There is no benefit from saying that you're fair and balanced
Correct. to the current day liberal, (progressive) liberalism has become nothing more then a crusade. It doesn't matter if the opposing ideology is bringing up fair/balanced points, it doesn't matter if it holds the moral highground on x subject, or is just simply, factually right. ...
The Holy Quest for the Utopia must continue,
at any and all cost. And this is precisely why (world wide speaking) liberalism is in constant decline. And will keep doing so, untill its proponents realize in sufficient numbers that continually breaking with reality to justify its own (ultimate) fantasies of a "perfect world to be" simply isn't viable.
case in point:
Well, we can start with Jordan Peterson himself. He used to be a prestigious professor in psychology, but then his mind went bonkers when Canada presented Bill C-16. With Bill C-16, gender expression and gender identity would be considered as human rights under Canadian law and Canada's criminal code. Jordan Peterson rallied ardently against this bill, drawing the attention of the right wing around the world. He probably realized he could make much, much more money and gain more fame by catering to the right, so that is exactly what he did. He's also become an advocate for men's rights, which taken literally sounds good and noble, but in reality he's eerily close to red pill and what liberals would consider "toxic masculinity."
Tl;Dr you're right, for Jordan Peterson it's much easier to do all of what he's doing instead of a proper day job. His psychology license is at risk of being revoked, so in the near future he might not have the credentials to return to his field.
en.wikipedia.org
to
@Bobby Summa 's (valid) question of:
Recently im just wandering if such people or public intellectuals or those who address big spiritual subjects just do it to make money on YouTube so they don’t actually have to have a day job
So here we have a man,
-who had a prestigious position as a professor at a top university,
- who's well renowned and cited scientist with multible publications, both scientific papers and books,
- and who has a (profitable) clinical practice next to that,
- a family with a (then) chronically ill daughter to take care off.
who risked all that including his reputation to adress 1 compelled speech issue, (see: explanation below) in 1 overarching bill. This is the antithesis of a man trying to make a living on youtube with rage-clicks because "he doesn't want a daytime job" this is a man of
principle over quick and easy comfort.
yet you, and sorry to say so
@dmgtz96 but its the gods-honest truth and everyone can see it by the way.., rather then acknowleding that just lists of things that you ideologicaly
hate the man for. So Feminist concepts like "toxic masculinity" etc. rather then honestly answering the question of JP just being a money grabber, given his earlier wealthy and secure financial position, status and the risks he took/ motivations for it
You're not honestly answering Bobby's question with a proper example... You just spew propaganda.
Here's an article from when Bill C-16 was being discussed. Jordan opposed it because "support for the legislation was ideologically-driven," which is.... well, yes exactly, it's an ideology. The bill is supposed to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society (transgender).
The bill would enshrine the rights of transgender people by adding gender identity and expression to human rights and hate-crime laws
www.theglobeandmail.com
wrong. JP opposed it because it compelled speech/thought, not because it allegedly sought to protect transgenders.
Bill c_16 does 2 things:
1: it forbids people from not hiring, denying housing and any sort of other discrimination of a transitioned individual based on gender. -> JP is fine with this and has said on numerous occasions that he, in fact, would hire and even address a trans-person by their preferred pronouns, depending on the personal relationship.
2: It, In addition, also make it a (fine-able and further down the line jail-able) offence to promote “hatred” based on gender expression.
^
And this is where the problem lies. “hatred” and “promote” are two incredibly loose and ill defined terms, and in the context of bill C_16 primarily defined by the accuser, rather than the accused. This is where JP takes issue with and has spoken against. As that^part is the compelled speech/dispel wrong think part.
no he didn't/ doesn't. He claims that every weather forecast/prediction by IFCC climate models (so thats not him mixing the two up) have been wrong. which they have been.... So right of the bat he's already being willfully dishonest.
