Dr. Jordan B. Peterson Speaks With KPFT Houston’s Queer Voices About Bill C-16

University of Toronto professor Dr. Jordan B. Peterson spoke with Summer Eiman on the Feb. 27, 2017 edition of KPFT Houston’s Queer Voices about his concerns with Bill C-16 which was recently by the nation’s parliament.

Proponents call it a “human rights bill” but Dr. Peterson shares his concerns that the legislation’s vague language and punitive terms threaten free speech rights.

Catch Queer Voices Mondays 8-9 p.m. Central Time at kpft.org

You can see his video outlining his concerns more thoroughly on his YouTube page:

Clarification/Correction: Bill C-16 was passed by the Canadian House of Commons, but has not yet been approved by their Senate. 

According to Dr. Peterson, who has followed this extensively, Bill C-16 passed second reading on Mar. 2:

Added Mar. 4: 

Trump is Right to Kill Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Policy

On Feb. 22, the Trump administration reversed the Obama-era policy which requires public schools to allow transgender students to use whatever bathrooms and locker rooms they say corresponds with their professed gender identity, or risk the loss of federal funding.

The response from Trump’s detractors is predictable:

I’m broadly supportive of transgender people living however they like, the only exceptions which immediately come to mind are children and athletics.

I nonetheless think President Trump’s decision was correct.

Ben Shapiro over at The Daily Wire had a few thoughts to share I felt worth considering.

1. This Is Not The Federal Government’s Job. The federal government has no role in redefining sex for an entire country, particularly not under laws like the Civil Rights Act specifically designed to protect biological women from biological men in many cases. This is an issue for states and localities, if it is an issue for government at all – which it isn’t, since assaults are already prosecuted, and transgender people have equal access to protection from the police.

This is the easiest point of agreement for me and the main reason I support this reversal.

When the Obama policy first came down, I couldn’t shake the thought of “what if this were a policy I wouldn’t have liked that was rammed through this way?”

Well, the progressive-left now finds themselves on the wrong end of a presidential administration that wields enormous power.

Whether you agree with the policy or not, it’s worth considering that when both the left and the right freak out about what each other’s respective opposition will do once in power, it’s probably time to peel back at executive authority, even if that means giving up terrifying powers of the state which you might exploit to get what you want — as well as the other way around.

The past two years have been an interesting political journey for me after quitting left-wing politics and reconsidering everything I’ve ever believed in.

Some trips have been shorter than others, but the idea of limited government has appealed to me more than I ever considered before.

Though I haven’t been a fan of Obama for a long time, I do remember sections of the right behaving in ludicrous ways, such as claiming that Obama is a “mole for the Muslim Brotherhood“.

Now the left is so hysterically scared of Trump, they’ve become like the very people they laugh at in what one person cautions against as the “Alex Jonesification of the Left“.

Shapiro makes another point which needs to be discussed:

3. Sex Is Not Malleable. Nobody is arguing that transgender people shouldn’t be allowed to think whatever they want about themselves. They have the right to dress how they want, act how they want, and identify however they want. But their right to wave their fist – just like everybody else’s right – ends when they hit a nose. And mandating that everybody arbitrarily shift the definition of biological sex to self-identification – and threatening to punish those who don’t – is an imposition on the entire society. Society cannot simply begin undermining crucial truths like sex because some people are susceptible to more mental health problems due to that truth. That would be an argument for doing away with truth generally.

Yet the left refuses to acknowledge any of these ideas. They want a new civil rights movement, and that means government action, even without Constitutional or legal mandate or even biological support.

This is the point I struggle the most with.

Again, I’m broadly supportive of transgender people living how they please, but the notion that someone can issue an executive order that enacts radical, sweeping, unilateral changes regarding fundamental truths such as redefining sex for an entire country is more than slightly unnerving.

This is especially so considering that there are people who make demonstratively untrue claims such as “biological sex is a social construct” as though chromosomes don’t exist.

It’s not just dramatically untrue, but an assault on objective truth itself.

There are underlying fundamental questions about this issue that can’t be asked or discussed because the progressive-left took an issue that is as poorly understood as transgenderism and decided to be extraordinarily aggressive about it, proclaiming as if from on high that it’s “the next civil rights frontier” and smearing dissenters or anyone who questions it as bigots.

A troubling development related to this are the rise of confected, alphabet-soup pronouns and endlessly-multiplying fabricated genders.

Writing those into laws against discrimination or hate speech is a recipe for madness, as evidenced by — if you’ll pardon the language — some really strange shit coming out of universities these days:

As a side note, there’s a pretty good chance this stuff is publicly funded, like the study to determine whether glaciers are sexist for which the taxpayers were stung with a $709,000 bill.

There’s a soft authoritarianism underlying the notion of writing subjective perceptions of self into law.

It’s a kind of authoritarianism that doesn’t come wrapped in a flag or thumping a bible.

It doesn’t stomp around in jackboots or bear the menacing scowl of a die hard party ideologue who snarls through gritted teeth that you must comply “because the party says so”.

It’s a therapeutic authoritarianism wrapped in the language of “diversity and inclusion”, “human rights” and “multiculturalism” — dissent construed or criminalized as “hate speech” and “bigotry” — which demands that you dismiss fundamental truths and believe that there are five lights when you know there are only four.

It’s an authoritarianism with a kind-seeming face, bearing a smile that doesn’t quite reach the eyes but hides a knife behind the back of a “diversity commissar” who is all too ready to strike anyone who gets someone’s “preferred pronoun” wrong.

There are plenty of valid questions to ask about this issue, but it’s impossible to have any constructive conversations about it when any discussion outside progressive-left orthodoxy is met with incandescent hostility and even violence.

Canada is a country in which comedians are hauled in front of human rights tribunals for telling jokes, and its parliament recently passed Bill C-16, which writes into law protections of gender identity and expression without bothering to define what exactly that means.

Above all, the Obama-era transgender bathroom policy should serve as a stark warning as to the expansion of government power and what could be written into law and policy for the sake of being “on the right side of history”:

Clarification/Correction: Bill C-16 was passed by the Canadian House of Commons, but has not yet been approved by their Senate. 

According to Dr. Peterson, who has followed this extensively, Bill C-16 passed second reading on Mar. 2:

Make the Rubble Bounce, PewDiePie

I’ve only ever been vaguely aware of PewDiePie.

I’ve known for a while that he’s YouTube’s largest channel which currently sits north of 53 million subscribers.

Like many who have raced to his defense, his channel never caught or held my attention for very long, though that may change.

It seems that PewDiePie is in a bit of trouble over some jokes he made mocking in part the propensity for the mainstream media to take things out of context for the sake of clickbait.

The Wall Street Journal proceeded to do exactly that with their gross mischaracterizations of what he does in their Feb. 14 hit-piece “Disney Severs Ties With YouTube Star PewDiePie After Anti-Semitic Posts

I was alerted to and floored by Sargon of Akkad’s video and five-hour-long livestream on how what the Wall Street Journal did to PewDiePie involved bolting together a hit-piece by taking him out-of-context as it gets in order to smear him as an anti-Semite:

Added Feb. 25 

PewDiePie’s response video is quite a thing to behold, and has me firmly in his corner:

Added Feb. 25

With 53 million subscribers, PewDiePie hopefully just red-pilled a younger generation to the dishonesty of the mainstream media and the necessity of its destruction.

That would be a long-term positive outcome to me, but I hope for short-term action as well.

From what I’ve been able to gather, he does this more for the love of it than the money, but I genuinely hope he sues the Wall Street Journal to the extent that the results resemble the fate of Gawker, considering that a gross mischaracterization of his content cost him millions of dollars.

It’s easy for someone with no direct dog in this fight to advocate for taking such action.

But in the era of Rolling Stone/UVA debacles, and fake news about Trump paying Russian hookers to urinate on a bed formerly occupied by the Obamas, dishonesty and malpractice in the mainstream media is out of control.

I’ve come to a place in my years-long retreat from the political left such that I don’t agree with then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump speaking of “opening up the libel laws”.

When both sides of the political aisle freak out about what the other party will do when in power suggests to me that smaller government is probably for the better overall.

That the “MSM”, to borrow a term from strategic allies on the right, shows no sign of correcting their behavior makes it clear enough to me that something needs to be done about them.

I’m in favor of using alternative platforms to smash what’s left of the MSM’s credibility much in the way this new debacle does.

It shouldn’t be difficult, since the MSM creaks and groans under the weight of its hubris after torching its own credibility to act as political operatives in the 2016 election.

If PewDiePie does take legal action against the Wall Street Journal for what is arguably libel however, I hope he makes rubble bounce.

To borrow from Kraut and Tea, if they’re willing to do this to YouTube’s biggest and brightest star, they’re willing to do it to you too:

Chris Ray Gun and Phillip DeFranco also have pretty good takes which can be seen below:

Chris Hernandez: About That “Punching Nazis” Thing

My friend, Chris Hernandez, touched on something I couldn’t stop thinking about after the left-wing violence in Washington D.C. during President Trump’s inauguration, and the Berkeley riot that shut down the speaking engagement of Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, even though he was invited to speak there by the UC Berkeley College Republicans.

Namely that Trump’s opposition plays a dangerous game when it tries to justify or romanticize political violence nauseatingly enough as “kinetic beauty”.

Broad sections of the left seem all too eager to use violence to shut down political opinions they don’t like against opponents who’d rather not use violence to defend themselves but will and know how, while virtue-signalling their squeamishness about guns and the military service which would have provided the training on how to those guns effectively.

In “About That ‘Punching Nazis’ Thing
” Hernandez writes:

Long story short, 1) Americans shouldn’t get beaten for political opinions even if they’re Nazis, and 2) the people currently getting beaten aren’t Nazis anyway. I’d point out that the same liberal/leftist/democratic side of the aisle that was justifiably aghast at any violence by a Trump supporter is too busy watching the Flintstones or something to loudly condemn the mass violence, arson and looting being committed by radical leftists, but that’s too easy. So instead, I’ll do the radical leftist rioters who like to punch Nazis a favor, and tell them this:

Mob violence against people for having forbidden opinions is great fun and all, until your forbidden opinion is the one facing the angry mob. So stop it. Stop covering your face, joining up with your gang and beating up innocent people because you don’t like what they think. This isn’t just a moral issue, it’s a practical one. I’ve watched what you people do, and to be honest you suck at fighting.

Don’t get me wrong; you’re great at being cowards and forming large groups to attack individual unarmed people, you’re highly skilled at breaking windows, you’re proficient at arson, but you suck at actual fighting. And since your groups are made up of people who hate guns and hate the military, you don’t have armed, trained people experienced in the use of violence.

But your targets do. The people you consider Nazis are far more likely to be armed, trained, and prepared to fight than you are. And the more incidents of mass violence you commit, the more likely regular Americans are to fight back. Those regular Americans will be better at fighting than you are. The only reason you people haven’t been beaten down en masse in the streets is because regular Americans are following the rules and expecting the police to stop you. It won’t always be that way. Some day, probably very soon, you’ll encounter people who are intimately familiar with the kind of violence you think you’re capable of. And you won’t win.

There’s nothing that says that they can’t train themselves, that they can’t take steps necessary to fill in those knowledge and skill gaps to be more effective in the physical combat they wish engage in with the police and political opponents.

But as eager as the left seems to ramp up political violence as fast as they can, versus the balances of forces and the level of skill and expertise of their targets suggests that the outcome will likely be one they will not enjoy at all.

Read the rest here.

Student Paper Justifies Left-Wing Violence at Berkeley Riot

The Daily Californian, a student newspaper at the University of California at Berkeley, published a series of essays justifying the violence at the Feb. 1 riot that shut down a speaking event featuring Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.

The series called “Violence as self-defense” provides justifications for the use of violence to shut down speech that leftists disagree with.

One piece conflates criticism of the violence with condoning “hate speech”.

“If you call the left hypocrites for being “intolerant” of Donald Trump’s token gay, you may not know what censorship or homophobia or terrorism or fascism is, but you’re correct. I won’t tolerate queer or undocumented students students being outed and harassed in my home, no matter who’s perpetrating it. Don’t play “Who’s The Real Fascist?” with me because fascists win that game every time.” writes Desmond Meagley in “Condemning protesters same as condoning hate speech“.

“If you condemn the actions that shut down Yiannopoulos’ literal hate speech, you condone his presence, his actions and his ideas; you care more about broken windows than broken bodies.”

Meagley also appears to contradict the claim that black bloc rioters were all “outside agitators”.

“These so-called militants are campus students, Berkeley residents and Bay Area locals; teachers, journalists, musicians, parents and athletes, united by love and concern for their peers.” writes Meagly.

“The black bloc is not an organization with an agenda. It’s a strategic approach to protest that, in the case of the entire “Dangerous Faggot” tour, was highly effective. The violence that forms the foundation of Yiannopoulos’ ideology is far worse than any tactic the black bloc uses. You don’t have to like property damage, but understand that without it, Yiannopoulos would have released private and sensitive information about innocent students and encouraged assault against them.”

The claim that Yiannopoulos was to publicly name students in the country illegally at his event is one that he denies:

Black bloc did what the campus should have” also directly and explicitly rebukes claims that the black bloc rioters were outside agitators.

“If you were in the crowd on Sproul Plaza that night, the antifa might have appeared to be a homogenous mass of agents of chaos descending on your “resistance dance party.” This is understandable. Black bloc tactics are primarily designed to protect the identities of the individuals in the bloc from doxxing, surveillance footage and being singled out for arrest. You couldn’t tell who was behind those masks, and that’s the point.” wrote Neil Lawrence.

“But don’t get it twisted. We were not, as the news, the chancellor and concerned progressives have alleged, “unaffiliated white anarchists.” Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students, of women, of people of color, of queer and trans people.”

Former Labor Secretary and Berkeley professor Robert Reich claims that the riot was a false-flag operation organized by Breitbart and Yiannopoulos:

The claim, echoed on the university’s website, drew criticism from the Washington Post:

So let’s see: Yiannopoulos, who is an outsider to Berkeley and generally unwelcome there, succeeds in secretly arranging for more than 100 thugs to assemble in this city and then invade the Berkeley campus and cause more than $100,000 in damage, all to create a pretextual motive for Trump to alter federal funding for the UC system. And Yiannopoulos manages to do this without a single one of the thugs spilling the beans and tipping off the fact that this violent criminal conspiracy is organized by Yiannopoulos, not his opponents.

To even describe the plot is to make clear how phantasmagorical the whole idea is. Occam’s razor applies here. Or, as medical students are taught, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras. There is no way Yiannopoulos organized these protests, subjecting himself to serious criminal liability and placing the fate of his career on the sealed lips of more than 100 conspirators. Instead, the simplest explanation is the correct one: The persons responsible are left-wing anarchists, as the New York Times (among others) has described in this recent article.

The only thing that remains strange about the events last week is the fact that Berkeley police have proved so inept. While the police were praised for their “restraint” during the riots (and perhaps that praise was justified — I venture no opinion on riot-control tactics), they have been unable to now identify even a single one of these criminals.

The university is also looking into claims that a staffer was involved in the violence, and the FBI is investigating the identities of the black bloc rioters.

Yiannopoulos was slated to speak to a handful of students compared to the presumable thousands who heard him live when he spoke with Tucker Carlson on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” after being evacuated due to security concerns:

Carlson’s program has nearly double the ratings compared to “The Kelly File” which Carlson replaced as Kelly left for a daytime slot at NBC.

According to The Hill, “Tucker Carlson Tonight” is up 95 percent among the 25- to 54-year-old  demographic coveted by advertisers.

Yiannopoulos’ forthcoming book “Dangerous” also spiked to first place on the Amazon bestseller list for a second time.

Yiannopoulos joined Carlson on the Feb. 2  edition of his program to discuss the media’s legitimation of violence against conservatives, saying violence at the Berkeley riot is “the price you pay for being a libertarian or a conservative on American college campuses”: