Student Tries to FRAME Jordan Peterson! INSTANTLY DISPROVEN (Lafayette University)

so the the idea that I've put thought into this is perhaps a optimistic one but as you might imagine you've been a topic of conversation on this campus a lot in the past week or so certainly among a lot of us who discuss politics and one of the things that sort of United people who like and dislike a lot of your ideas is that we appreciate your defense of free speech and we appreciate you coming here to talk about it with us but one of the things I thought was really interesting is professor Van Dyck addressed the distinction between you and Jonathan hight and you mention this is sort of a temperamental one and I think I'm sure that's true to some extent but I noticed you've made a lot of more sort of substantively inflammatory claims like in the course of this lecture you called the authors of Facebook posts demons and totalitarians in past events you've called them things like neo-marxist cultural Marxists you've called them I believe a fifth column that is committing treason against the West and it seems to me this is more than temperamental this is a substantive difference and and and another thing you've done is that unlike height you have a more sort of comprehensive political program you've talked a lot in defense of traditional hierarchies both of gender of class so on though emphatically not race and so it seems like I haven't talked about defensive traditional hierarchies in terms of gender and class that's not true well you've talked about hierarchies in society you've talked yeah that's true I have done that but I haven't justified them on the basis of gender and class you you whatever not okay that's an important distinction but you defend hierarchies in society in a way that you talk a lot about the Pareto distribution yes that doesn't mean I defend it well okay no not well okay yes well I mean I think you are serving that something exists it's the same as defending it how in the world people attack it right you don't people attack it apparently attack the hierarchies of society is inherently unjust right well they're they're unjust yes they're also useful okay so you you say they're useful look look at this question okay look at it this way you obviously think that it's worthwhile to stand up and ask a question yes so you think that standing up and asking a question is better than not standing up nasty question yes okay that's a hierarchy yes of values yes okay without the hierarchy of values you couldn't act of course no no not of course it's hardly why I'm defending the hierarchy without the hierarchy right what's that there is a hierarchy in society no there's multiple hierarchies in society right yes and you say that they are based at you you invoke the lobster right that they are based in in nature I said that they were inevitable yes yes they were inevitable good but my point is that this is do you have a broader point than free speech this is one of the things you talk about yes yes okay whereas I think there are some other activists who focus on more exclusive not an activist there are some other individuals who engage in public political speech okay yeah who focused more exclusively on free speech whereas you have other goals in mind but one of the things that you're more inflammatory language and ferrets the substantive disagreement has done I think is is it's politicized this free speech to an extent that someone like height hasn't I've noticed that when someone hears the term free speech now they associate it with a specific set of thinkers often as viewed as on the extreme right and I think I I think arguably that's the problem of all factions in society because free speech should be a universal value poles certainly suggest that it's coming under increasing threat from both sides but I suppose the heart of my question in addition to of course these other observations is that do you believe free speech is your primary end or do you believe these other points you're making are important because I've heard you a bunch of times defend free speech sort of contextually like you've complained about some of the laws in Canada that you dislike that they institutionalize false facts into the law but it seems to me that an absolutist defense of free speech makes no preference as to crew or false the point is that's something you are being forced to say something it would be as bad as if you were forced to say something that it's true because the point of free speech is that you can say whatever you want right no the point of free speech is so that you can think your way through life without running like headlong into a brick wall position a versus perfect position B is just as bad right even if one is true and the other is not okay well there was a bunch of questions yes good job by the way well actually what can I use one additional addendum which is I I think the the politicization of free speech is by far the biggest threat to free speech because this is all the radical leftists are the biggest well this is what I alluded to in previous questions the substantive threats to free speech in much of the world in Europe certainly I think in the United States as well from the government have come from the radical right and I think it's fair to say that on the specific narrow subset of certain departments on the liberal arts colleges it's fair to say a threat comes from the left though its scope is in dispute but my question is do you think that the way you talk about free speech the way you link it to specific issues the way you use inflammatory language and the way you seem to make it you seem to defend a specific set of frees because there's certainly plenty of instances of free speech attacked on the other side but you don't mention as much do you think you risk politicizing this because it seems to me this okay and not think that's a far greater threat because for example the Norma Rae oh sorry the NRA is a group in the United States the defense guns rights right now you hold it yes we need a question yes okay like this is you're doing fine it's just too much like I can't keep it you think that your behavior risk politicizing it and do you think that polarization is justified I think my behavior risks politicizing it yes I would rather it not be politicized and I'm doing what I can to manage that risk however it's become political in my country because the government implemented compelled speech legislation so I wasn't complaining about that before it became political now Minh when you're detached in some sense from the political realm that you can't be detached anymore well I'm not happy with the fact that this has become politicized you could say that I haven't done a stellar job in ensuring in every possible manner that this has remained neutrally apolitical probably true you know but I'm not particularly unhappy with the way things have gone so far so and I'm not happy with the radical left and so if they're irritated at me so much the better as far as I'm concerned so have I conducted myself perfectly it's like undoubtedly no so I'm I've got more than my fair share of faults and a temper is one of them but I'm muddling through so now I know there is much much more to say and ever but I have some questions from the audience so I'd like to read those and and I'll try again just to divide up the time in the questions hopefully as fairly as possible so professor Peterson let's start with you so this question says you present your issue with Bill c16 to be that the infringement of freedom of expression regarding gender pronouns is a problem do you hold the same stance with other discriminatory language in the Human Rights Code such as being able to use racist terms with regard to students and if you believe that one of these things is a violation but not the other one why I'm not sure I read that out all that well but you get that okay well so one one thing I would like to point out people before answer that just so you all notice is that I have in fact been denounced today and what I am saying has in fact being described as hate propaganda so one thing I'd like to suggest to you every single person in the audience you're next so keep it in mind all right so with regards to the question well first of all I don't think that these issues are the same I don't think they're the same at all I mean I think being thinking about the pronoun thing you know because one of the things that people it's put me back on my heels for a while because the claim was basically well it's something like why doesn't the mean professor just play nice and and respect people by using their pronouns and it took me like three weeks to unpack that because who gets questioned about pronoun use I don't know why the hell I use the pronouns I use I use them because they're part of the language I use he and she because that's what everyone uses and so then I had to think about well why why we in fact use pronouns and we use them in part for the same reason that we use other categories and that's to simplify the world for functional purposes roughly speaking but then I was thinking well is the use of he and she a mark of respect and the answer to that is well no it's not a mark of respect it can't be a mark of reason what you call four billion people can't be a mark of respect right it's it's a mark of basic categorization and so then the claim comes up well if someone wants you to use a particular pronoun then you're disrespecting them if you don't it's like hmm okay let's think that through a bit well that assumes that when I'm using he or she for four people and you know in normal parlance that I'm actually indicating my respect for them and that's not true it's like if I don't know you I clot us classify you generically and basically I classify you in terms of how you present yourself publicly I suppose that's your gender expression and then I nail you with whatever pronoun seems to fit it has nothing to do with respect and besides that you bloody well don't get to demand my respect why should you you know I mean it's not like I respect everyone that's a foolish thing to do you respect people who are respectable you know you you make value distinctions between people and that doesn't mean you illegally discriminate against them those aren't the same thing but I'm all for value judgments if if you don't buy value judgments then why bother learning anything why bother doing anything why go from one point in your life to another if the next point isn't better in some manner so don't tell me that I'm not respecting people and I don't use their gendered pronouns and the other thing is I don't buy this whole idea that the people who are putting this legislation forward are valid representatives of the trans community that's what they say they are we have mechanisms for deciding whether someone's a valid representative of a community and that generally involves democratic voting I've received at least 20 letters from transsexual people who are on my side and by the way zero from others believe it or not who are perfectly happy with the idea of gendered pronouns it's just they want to be the other one now you can have a discussion about that and there's lots of things to be said about it but the idea that this community that's coming out in these demanding these rights is somehow representative of this homogeneous oppressed minority I think is rubbish well leads us to our next question and for this question I'm going to ask both professor Kaufman and professor Bryson to comment on it so one of the objectives of the transgender and queer rights movement is to enter into public conscience in a way and this person asks this can only occur through public conversation do you worry that it's it may not be possible to have thoughtful discussion if there is government restriction about this kind of speech and do you worry that it would skew discuss discussion in one direction or another so perhaps sub professor Kaufman first and then professor Bryson so I've spent a career being concerned about the way in which thoughtful discussion is often shut down and I've been concerned about it on the right I've been concerned about it on the left and I've been concerned about it in the mushy middle and and I think that professor Peterson has actually performed some of this today insofar as he just said that he was denounced here today and that they're going to come for you next so the thing is about speech is that everybody gets it and you say something and you then get criticized so professor Peterson hasn't been denounced some might want to but he has been severely criticized and that is actually what speech does that is what speech does I think that I think that there is an important way to have public discussions around a whole range of issues I would welcome a discussion on the role of hate speech provisions I would welcome a discussion around the role of hate speech and its desirability about whether the Supreme Court of Canada is right or not right in upholding its constitutionality but I would like to have that debate with someone who is knowledgeable about the law thank you and professor Bryson one of the big questions that I had to deal with in considering whether or not to accept the very generous offer invitation of the University of Toronto to come here today would be the impact of this event on trans and gender non-binary people specifically at the University of Toronto and much more generally and so whereas I would say that I recognize practices of peer review and practices of peer review are not denouncement practices of peer review are practices that we utilize to make assessments about knowledge claims whereas I would fully appreciate being able to enter into a discussion about gender and gender identity and issues around trans culture as a means of practicing peer review I think the difficulty that we've had and we've managed to reproduce this difficulty here today characterized just now by dr. Peterson as simplifying the world for functional purposes simplifying the world for functional purposes is not what I recognised to be academic practice this is not how we relate to knowledge and so I think that there's a concern when we don't subject claims that are being made as knowledge claims by people who carry titles at great Canadian universities when we don't treat those knowledge claims in the same way that we would in any other field and when their knowledge claims made about members of minority groups embattled vulnerable marginalized members of minority groups then I think that we all need to be very concerned about how it is that we're changing what we think we do in the university which is supposed to be about the advancement of knowledge and excellence thank you [Applause]

Channel: True American News

Views: 2,390,152

Rating: 4.6145306 out of 5

Keywords: jordan peterson, jordan peterson college, joran peterson, jordan peterson vs, jordan peterson owns, jordan peterson pissed, jordan peters destroys, jordan peterson stumps, jordan peterson religion, jordan peterson abortion, jordan peterson trump, jordan peterson interview, jordan peterson brain, jordan peterson politics, jordan peterson university, jordan peterson attacked, jordan peterson ruined, jordan peterson racist

Id: OHLSv-tdR7w

Length: 15min 29sec (929 seconds)

Published: Tue Jul 03 2018