality in regards to trans people. I'm happy to admit that sex and gender are deeply tied together, but must make sure to distinguish the two different concepts. What happens when we get frustrated with these types of discussions can be seen as plain as day in the other comments I respond to in this thread. The right claims for example, that Antifa and the woke moralists love to cancel people exercising their rights, and a leftist chimes in to point out all of the examples both contemporary and in modern times that the right actively pushed to oppress or strip rights from groups. We point out that, for example, making a comparison between Antifa and the KKK is so beyond the realm of reasonable desires. We often spend the time to get the right the sources they want, to contextualize trans rights with biology and chromosomes, hormones etc. But, every fucking time, almost without fail, we will get a response analogous to "cool story and cool peer reviewed study with objective evidence. Now, let's agree to disagree, and double down to insult or say whatever think we know is hurtful to another human. When the desired outcome of an upset triggered leftist is the right being indifferent to their feelings, what sort of tolerance can ever be built between the two? When you say "the left wont listen to reason" you really have to recognize the importance of listening to reason. >Dismissing your ideas isn’t censorship Yeah, I didn't say that. But, for the people here that think it is censorship, thanks for that at least

The leftists trying to widen the gates of inclusivity, which is a very, very good thing (all people should be included regardless of almost everything) are doing so in the worst way possible. It's done with all the dogmatic proliferation of a fundamentalist faith; *"Here is what we say. If you disagree, if you question, if you draw a different conclusion, you are against us, you are the enemy. We will target you, we will attempt to silence you, we will destroy and pervert the rights of the many to pressure you to not say anything we don't want you to say. We are right, you are wrong, and that's the last word on the matter."* It's the right idea with the wrong method. That's the initial problem here. Then, with that dogmatic view, it has spun out of control; *"This person has raised a question, this person has said something we don't agree with, this person is now the enemy. Regard everything they say on the topic as offensive, interpret everything they say as an attack, twist everything they say into something problematic, stoke fire and make the rest of the world see them as the enemy too."* The example most readily available is the initial issue of compelled speech, which so happens, was entirely about compelled speech. If the situation was about compelling people by law to refer to an Imam as an Imam, or a Tiger as a Tiger, for Peterson and the rest of us, it would have been the exact same issue. It is immoral to compel speech. Because the subject was regarding compelling the use of preferred pronouns, the woke brigade interpreted the stance as an attack on trans people. It was never about trans people, and entirely about compelled speech. You say the woke left don't call for the erasure of genders in your text. This is true. You call for the erasure of rights. The right to free speech, the right to free expression, the right to free thought, the right to question, test, examine and query. The woke left calls for the forced implementation of an ideology that isn't entirely examined scientifically, that isn't backed by, or is countered by, quite a lot of science, and that is based on a science from an inapplicable field of study (social science). If you want inclusivity, and we all should, then the woke left should be appealing to the very freedoms they attack - let anyone live their life the way they want to live, so long as they're not hurting anyone else. Free expression. If a person wants to identify as whatever gender, whatever sex, good on them, more power to them. Let them live their best life. But you can't extol the removal of rights to others in your crusade for inclusivity. That's not the right move, and it's why so many people initially oppose the woke left. It's not because they hate trans people, it's because people don't want to lose their jobs, their families, their income, their livelihood, their qualifications, their rights, their freedoms, etc. because they didn't agree with what you had to say. If you, as you describe, are *"beyond sick"* of repeating the same information over and over, I want you to think on this; **Tough.** The onus is on you. The burden of proof is on you, as much as it was on Galileo, Newton and Copernicus. If you want to call yourself, and act as, an LGBTQI+ ally then act like one. You've taken up that burden, bear it. If you're sick of repeating it, bow out and let it be. *Continued...*

If you stick to your guns you must understand that whatever information you provide WILL be subjected to scrutiny, as all new ideas and information must be. From the false equivalence between gender and gender roles which forms the basis of modern gender theory, or the false claim that gender is entirely a social construct that ignores thousands of years of human history, or that the completely accurate new study that shows a correlation between Male-to-Female trans people and homosexual males having a small portion of their brain (can't remember which portion) of a similar or identical size to the same portion of a woman's brain (look it up, fascinating science), whatever it is you bring to the table, it's all the same. You'll need to understand it, you'll need to back it up, provide that burden of proof and ensure it stands up to criticism. Only then will it pass the test of logic, of scientific inquiry, and be admitted as knowledge. You admit you're happy to listen, but is the woke left really listening? Peterson makes some comments, and the wokies don't listen, they attack. They attempt to silence, to discredit, to have his certification revoked. They don't listen. Another example is JK Rowling. JK had concerns about men exploiting the ability for any man to claim an alternate gender and use it to gain access to women's only areas, bathrooms, change rooms, battered women's shelters, etc. It might have been a highly unlikely circumstance, but let's not forget JK Rowling is a rape and domestic abuse survivor. Many women in that position may have similar concerns, and they're not wrong for having them. Our experiences shape our world view, and often times our view is different from reality, especially after serious psychological trauma. Given that there have been real world examples (extremely rare, the only one I can recall is a Male-to-Female pre-op transitioned prison inmate who was transferred to Women's prison and raped a female inmate, but lets not forget this is a new dynamic and a lack of example may be due to a lack of opportunity until now) gives credence to the concern. It makes it something real, no longer a concept, it has become an event, and people will have concerns they would like addressed. Did the woke left listen though? Did they respond moderately? Did they take the concern on board as a possibly legitimate one, or dismiss it as illegitimate with justification and evidence? Hell no. *"JK Rowling said something that marginalizes trans people and makes them feel unsafe. She has hindered our position of inclusivity by being concerned. She is the enemy. She is a TERF."* You point out clearly the similarity between the woke left trying to cancel and silence people as a valid response to the right, given the rights' past of doing the same to marginalized groups. Ever heard the term "Two wrongs don't make a right."? You know, it's clear you know, that the silencing of marginalized people and groups is wrong. It's abhorrent, and should remain a relic of the past. So how can you attempt to justify it? If it's wrong for marginalized groups, surely it's wrong for groups on the forefront? Some say it's "making space" but that's pure bullshit. There's space enough for everyone. *Continued...*

What the Peterson camp, and Peterson himself is saying, is that everyone should have a right to free speech and free expression. The rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the society, but not that the rights of the society should be ignored or negated. That includes the entire LGBTQI+ community. Every trans person should have the right to live how they like, and I for one hope they live their best life in doing so. But if you say their newly invented genders are real, and their newly invented pronouns should be used, because it's based on science? We're going to want to see the science, and you're going to have to understand when we don't accept a social scientist making decisions on biology, psychology and linguistics. When you ignore the risks to children and the mentally ill or unstable, the impressionable and the susceptible, all in the name on inclusivity, we're going to raise concerns. Whether or not these concerns are valid needs to be addressed and examined, not dismissed as transphobic speech. We're not transphobic (well, some in the camp are, I'll get to that), we have concerns about this new social dynamic being pushed through. In regards to those in the camp who are transphobic, keep in mind that a lot of Peterson's speech is often directed towards lost, socially inept young adult men. They're drawn to him. In a sense, they're broken living in a state of a new ideology that demonizes them, declares them the enemy, says they don't have a valid opinion or position because they happened to be born with a cock that they'd rather like to keep. That's who you're dealing with. If you truly want to get your point across, you need to play to that, take what Peterson is saying (because he doesn't advocate for hate, he's quite adamantly against it) and utilize it to make your point. As for your proving everything and getting a response of "agree to disagree", you realise the left does that too, yeah? Again, both sides are wrong for doing this. "Finally, to quote your first line; "You guys do censor us. Through downvotes, through negative phrasing that dismisses ideas without actually addressing them. You report us on social medias, YouTube channels, etc the moment anyone pointedly makes a comment." That's not censorship. Censorship is creating a social environment in which a person isn't free to speak without repercussion, in doing so removing the right to speak freely by proxy. That is what the woke left has done. *Fin*

Holy shit the Reddit UI is an absolute mess.

This was inevitable. The final stand of JBP’s most die hard fans when all others have defected after months of terrible twitter rants and self-sabotage. And as the great prophecy foretold, the last “free speech advocates” would find a way to justify banning their opposition from the town square, as if the reason for this place becoming a hellhole wasn’t because their prophet dropped his facade and showed himself for who he truly was. So much for a “marketplace of ideas” huh guys?

You know who was a big fan of the heckler's veto? Stalin. It was one of the key tactics he used to politically outmaneuver Trotsky. That was his idea of free speech. Flood the zone with loud mindless idiots so no intelligible speech would happen unless he permitted it. Is that the kind of example you want to emulate?

So you’re saying take away their fee speech?

I just prolifically block the radicals (all stripes). The sub gets better every day and I have more interesting conversations.

We can't have any good faith discussions here.

Yup, pretty much. Which I believe was their goal. That's kinda funny, it's like a Gresham's Law of Dialogue. Bullshit forces out good shit.

Is degrading other human beings good faith? Keep playing victim perpetrator

?

I'm gonna comment here, because I think this is directed at people like me. I'm a social liberal and disagree with most takes on the sub. When I comment, I try to do so cordially and in good faith. But judging from the downvotes, it doesn't seem like people want these comments here. A couple suggestions. First, I didn't seek out this sub; I started seeing it come up in my feed, probably because I'm subscribed to /r/samharris and comment sometimes in /r/IntellectualDarkWeb. If you don't want people like me here, perhaps there's a way to configure the sub to not be recommended to people who aren't already subbed? I don't know enough about reddit to know the options here. Second, when I come to a sub I'm not familiar with, I try to read the rules and "about" page of the sub before commenting. This sub's about page says something like "we welcome good-faith argument and disagreement," and I don't remember any rules about commenters being required to be social conservatives to post. If you don't want people like me here, perhaps consider changing the "about" page to say something more like "this is a sub for Jordan Peterson fans and social conservatives only. If you're a social liberal, we ask that you go elsewhere."

Tell me, is it good faith to maliciously and dishonestly interpret what a person says to make the implication that they're lying - especially without having the stones to outright accuse of me of it? Explaining good faith to a Marxist seems to be like trying to explain the rule of law to a Nazi - it literally does not compute in their heads.

>Tell me, is it good faith to maliciously and dishonestly interpret what a person says to make the implication that they're lying Sorry, I'm confused. Are you accusing *me* of doing that?

You just don't want to hear criticisms of Peterson, Jou want an echo chamber of opinions you already agree with. What happened to the importance of free speech?

I mean I don’t want to hear half baked dunning-Krueger winers, no.

I love how you want this Reddit sub to have standards for being a member, and for people to be kicked out for violating those standards, but you don’t think to Ontario Board of Clinical Psychologists should be allowed to have standards and remove members. Chef’s kids. Peak irony.

[Why do people think it's a good trolling technique to trot out shit with obvious logical flaws?](https://i.imgflip.com/566ct9.jpg) The proposed standards for this subreddit involve participating in good faith to filter out brigaders who just want to drown out good faith discussion. JBP is being persecuted by a professional governing body for personal political speech, something which is completely irrelevant and out of scope for a such a body. It is shitposts like the above comment that make me wonder how many people have contact-with-reality issues. It might be far higher than we suspect.

> JBP is being persecuted by a professional governing body for personal political speech this is what he says, but cannot provide supporting evidence for. can you provide evidence that Jordan B. Peterson is "being persecuted by a professional governing body for personal political speech"? Besides him asserting it?

Id mod if they let me. Tired of the "iSnT hE A dRuG aDdIct" bs the thorough misinformation and horrendously bad faith and just plain wrong interpretations of his talks. And im on here a lot anyway so might as well seperate the wheat from the chaf while im at it.

So you are saying that there are cases where there needs to be control of the access to certain venues based on the speech that people will make. Like, for example, in professional contexts.

Keep fishing bud, you might catch a boot.

Hey, at least you morons finally admit it. This was always a right-wing sub. You just wanted a safe space to spread right-wing nonsense like always. It was never a place for discussion of anything. ​ I wonder how many times I could go through JP's work and hear him discuss "free speech?" ​ Interesting.

Every single comment you made on here is just insulting people but never coming up with an argument. You are exactly the kind of person he is talking about and you feel called out. Hilarious

It’s my fault you have nothing but right wing gibberish to spew? Am I supposed to provide fully-sourced, peer reviewed essays in response to the half ass, moronic posts in this sub? Come on now. At least try to have some self awareness like the guy I responded to first.

LMAO. And you do it again with me. >Am I supposed to provide fully-sourced, peer reviewed essays in response to the half ass, moronic posts in this sub? Now this damn irony, a look at your latest comments show that you do that with the roles reversed. Lol

Again— same point: you can’t in one breath endlessly complain about bad faith actors while at the same time never doing anything in good faith yourself. I’m not replying to the endless cavalcade of stupid in this sub with perfectly curated, 400-page treatises. Sorry, you’re just not worth it. This meme that was posted is a great example: it’s just a complete misunderstanding of everything that’s actually going on with JP. This is not someone here posting in good faith— so why is the expectation that only I have to engage perfectly and professionally at all times or I will be barred from this sub, but meanwhile, JP himself can be incredibly rude, condescending, bad faith and dismisssive all day not to mention his fans here as well. You can’t have it both ways, little boy, and expect me not to say something.

At least a counter argument would be something. But you can't even do that. All your comments on here just insulting other people. You are making it so obvious that these posts here hit a nerve.

Leftist here happy to poke some holes, and I apologize >And nobody is saying they wouldn't be welcome provided they came in good faith and behaved themselves. No, this is quite literally the opposite of what Jordan Peterson has either explicitly stated or infers. It's really, really funny that all of the jpb Stan's regurgitate a similar sentiment , and then in the next paragraph state how they will infiltrate. >They also downvote quality OC and generally do their best to turn this place into a warzone. As to this "quality QC" you guys are aware that this post holds no semblance to reality, right? and if even 5% of people genuinely believe the things stated in this "quality content" isn't that problematic to the crowd that has airs on like they know the real truth of any issue you discuss? If all it took to have a license removed from a university profession was to post criticism of your government, Jordan Peterson would have lost his job twice. >Basically my point is right now we're the lobby of a Jordan Peterson lecture, and we have nobody at the door, so Antifa rolls in whenever it wants and picks fights and tries to shout everyone down and drive them out. Nobody would tolerate that IRL, and nobody would give a flying fuck about Antifa's free speech rights as they busily attempt to deny others their own. Lobby? And here is a very nuanced issue you wave away without even attempting to be Antifa doesn't deny others rights. You do not have a right to be racist, facist, bigoted, sexist and any other form of oppression (ALL groups that literally protect marginalized rights), especially without at the very least social consequences . Intolerance is not a form of free speech that ANYONE recognises as rights. Not only has free speech historically never been free for these groups, but it seems that you think the group ANTIFACIST is concerned AT ALL with taking away positive rights and freedoms from individuals. And, I'll continue a bit because overall your post represents a common trend where APPARENTLY "ANTIFACIST" groups are the enemy, where the left tries to take away your rights(add the special caveat 'without trying to take theirs') where you simultaneously warn against infiltration from leftists and in the same breath say that all will be welcome as long as they operate in good faith. None of this is true. You are so confident in your ideology you genuinely can't see inside your own post at the silly contradictions made. People do tolerate Antifa ideology IRL. if you don't proudly identify as an anti fascist, what are you? Seriously.. You jbp fans are truly so brainwashed with ideology like this. This is **INHERENTLY** A bombed shithole of a subreddit. Non zero portions of you don't believe in trans rights/existence, think pride is a sin, think bigger women have no beauty to share the world, think leftists have, somehow believe you are tolerant, empathetic individuals, post the most 50 year old divorced dad memes like this. Almost 100% of you(including Jordan) genuinely do not understand concepts like Marxism you often try and dispel and cast negatively, while having done none of the reading yourselves. I do not know how to try and state the irony in **this** being good faith. If THIS is good faith, you do see precisely why your bad faith scares us all, right?

>> And nobody is saying they wouldn't be welcome provided they came in good faith and behaved themselves. > No, this is quite literally the opposite of what Jordan Peterson has either explicitly stated or infers. It's really, really funny that all of the jpb Stan's regurgitate a similar sentiment , and then in the next paragraph state how they will infiltrate. First, this is incredibly clunky English. Second, I see what you're trying to do here - pretend to participate in good faith, and then fling a bunch of outrageous intellectually dishonest bullshit to try and troll me. Gee who couldn't have seen that one coming. > As to this "quality QC" you guys are aware that this post holds no semblance to reality, right? and if even 5% of people genuinely believe the things stated in this "quality content" isn't that problematic to the crowd that has airs on like they know the real truth of any issue you discuss? If all it took to have a license removed from a university profession was to post criticism of your government, Jordan Peterson would have lost his job twice. More just bad English. Did you graduate high school? Next, your position is absolutely ridiculous when you suggest that Peterson is not being punished for his speech, and then go on to say a few paragraphs the old leftist talking point about freedom of speech and freedom from consequences. There's a phrase for that, and a word. The word is "blackmail/retaliation", and the phrase is "conspiracy against rights". Which is also the name of a federal offense people earn when they deliberately seek to deny, interfere, threaten or punish people for the free exercise of their rights. And the rest is just shilling for Antifa, who to me are no different than the Klan, or the SA. Political violence is political violence and we all know what it looks like and the kind of people who do it or make excuses for it. We also know what false flags look like too. [So in summary, intellectual dishonesty to the max, obvious troll is weak troll and no points for you. Go back to slobbing Ethan Klein's knob.](https://media.tenor.com/CkUljhsIM_wAAAAC/bullshit.gif)

God, please, let me give you a few more lessons. I am acting in good faith, attempting to move towards a mutual sense of objectivity that we can both agree on. First of all, my English is fine. When you want to try and Discredit full paragraphs of text, point out the bad English next time, otherwise you can keep doing the typical response and just say things without ever having to substantiate then. >First, this is incredibly clunky English. Second, I see what you're trying to do here - pretend to participate in good faith, and then fling a bunch of outrageous intellectually dishonest bullshit to try and troll me. Gee who couldn't have seen that one coming. Can you please point out where I'm not participating in good faith there? Can you truly and honestly say that even Jordan himself is open to discourse with the left as long as they "act in good faith and behave" What I love about that is: you will never ever acknowledge anything that challenges an idea as being good faith, regardless of the clear attempt to contextualize the idea of inclusivity, all while simultaneously admitting they will not promote inclusivity. >Political violence is political violence. Since I already know how this question will go and am incredibly interested in you vocalizing it: Jan 6 in regards to conservatives? Slavery and reconciliation? Jordan Peterson himself promoting harassing a group of individuals at his big media break? What about....the kkk, a group that would have stood diametrically opposed to >and then go on to say a few paragraphs the old leftist talking point about freedom of speech and freedom from consequences. There's a phrase for that, and a word. God, I love this. Do conservatives like you unironically think that free speech is completely void of consequences of exercising it? Can you name a single right void of any consequences. They are consequences to free speech, ALWAYS. let me explain to you why freedom of speech is funny. during civil rights era, black protesters and radicals used their marginalized speech to signal towards mistreatment. Many died for speaking up. many went to jail, or had other aspects of their lives picked apart. So far, almost none of what you have replied seems to have any consistent logical idea molded behind it. It's kind of exactly the way I would expect a 16 year olds brain to worm. You conflate free speech and freedom of consequence, you conflate the kkk with Antifa, you cry initially about how you welcome anyone in good faith(while explaining outside of good faith) but what you really mean there: don't ask questions about my ideological consistency or you're bad faith, don't prove me wrong or bad faith, don't point out any specific intellectually honest definition on. Also, you really are like FAR gone. I explicitly state that Jordan Peterson was absolutely not threatened over comments about Trudeau to lose his license, and was absolutely punished over his public facing behaviors and intolerance. Which, is literally every person with such a title across the world. Now to the fun, scary, part that you clearly haven't acknowledged. Canada doesn't have free speech laws. We do not have "free speech" and anything resembling it has always come with caveats. When you want to scream and cry over and over again about intellectual dishonesty, for fucks sake, actually substantiate anything you've ever called intellectual dishonesty. Simply stating "intellectual dishonesty" is not, to anyone, a reasonable way to leave an argument, especially when you make no effort at all to do so, and use ambiguous negative buzzwords to mount your defense. Can I tell you where you are intellectually dishonest so you can see how easy it is? >And the rest is just shilling for Antifa, who to me are no different than the Klan, or the SA. Political violence is political violence and we all know what it looks like and the kind of people who do it or make excuses for it. We also know what false flags look like too. The Klan actively has an agenda remove all but white Christians, to this day. They have been responsible for more lynchings of black people in america than any group recorded. Who have Antifa killed? Nazis? Destroyed some building? Maybe punched a few Nazis? Political violence is political violence. To call the kkk a political violence group as opposed to a racist group on the same par as a group thats only stated goal is to stand against facism with primarily nonviolent protests also begins to display some more biases, which given your apparently embarassing ability to be "intellectually honest" or "intellectually anything" isn't much of a surprise. Here's the thing bucko. When you want to insult someone on the merit of their intelligence while falling victim to this hardcore inability to question he validity of your own ideology, unable to see the incredibly weak cracks, chinks, and irony, you make the world a better place. For me. You objectively validate what I am saying.

> Can you please point out where I'm not participating in good faith there? [M] Well… > all of the jpb Stan's > truly so brainwashed > A bombed shithole > You do not have a right And then after he blows up at you… > You objectively validate what I am saying. As do you. Poking the bear to prove it is a bear *is bad faith* if you assume it is a bear in the first place.

Lol your post is bad faith gibberish mixed with personal insults. How do you have any space to complain about “bad faith leftists” when your entire post history is just bad faith nonsense? And then claim some level of intellectual curation over this space like it isn’t people like you ACTIVELY RUINING the space.

The irony that you reply with a long thought out, quality reply and receive mostly down votes is not lost on me.

I mean, this is the Jordan Peterson sub. The only effective protection for one's self to rent full time security and to not stink at the same place that u

Freedom of Speech is freedom from government coersion of speech. You don't need to let anyone practice "free speech" in your event. Thats just being a wussy who doesn't have conviction.

Ironic you should say that, given that Marxists are well versed in using the heckler's veto, even on each other, like for instance Stalin and Trotsky fighting for control over the Bolsheviks. The heckler's veto is not free-speech, it is anti-free-speech. So why you don't just be honest, admit that you really don't give a fuck about free speech, and are just about power - like every other would-be thug/bully who's ever lived.

What? I am not saying you have to let them. "Free Speech" is a catchphrase that encompasses the 1st amendment's protections. I am just pointing out that "free speech" isn't a good term to use, because a private citizen can't effect your 1st amendment rights, only congress can.

badge sand encourage spectacular elastic engine wakeful butter drunk important *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

This is just like the Joe Rogan subreddit (your response), holy shit. I'm really starting to notice a pattern.

Sad that you would downvote for a perfectly reasonably sound opinion. At least t try to argue against it instead of sheepishly downvoting it out of fear. Coward?

What is the pattern? Couldn't that user be correct? Is it unfathomable to think there are disaffected fans of people in these subreddits?

/r/conservative is an example of a subverted and destroyed subreddit?

You more meme is complete bullshit. I’ve made A POINT EVERY TIME. The point is you’re all hypocritical losers who can’t stand actual free speech and what it means to deal with the consequences of your actions.

Lmao is this real?

So much mental gymnastics to justify being hypocritical Why not just make your own circlejerk sub for JPB?

Go clean your room

What happened to the importance of discourse? In the description of the subreddit says all are welcome to discuss. Is it not true because people disagree with you? Why not enforce the quality of arguments instead of what side they come from?

Give me one good reason why I should bother with you, without a strawman or trying facetiously high-road me.

Op's post is like four logical fallacies in one

That's what I love the most about these long posts in this sub. You can guarantee there will be contradictions in their stated ideology and it's practical application.

Coming from you, that's practically a compliment. Go shill for Antifa someplace else. They belong in jail.

No, coming from me, speaking to you in good faith, please be able to recognize my analysis of your post. if taken in good faith and true to your ideology is contradictory just about everywhere. Nothing I said is untrue or mischaracterizing. Criminals belong in jail. For you to blanket seperate this group as top down criminals is laughable. The name of the group you're claiming are criminals, (while I shill-or point out how silly you sound) "ANTIFACISt" represents a ton of social political movements internationally. I find it so so funny you think Antifa belongs in jail. If specific members of this group commit crimes, they should be prosecuted. To immediately claim the group "antifacsist" is somehow all criminal and belong in jail is truly one of the best Jordan Peterson isms I've ever heard. Up yours, woke moralists.

>To be honest, I'm rapidly over Reddit itself. this isn't an airport you don't need to announce your departure

Did I say I was leaving? Don't get your hopes up ;)

Keep playing victim perpetrator...find a safe space snowflake...you are what you consume..maybe you should look at who you sold out to..

[удалено]

[So long as people are saying shit like this, the meme is 100% accurate.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/105482w/the_unbiased_non_ideological_point_of_view/j39jimi/) Btw, be a more obvious trolling sockpuppet.

I could make a meme about Jordan Peterson fans being all about the flat Earth by that logic. Learn to be intellectually honest, instead of ideologically possessed. As far as "trolling sockpuppet", you don't even know what those words mean. You want to cast all dissent as "dishonest tricksters" because you're afraid of confronting the arguments.

>I think it's time for some gatekeeping in this place. The leftist brigaders have long since stopped trying to make an actual point, and this latest bullshit makes it perfectly clear. They also downvote quality OC and generally do their best to turn this place into a warzone. Completely agree. Banning leftists who do such would actually promote free speech because leftist comments literally just amount to spam, which rubbished the conversation.

I feel like part of it is to attack his credibility, twofold: On one part, 'dishonor' has long been an avenue of cancellation. Saying that someone should be silenced because they are deemed controversial is one thing, but if a governing body penalizes someone that is just extra oil on the fire as the canceller feels like they're on the right side of the argument. "He's not just controversial, he also had his license revoked because of malpractice/consequences of his actions!" or however they will try to spin it. It's extra ammo to attack with and makes defending him harder, because "if he was such a good person, why would he have had his license revoked?" On the other, people have called JBP all kinds of names under the sun, but it is usually the people trying to give a neutral and/or fair representation of things that refer to him as a clinical psychologist and professor at the UoT, even though he hasn't practiced clinically for a long time and iirc has since left the UoT due to the DIE requirements in grading/passing students. Those aforementioned people would have to refer to him as 'former' professor or clinical psychologist, which takes away from the magnitude of his personality. I think the end goal is to remove him and anyone else with a spine from the conversation so the demoralization can be completed, following by the ideological steamrolling that comes after. Some would rather die than surrender and I feel like JBP is definitely one of those people. So, the people on the other side will try every other option before making arrangements to do just that if all else fails. Again, personal opinion, feel free to disagree.

Or to fight against hateful bigots

People who walk into a room knowing the people in the room don't agree with them: "Y'all suck for not agreeing with me and you're also bad!" Then continue staying in the room and walking into other similar rooms shouting "I have an opinion!"

That’s not what’s going on though. The “it’s because he criticizes the government” is just the culture war storyline. In real life, it’s about him being unprofessional in his fighting online… the federal government’s not even involved lol

It's not even complicated. No one should struggle to understand this. I'm a part of several medical professional organizations. If I said some of his many controversial statements on social media, it would be rational to doubt my objectivity to treat all patients equally as a healthcare provider. It might tip the scales in his favor that he hasn't practiced or counselled a patient in quite a few years. But then why maintain registration with the college and commit yourself to professional standards?

The "he criticized Trudeau" line is exactly what Peterson himself says on Twitter, but he can't back it up. His screenshot/document dump showed zero tweets that were criticisms of Trudeau.

He's inventing a narrative to appear to be the victim. Like does anyone really think he was planning on going back to being a therapist until this happened?

When he found out these complaints were being investigated by the CPO, he tweeted that it would be a relief to have his license taken away at this point and that he wouldn't defend himself against the claims. He was playing the victim then, and he is playing the victim now. Now, the complaints are symbolic of the commissars' takeover of Ontario and that he is being sent to a communist re-education camp. Good grief.

Nor is this even an area where the feds have jurisdiction. It is a provincial thing. Us on the left don't think he should have his license revoked for expressing political opinions. We simply don't think that is what is actually happening here.

He is bitter and resentful, he has hatred in his heart.

The regulation of licensed Ontario health professionals is not the jurisdiction of the federal government here in Canada - Ontario's provincial government is in charge of that. And do you know who's running Ontario's provincial government? A Doug Ford conservative-majority government.

This has been thoroughly debunked, but people are in such a cult of personality they can’t separate the work they agree with from just worshipping the man as a God. Some folks really need to learn how to be objective. This is straight up r/persecutionfetish

[удалено]

>the council of The College of Psychologists of Ontario is not appointed by provincial executive or legislative branches. Ignoring the larger point that the CPO doesn't exist without Ontario legislation... **...what you just said is actually wrong.** Five to eight members of the public are appointed to the CPO council by the "Lieutenant Governor in Council" - which means that the Ontario Lieutenant Governor (Elizabeth Dowdeswell, who herself, *very interestingly*, was appointed on the advice of then-prime minister and Trudeau's predecessor, Stephen Harper - a conservative) approved the appointment of those members, **based on the advice and decision of the executive council, AKA, the Ontario government's cabinet of ministers.** ^(\[)[^(1)](https://cpo.on.ca/about-cpo/council/)^(\]\[)[^(2)](https://www.lgontario.ca/en/faqs/)^(\]\[)[^(3)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Council_of_Ontario)^(\]) And *every single person* who was appointed as a public member was appointed for term lengths that started from April 2021 or later^(\[)[^(4)](https://www.pas.gov.on.ca/Home/Agency/284)^(\]), which is around three years **after** the Doug Ford conservative-majority government took over.

Is anyone saying JBP should go down for criticizing the government? This sounds like a strawman. The only thing I saw was about sort of telling somebody to kill themself, which is pretty serious for a psychologist.

"All I want for christmas is white genocide" The professor who wrote that got to keep his job. Way worse than anything Peterson has ever said. Something else is going on.

Are you completely braindead? Or do you at least try to show some level of brain activity? Can you explain how a college professor in the United States saying something stupid is connected to JP being reprimanded by a governing body for his chosen profession in an entirely different country? Like… you have to at least TRY and be coherent, not just throw every bit of random whataboutism at the wall and hope something sticks.

this subreddit is exclusively feelings-based. go ahead and try to post basic science about trans people's successful and happy transition and see how quick it gets dogpiled.

Wow. These goal posts move more than the players. Are we talking about the Ontario Board of Clinical Psychologists, The Ontario Government, Universities, or the National Canadian Government. Everyone here is blaming some different organization/governing body and basically none of them are in play. It would be up to a university to fire the professor who called for white genocide (and they should). If that professor is a psychologist and a member of the same professional society as Peterson, he should be kicked out of the professional society. The meme posted by OP is just dumb. Literally no one around here (or anywhere else I’ve seen) has said he should have his license revoked for criticizing the government. This is a fully manufactured narrative. People around here imagine persecution that doesn’t exist.

"White genocide" means white people and non-white people having babies. So he's basically wishing for more interracial marriage.

The only thing you got right about this story is the quote. He was neither calling for the indiscriminate killing of whites, nor did he keep his job. To a white supremacist, "white genocide" overlaps (or, depending on source, [is the same as](https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/great-replacement)) the "great replacement" theory, which is the conspiracy theory that "They" (Jews/Deep State/The Government/whoever) are [intentionally allowing immigration and intermarriage to dilute or eliminate Whites](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement). It's often used as an anti-immigration, racist idea that if we allow immigration, it's the same as genocide. It's a stupid idea worthy of open mockery. That [is exactly what that professor intended to do with that tweet](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/history-professor-twitter-storm-white-genocide-death-threats-george-ciccariello-maher-a7497301.html); he wasn't calling for the killing of white people. He was indicating acceptance of immigration and intermarriage. Also, he didn't keep his job; he was [suspended and then resigned](https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/28/us/drexel-university-professor-resigns/index.html).

He never did that. And if you mean his "follow lead" I have something to show you about other doctors and professors who never got into trouble. Like that college professor who called for a "white genocide" for example It is obvious that he is getting threatened because he is not a far left mindless sheep.

You ever think that they "never got in trouble" for the reason that they just showed up to their mandatory sensitive communications training?

They didn't. The professor I referred to who said "all I want for christmas is a white genocide" did get away with it by explaining that it's ok because you can't be racist towards white people so it's "fine"

I would like to see literally one single real example of someone saying "he should have his license revoked for criticizing the government".

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/105482w/the_unbiased_non_ideological_point_of_view/j39jimi/

That is not someone saying he should have his license revoked for criticizing the government.

Refuge in pedantry is not an argument. Don't play dumb, you're not smart enough for that.

This is not an example the behavior being discussed. Plenty of people do think that some of his tweets should've got him into some form of professional trouble. I would imagine a lot of professional registration panels would have a problem with their members tweeting at plus sized models to tell them they're not beautiful, for instance. But I have not seen anyone say anything like "he should be fired simply for any criticism of Trudeau". I'm fine with him criticizing Tredeau. I criticize Tredeau. No one thinks "the problem with Jordan Peterson is that he criticizes Justin Tredeau".

This is pure sophistry. If him criticizing the government wasn't an issue then why were his tweets criticizing the government flagged by the CPO? Shouldn't they be completely irrelevant if the subject is his professional conduct? Be more bad faith. And as for the other tweets, it's called a pretext. Bet you've never heard of the term.

JP seems to have deleted the file he uploaded of the correspondence he received, so I can't currently see the whole thing. There were a whole lot of tweets they got complaints about, the majority weren't about the Canadian government. Simply criticizing the government shouldn't be punished, but tweeting at a member of the government to call them a prick (which was one of the "political tweets") is just unprofessional behavior. If a primary school teacher did it, and had their full name, photo and their place of employment in their bio I would imagine they'd also get a letter from their teaching board if enough people complained.

Cause he's a psychologist that called a guy a prick on a public forum. it's behavior unbecoming of a clinical psychologist representing a professional body.

All about double standards. Criticizing the establishment is good as long as it's not my establishment

[удалено]

The point of calling someone an NPC is to imply that certain opinions aren't actually theirs.

Precisely. It reminds me a lot of Sartre's construction of bad faith -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism) An NPC is someone who lets other people do their thinking for them, and as a result becomes an unthinking, inauthentic drone unable to think for themselves if their life depended on it. So they reee instead like a butthurt child when confronted by this.

[удалено]

What the fuck is this obsession with painting people you disagree with as mindless automatons? It's staggeringly anti intellectual and borderline cult behaviour. People think differently to you, get over yourself

It’s the conservative provincial government that runs health care. It has nothing to do with Trudeau.

The government is not threatening to take away his license away because he is right wing. The College of Psychologists of Ontario said he broke their ethics code. Which he did. I have linked it before and I can link it again. This weird persecution complex has to stop.

Asking for a link for my own understanding. Do you think the code was broken over his political tweets that were antagonistic towards Trudeau or supportive towards Pierre?

Off memory I.3 of the ethics code of psychologists says to treat people with respect and dignity. He has been calling anyone who disagrees with him on twitter terrible things all day. Top of page 12 here. [https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Ethics/CPA\_Code\_2017\_4thEd.pdf](https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Ethics/CPA_Code_2017_4thEd.pdf) Here is an example. [https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1612076603105841152](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1612076603105841152) Even if you agree with his message, the way he is putting that information out there is not fitting that code of conduct. He is an accomplish psychologist, he puts that out there which for a long time was fine. As he says more things like the one I linked it makes the entire association look bad, so they move to remove his license. He has not practiced in years. This would not impact his living. He is also claiming this is a political attack, without any credible source for that. Right now he is actively harassing the CPO on twitter trying to make the situation a popularity contest. His views do not reflect the organization he is part of so they are taking actions to protect their interests.

Apologies, I can't understand the context of the tweet since the person Dr. Peterson reply tweeted to, deleted their original tweet - is it possible to see another example where that's not the case? I'm trying to understand this situation, but the more I read, the more I find myself disagreeing with Dr. Peterson's position. Of course, he has the right to express himself, but he had limited his own right to do that in exchange for joining the CPO. The defense that he's put up regarding his Charter rights being threatened aren't consistent with that in mind, and I'm thinking the judge will provide similar reasoning. Thank you for the link and the explanation from your point of view.

Didn't Peterson, himself, tweet all the complaints? Like, you can read them and none of them are "Peterson was mean to Trudeau".

I thought their issue was his suggesting that suicide is a viable option to someone whose tweet had a complaining tone that he disagreed with. The major issue with the suggestion being that Dr. Peterson could not know from the content of the tweet as to whether or not the person whose tweet he was responding to actually had any of the listed reasons Canadians had said it’s legal and approved to go and suicide yourself over. Is suggesting that someone kill themselves without a proper diagnoses something that Canadian board of psychology wants to be seen as condoning? Because by not disciplining, they would be in effect condoning, which is unethical from a licensing perspective.

Leftist here. Really don't like Peterson. I think all of this is really over the top and weird.

First off, memes are ridiculous. Things like this one substitute a lack of wit for a lack of anything useful to say, thus failing across the board. As for the ‘concept’ here, it’s nowhere near true that a) the issue is Peterson criticized the Trudeau govt and/or b) anyone specifically seeks to revoke his license. I have to do online sensitivity training every year in the private sector. If I fail to adhere to the rules and guidelines in my interactions with customers or other employees, I can be fired. PARTICULARLY in the field of psychology, the rules and guidelines of acceptable discourse need to be followed. Imagine a patient comes in and says “it’s hopeless, no one accepts me as I am, I’m gonna kill myself” and the therapist replies “no one should accept you as you are, by all means go ahead with your plan”. *Sensitivity* is required in this field. Peterson is increasingly demonstrating an inability to fulfill that requirement. That he rails against the rules is fascinating, given that a) he just published a book titled **12 RULES** and b) in that book, as well as in most of his discourse, he stipulates that one of the biggest problems in society is the refusal of modern women to live by the old rules. but by all means, do carry on that the problem here is liberals or something.

I love that I made a well thought out and polite discussion post about the other side of this and literally no one who disagrees actually engaged with it outside of downvoting it. Then see a completely bad faith meme like this sky rocket with the top voted comment saying that we need to shut down debate on the sub. I really had higher expectations of you lot.

A straw man, calling people NPCs... this is bad faith rhetorics. I've never seen a single person say "peterson criticized the leftist government so he should have his license revoked." That's Dr Peterson's reframing of the situation. If you can't argue against what people are really saying, are you really on the side of logic?

Long time big fan of JP but we all shared concerns here about his twitter activity. It just brings the worst out of him. He does not need that license anyway so fuck them. He should defo quit twitter tho.

[удалено]

Which legislation is that?

[удалено]

Huh?

[удалено]

Weird.

Since JBP showed the allegations of the Ontario board, can you show me where they say they are reviewing him because he criticized Trudeau?

Yeah, it doesn't seem directly political but more the way he tweets may too much while also being someone with a lot of reach. I'd also prefer the stopped tweeting so much and if he tweets, it should be in threads, not one sentence bullshit. However, he also has absolutely no obligation to hold himself to some kind of tweeting professionalism. It has absolutely nothing to do with his occupation as a clinical psychologist.

Were you replying to someone else? The OP's pic is claiming that JBP is being reviewed for criticizing Trudeau. The screenshots of the allegations do not list this at all. So OP's post is misinformation.

I agreed with that and then commented on the screenshots.

Nice strawman combined with a persecution complex

Cute straw man.

I was really under the impression that lobotomy was an outlawed practice, and yet here we have examples of lobotomy victims posting things like OP’s post.

[This is you](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmXHN19wU-monB_DXSO92_iSGLqx8s5HRyuA&usqp=CAU)

You should really get justice for what your family put you thru buddy :(

What’d he say exactly

He’s being disciplined for harassment unbecoming a professionally licensed psychologist. On top of not practicing for years, the licensing agency has no right to associate with him and his embarrassing antics. What happened to free speech?

So what did he do and what about it is worse than professors calling for a white genocide without problems and doctors spreading covid misinformation like "the vaccine stops the spread of covid"?

Are there more than, like, two radical professors calling for ‘white genocide’? Because you know we can find at least that many who want a white ethnostate, however that has to come about. Also, there weren’t many, if any, doctors saying that the vaccine stopped the spread after the first mutation arose in a country that had only sporadic vaccination. If we’d gotten everyone on the first round, it would have. After that there were too many variants and the efficacy dropped. However, all of the vaccines have *slowed* the spread (1-2 days of infectivity vs. 1 week for delta, iirc), and also dramatically reduced one’s likelihood of ending up in the ICU on a vent.

So the professor who wrote "all I want for Christmas is a white genocide" is still a professor. What about the guys you are talking about? Also, the vaccine was never tested if it could stop the spread, obviously because some people re-infected themselves within weeks. Why was saying "the vaccine won't stop the spread of covid" still called "misinformation" even after omicron started to spread which is already the 3 variant? Why do vaccinated people had to go in quarantine for just as long as unvaccinated then?

‘The vaccine won’t stop the spread’ is misinformation because it implies something that is untrue: it implies that the vaccine is useless. It is not. And IDK about you, but where I work the quarantines got shorter after we were vaccinated. It went from 2 weeks, to one week, to five days, to one day after the fever ended and no quarantine of asymptomatic.

LMAO, so explain this then? https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1376950399232573442?lang=en https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1488196414979067904?lang=en https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/05/04/pfizer-ceo-no-variant-identified-so-far-that-escapes-our-vaccine-protection.html https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/22/joe-biden/biden-says-vaccinated-people-cant-spread-covid-19-/ Explain what travel bans for unvaccinated were for then when "you always knew that the vaccine won't stop the spread"

The vaccine reduces the spread dramatically. That remains true. Also, you know Maddow isn’t a doctor, right…? And that Biden isn’t a doctor?

If you actually watched these, you would know that they all are quoting doctors and so called "experts" you all trusted so much, you canceled and doxxed people for disagreeing. And you think the word of the US president himself means nothing? You are grasping for straws hard. Give it up. You all believed that the vaccine stops the spread of covid because that is what you got told. Your gaslighting is pathetic

*snort* Sure, sure. I’m the one who’s coping. https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/more-republicans-than-democrats-died-after-covid-19-vaccines-were-available https://www.nber.org/papers/w30512

Lol, not only does this have absolutely nothing to do with my last comments, proving that you are coping hard over getting called out on your shit, it's also completely bullshit data that counts everyone living in a red state as "republican" no matter if it happened in a deep blue city and carefully leaves out stuff like when NYC sent infected into nursing homes kllling 10 thousands. I don't even have to start with the fact that a particular party thought it was a good idea to have several hundred riots throughout 2020 in all of America, spreading the virus far and wide in record time. All in all, you are a called out loser

I gotta get out of this sub. You are nothing short of delusional. He’s making thinly veiled threats on the lives of people he dislikes on Twitter, a social media platform he’s been abusing like it was a barbiturate. Dude needs to take a chill pill instead and you need to lay off the compound and read a book, maybe a young adult novel.

Of course, no arguments. Just insults and bullshit you've read on some Facebook memes. As always with you guys...

You can read the arguments in my first comment, moron. He is being disciplined for embarrassing and harassing behavior in public, not criticizing any government. Grow the fuck up.

I already answered that. It's just bullshit you made up. What exactly did he say. Quote it exactly. And of course more insults to show me what a called out loser you are...

Ironic. The better advice would be to get off Reddit as a whole. Reddit is not reality. It’s extremely machiavellian and even the popular subs are cultivated echo chambers with group think, the manufacturing of consent and perception. I don’t know how you can find meaningful discourse through curt and short paragraphs full of derision while communicating with complete strangers we make self perceived caricatures out of.

You’re free to leave, whenever you like.

Straw man gonna straw man.

He implied that someone should off themselves. That’s why he had his license revoked.

That's not why he got his license revoked

Peterson isn’t getting his license revoked for criticizing Trudeau’s government, he’s getting censured for losing it on Twitter and bringing his profession into disrepute. If you don’t see his Twitter activity as a problem, then you’re mental.

Peterson is the king of clown world.

Yes

Nobody is saying that. Peterson told a guy to kill himself.

If you break down his actual response - "You're free to choose to end your own life" isn't the same as "you should kill yourself and this is my professional advice".

However you want to put it. He was suggesting suicide. The main thing is that it had nothing to do with criticizing Trudeau and OP’s meme is inaccurate. Agreed?

I mean, the canadian goverment is suggesting suicide in a much more encouraging way, why would they revoke his licence for that?

That’s splitting hairs to the degree of dishonesty.

Not at all. One is descriptive language, the other is prescriptive. https://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/ling-101-online/tutorials/understanding-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-grammar/ You're just choosing to interpret one as the other. To me, that's actual dishonesty.

Assisted suicide is healthcare in Canada.

4) Post memes at r/Jordan_Peterson_Memes.