Thanks for a detailed response. It’s appreciated!

Claiming that group X support person Y and dissecting the views of group X to call attention to things not mentioned by person Y is disingenuous. This is an argument you presented more than once.

I understand what you’re saying, but my goal in this essay was explaining the context in which Peterson’s arguments are understood and debated, including both through his words and through the people who amplify him. I am trusting my audience to get that, too, though some won’t. In particular, a lot of people ignored what I wrote about Peterson being very clear that he opposes the “alt-right” and white nationalism and tries to steer younger audience members away from them, in particular.

You also wrote an overview of bill C-16 as you see it without actually citing or overviewing Peterson arguments against the bill or even his main point of contention. You just lifter a sentence and tried to form an argument around that sentence without presenting or even considering the entire context of his argument.

I’ve watched Peterson’s testimony and read a ton of commentary on the bill and linked to videos and debate about the bill, including ones with Peterson and about his arguments. This is kind of typical of debates about Peterson’s views, as I’ve noted.

I find the alt-right the same as the SJW (and I’ll never understand why they indentify themselves by that title) with their idiotic and malicious use of identity politics to gain convenient benefits.

“SJW” is a label applied by others who try to dismiss progressive views but it’s been coopted in some circles. If you think they are the same, I’d challenge you to explain how to someone about to be deported thanks to policies supported by white nationalists. (I also object to the term “alt-right” generally and usually put it in scare quotes since it obscures more than it explains.) Anyway, I addressed this in the identity politics section.

It is unclear what you have an issue with. Is it Peterson resolve on the matter, the effectiveness of an hunger strike, or refusing to obey the law? What do you mean by slippery slope?

The slippery slope is the purported chain of events that would have to occur to lead to him to getting fined.

You are being naive, at the very least. I’ve seen more than an handful of activists and pundits making the claim that misgendering and individual is dehumanizing and under that definition, it does conform to what Peterson is suggesting.

Okay, but they’re not an attorney general, which is what counts under C-16. Conflating how activists and people on the Internet talk about something (“dehumanizing”) with how the law is used and implemented (“hate speech”) is a huge problem in this debate.

Didn’t you just argue that the use of pronouns does not have anything to do with C-16 and that misgendering an individual will not open the floodgates of suing anyone who misgender a person? If that is the case, than allowing for this exempt is appropriate, especially considering that most (if not all) other groups have only limitation on offensive terms you can use to call individual in the group and no guidelines of how they should be referred to. I don’t need to have a special term for Muslim women other than ‘women’ and there is no need to coin another term to use when referring to them.

No. I’m saying C-16 doesn’t include pronoun misuse. OHRC does. The Peterson argument rests on assuming OHRC precedent becomes applicable to C-16 and it also assumes that misgendering ALONE will be used to hold an institution accountable. This is a big distinction in this argument: what OHRC does is list misgendering along with several other possible ways one can measure discrimination, just as using racial slurs might be a way in a racial discrimination case. The Peterson argument rests on viewing that in isolation rather than in the context of how cases are handled.

on of 72 separate genders

Not in the law. This is more slippery slope. It also conflates listing genders with discrimination against gender identity that causes material harm. Cases decided on context.

You can’t leave laws to a judge’s discretion. Once a judge rules a certain way, it creates a precedent, which could be influence all other cases — your intentions or the nuance you think judges have are irrelevant.

This is critical! The senate debate I linked to addresses this exact point. You CAN trust judges because they look at discrimination cases in context. Legislators did not want to create a confusing misgendering exception to gender identity discrimination precisely because they trust judges to make reasonable, balanced decisions. And THIS is a critical question in tons and tons and tons of political debates. How closely does the legislature prescribe how the law should be implemented? That’s worth debating.

You just described Feminism, BLM, most of the LGBT movements…

No. Those groups are talking about material harm they are suffering, such as losing pay, government control of their bodies, getting their votes suppressed, and being denied civil rights. That’s not just“disagreement.”

But Peterson has also failed to respond to the arguments protestors have made about the need for anti-discrimination laws, even when they’ve engaged him directly in dialogue. And his arguments confuse protest power with state power.

Linked video further down.

I’m not familiarized with that bill but if your interpretation of it is correct, it does goes against free speech and I do find a problem with it.

Thanks. I think that’s an example of right wing politicians directly limiting free speech by students, but conservative groups are silent on it. Compare that to all the leaps you have to take to get to C-16 being invoked against someone like Peterson.

A bit disingenuous, as the bill specifies that it only covers unintentional cases and where the driver has done everything to prevent the accident.

Proving intentionality is notoriously difficult, though I get the rest of your points.

You stop being a protester and become a rioter when you light other people possession on fire.

The journalists weren’t setting anything on fire and neither were all 200 of the protestors.

If you’re going to claim that “34 journalists were arrested,” at the very least you should cite a source that details those arrest to verify the credibility. I do, however, agree that the body-slam by the Republican member of Congress was an unacceptable behavior.

The link has more, though yeah, you can dig into it more. Weirdly, a lot of people had already voted early in that race before the body slam. Who knows if it would have had a different outcome otherwise. The reporter’s broken glasses are in the news museum in DC.

Didn’t you claim that criticism is not harassment and that the public can criticize everyone for their opinion?

I didn’t really claim that, but yeah. My point here was that Campus Reform specifically attempts to police left leaning professors. Note the opening to this list was about free speech AND academic freedom.

What’s your criticism here? That he intends to create such a website, that people could upload course curriculum? That other professors feel marginalized? Or that he is targeting the orthodoxy? Social media does pretty much the same on any given topic. I’ve seen a website years ago that translate the EULA for various online and offline services and products. What’s the difference here?

Targeting people for their political opinions — he withdrew this idea it turns out.

No. You never really talked with any of his supporters…

That’s an unfair assumption! Of course I have.

I wrote: Conflating discrimination and free speech is exactly what white nationalists do.

You wrote: Also progressives. Don’t forget about the progressives.

I mean, shit, if you’re gonna draw false equivalences there’s one for the record books.

I already addressed this point at the beginning but just to reiterate: claiming that two people share a certain viewpoint or a similarity of a viewpoint is trying to pin guilt by association and is not a valid criticism.

As I wrote, Peterson rejects their views — I’m simply explaining why they are associated given how information flows in our society. He seemed baffled when confronted with a picture of right wing trolls unfurling a Pepe flag next to him while wearing MAGA hats.

If anything, the Alt-Right has more in common with progressivism and social justice than it has with anything that Peterson has produced…

The “alt-right” ran over and killed a protestor in Charlottesville, VA. Progressives are trying to expand Medicare to cover everyone’s healthcare. So uh…no.

Seeing as this response is long enough and that in this point in time I’m not sure I’ll even get an educated response on the things I responded to, I’ll leave the rest to later date, when you picked up the mantle and actually addressed the topic.

Like I said, I appreciate it. I think the biggest point on the above is legislative vs. judicial power. It’s often the actual power dynamic informing these debates since we’re talking about hypothetical future cases.