T O P
TonyDiGerolamo

It's going to be hilarious when Elon unbans him.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PikaPikaDude

His lawyers are trying to get him out of the hole he dug himself in. As usual.


lilpumpgroupie

He wants to leave the deal right now, but the problem is he signed the agreement to pay Twitter $1 billion if he backs out. So now he's gotta go and find a liferaft to jump into.


fr0st2k

1 billion to expose twitter and shut it down? Seems like he knew what he was doing. He's getting a report about all the bots on the platform. If they don't provide that, he can get out EASILY. If he has that information, then he got what he wanted.


skulpyur

I love when Redditors whose prime achievements are connected to either video games or homework manage to see one of the most successful people in the world as somehow incapable.


PikaPikaDude

It's not the first time Musk has shouted things around major financial transactions and gotten in trouble for it. SEC had looked into fraud around Tesla stocks manipulation when he announced going private without actual plans or means to do so. His lawyers then got him out of it with a settlement of $20 million and stepping down as chairman.


skulpyur

Damn, what a loser. If only he could spend his days on Reddit arguing about things he saw on tv, like you.


PikaPikaDude

>Damn, what a loser. If only he could spend his days on Reddit arguing about things he saw on tv, like you. How eloquent of you. I got my news on this from the SEC reports.


skulpyur

No you didn't. You live on Reddit and read headlines and fool yourself into believing you know something.


pssiraj

That's a bit of a logical leap there.


skulpyur

Not really. You can call him immoral or dishonest, but you can't paint him as incapable. Musk understands more about business, law, politics and pr than anybody here. For...obvious reasons.


pssiraj

I'm really not sure the above commenter was calling him incapable.


tnc31

That's exactly what "His lawyers are trying to get him out of the hole he dug himself in" means. You know. As in, incapable of buying Twitter.


hexenkesse1

There is a significant chance that he is a lucky idiot, just the avaricious son of a rich man.


skulpyur

Whatever you need to tell yourself.


hexenkesse1

its good to have a hero


[deleted]

[удалено]


paradox398

yes but he was punished for what? improper thought?


Zybbo

blasphemy


Fit_Temperature_4572

A little canadian on canadian violence. Ya know, since words are now considered violence.


Chromonkey

Something doesn’t have to be violent to break twitters policies. Call Elon.


gotnothing2say_

Who said it was violence dude. It’s called “breaking TOS” lol


Mad_Hatter_92

I’m pretty sure the response Twitter gave included “violence” as if he had committed it. However, this is probably for the better as he needed to get off twitter


gotnothing2say_

Yeh he needed to get off twitter because he’s embarrassing himself. Everyone on the sub seems to think that JBP’s apparent lack of mental clarity is something to be concerned about, as if the real harm being done isn’t the angry mob he’s rallying against people who already have a tough enough time in life as it is. So much faux-concern about trans people being “mentally ill” and “unable to consent to life changing surgeries” coming from the mouths of people who actually find members of the LGBT community repulsive. I’m not speaking for you specifically because i don’t know you- but look around at all the people defending Jordan and try to seriously tell me that it’s not just a shitstorm of bitterness and anger.


knee_cause

What TOS? He was just voicing his opinion. Jesus you guys really are sensitive snowflakes


gotnothing2say_

“Sensitive snowflake” lmao my god, what next?? Let me guess!! You identify as an attack helicopter right??


knee_cause

No, sorry, I can't magically change genders like you do. 😉


gotnothing2say_

Ah I see ! All the bitterness is about envy then


knee_cause

How can I be envious of people that are too uncomfortable with facing reality? In a Petersonian sense, you're cringe.


gotnothing2say_

“Petersonian” Jesus Christ I’m trying rly hard to take what you say seriously but *that*, my guy, is the epitome of cringe.


knee_cause

I'm sorry you're uneducated then :)


Fit_Temperature_4572

My comment was satire.


gotnothing2say_

Lol well you better read the room then, and realise your “satire” is actually taken seriously by the vast majority of Jordan’s fan base


Fit_Temperature_4572

The best satire has a hint of truth to it.


gotnothing2say_

Schrodinger’s satire huh? pretty convenient lol


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


YazaoN7

His exact words: "Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician." This is technically against twitter TOS since so called "dead-naming" is against twitter's "hateful content" policy. Link to twitter's terms of service: [https://twitter.com/en/tos](https://twitter.com/en/tos) ​ Do with this information what you will. I tried to remain as objective as possible as per your request.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Roku-6

His MO has always been culture wars.


redditappacct

Idk. He just came out with a talk with Dave Rubin, which that by itself would make me not listen to it, but it was on the sole topic of issues of gay parenting. Now I fully believe that the ideal situation to raise a child is in a husband and wife household in which stay together and split up and share parenting duties evenly/fairly. That’s ideal, but life is rarely ideal. If a child could be raised by two gay fathers who truly love and care well for the child, it’s probably better than a child being raised in a household with an abusive father and a passive mother. My point being, idk why this is a topic worth discussing right now. It just seems inflammatory and anti gay/lesbian. And right now it seems JP is largely concerned with putting his foot in the sand against anything associated with the left


errantprofusion

Because he hates trans people and benzo withdrawal has damaged his brain to the point where he can no longer disguise his hatred as unbiased academic interest.


tapreddit

WTF is "dead-naming?" No wonder I'm off "social" media!


YazaoN7

Deadnaming is using a trans person's old name. It sounds dumb to me why that's cause for a suspension/ban from Twitter but hey that's the world we live in now.


tapreddit

Thanks for your response. Most of the time when I ask a question here, people assume I'm being sarcastic and/or attacking them. It's nice to have a dialog with someone who actually wants to engage in constructive communication.


YazaoN7

It's hard to know when someone is being sarcastic vs genuine on the internet so I don't blame them. But I understand where you're coming from.


hexenkesse1

thanks, much clearer than his speech. Twitter is a weird place.


BukowskyInBabylon

He was saying the behaviour of the practitioner that removed the breasts from Ellen Paige was criminal. Probably referring to Elliot as Ellen was the reason for the ban.


lilpumpgroupie

It's dead-naming a trans person, which is clearly a hate speech violation in Twitter's terms of service. You guys know that, though. Downvote away.


Worldsokayestrunner5

Bruh he needs to get off social media. Everyone needs to get the fuck off social media.


Zeioth

Twitter will eventually kill itself with the current level of censorship. Even Facebook do it better, and they are basically the evil.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hexenkesse1

Thanks for posting. A lot more people need to understand.


Hadron90

Media companies do NOT do what makes the most money. They aren't there to maximize profits for the company. They are there to produce propaganda. The billionaires that own and operate them are happy to operate them at a loss, as long as the propaganda is having its intended effect.


catotheyoungster99

Yeah vanguard and morgan and stanley definitely are Marxists who dont care about making money


Hadron90

Vanguard and Morgan Stanley aren't media companies... ​ They use media companies are one cog in their scheme to produce social and political outcomes that make their other subsidiaries more profitable.


tapreddit

NO. Publicly traded companies are THERE to earn DIVIDENDS for shareholders. That's the whole point of going public.


Jake0024

I'm always fascinated why people proclaim that some of the fastest growing companies in the world (Twitter, Disney, etc) are going to suddenly go bankrupt if they keep doing what they've been doing. It's like telling Steph Curry he needs to start taking your advice on how to make 3 pointers if he wants to win.


kbr8510

Yep those are exactly the same things


Jake0024

Yes.


Zeioth

Tumblr is a good example of going to far in trying to please advertisers. It crashed faster than apolo 13.


Jake0024

You're referring to Tumblr banning porn? Apollo 13 didn't crash.


Hadron90

Fastest growing companies in the world are Twitter and Disney? Lol what? Disney is down 10% on its 5-year chart, when the S&P500 is up 50%. The means Disney isn't even close to keeping up with the market, let alone outperforming it.


Humble_herbs

Jordan Peterson is one of the few people in the world today who is actually making some sense. If you get offended by anything he says it's more than likely because you are part of the problem.


Shay_the_Ent

This attitude is what pushed him off the edge imo. This idea that someone is so smart and perfect that you can’t disagree with them or be offended is absolutely stupid. Peterson wanted to cultivate curiosity and independent thought, not some quasi-cult that follows an old man’s every last word. The thousands of people online who blindly support everything he does thinking he’s the next Jung probably make it hard to tell when you’re doing right or wrong


Roku-6

Nah. His popularity has always been fueled by trying to wage a culture war.


FreddyXII

Sorry but he stepped to far with saying about Page what he said. He also intetionally used the wrong pronounces after he said he would not do that years earlier. He could have communicated his thoughts about the topic in a respectfull manner. Instead he behaves like a teenager. Twitter did him a favor. A star has fallen.


megustcizer

He tried that approach, people still hated him. I think he’s reached a point where he’s said “fuck it, if they’re going to hate me either way I might as drop the filter.”


FreddyXII

Yea you might be right with that. If it's the case I gotta say I feel a little cheated. If it's always been a filter that questions a huge lot of things he said years ago.


megustcizer

It might also not be a filter, he might’ve just reached his limit with the amount of bullshit he’s willing to put up with. I’m a huge fan of JP when he talks about psychology and sociology, but when he starts talking politics… even when I agree with him, that’s when he loses me.


FreddyXII

I understand what you're saying. And it's good to see that there are still supporters of him that are willing to discuss serious topics on a civilised level. Bc he obviously lost his will for that. I have not experienced the hate that he has by so many, so I can't know how that is or what it does with you. But as a clinical psychologist he should be able to separate between angry uneducated enemies of his agenda and people who do not agree with him but do it in a sophisticated (maybe even in a sharp rethoric) manner. Of course the latter group will be the smaller one. But still, he just threw away the reins at some point. Btw not trying to argue against you but rather to illustrate my view on him atm :D


weaponizedtoddlers

He's great in his wheelhouse. Not so much outside of it. Just like everyone else, I suppose.


skulpyur

The cheapest political trick in the book. "You have to use the language I made up and that implicitly assumes I'm correct or else you're being rude". Fuck off with that shit. There's nothing "polite" about accepting people's image of themselves, nor is there anything "rude" about not accepting it. Peterson's tone is actually pretty mild for twitter, the difference being that they as a company have decided that some groups deserve more respect than others, and are dishonestly pretending that they haven't.


FreddyXII

No one Made up any language. A Person asks to be called by a certain pronounce. I'm also critical as soon as people try to claim pronouces that are beyond he or she or they. Thats Not the case with Page. Weither or not you think that Person is a woman or a man is your opinion and you can state it openly. I can call someone by the pronounce "he" even if in my opinion this Person is a woman. In my opinion you also can't force someone by law to use the preffered pronounce of another person. BUT it is something, that triggers a Lot of people, and not just transgender people. There are enough people outside of that Community who would think its rude If you're calling them she or he against their wish. That means If you are interrested in a rational discussion about these topics you respect that Line. Peterson himself Said he would call transpeople by their preffered pronounce. I for myself don't give a toss If you call me he or she or it or shit. However you please. And it would be great If everybody has that mindset. But that's not the case. So you have to adjust your use language so that people don't think you're rude. It is how it is. How would you feel If someone repeadetly call you by your wrong pronounce or by a Name of the opposite gender? You make a fair Point by saying just cause someone is rude it doesn't mean theyre wrong. Totally agree with that


skulpyur

Of course it is made up language when you start referring to a man as she, or to a woman as he.


FreddyXII

No Made Up Words...


FreddyXII

What exactly do you mean? Please elaborate.


skulpyur

With that I mean it's a very new way of using language, used by a very small percentage of the population. The vast majority of people don't accept it. Requiring everybody to go along with it, as "politeness" or "respect", as if it had anything to do with what people generally mean by that, is dishonest. It's a trick to not have to defend your ideas, by shaming your opponent into linguistically accepting them before the discussion even gets started. Let's say there's a discussion between a Christian and an atheist. The Christian says "before we get started, you have to know that you need to refer to me as Chosen and yourself as Heathen. Anything else would be rude and you'll be removed from the discussion" You'd have to be a pretty dumb atheist not to see what trick is being pulled on you. The same trick is being used by the pro-transsexuality crowd by mandating that everybody respects their chosen pronouns, before there can even be a discussion about whether you can choose your pronouns at all.


FreddyXII

Using someones wished pronouns doesn't mean I share the same view about their gender. It doesn't conclude to anything except that I think there is reason enough to do it. What reasons, only I can know. What about you? I don't have a clue about your pronouns. Let's say I would know about them, I would even know your Name. We talk and I intetionally use the opposite pronouns and also just call you by a name that is being associated with the opposite gender. Would you be able to take me serious or be willing to discuss a serious topic with me? Do you think it is (in whatever way) wrong to reffer to a biological male human being as "she"? And if so why? The discussion "should we use preffered gender pronouns" is difficult because both sides get offended if the rules of the discussion don't follow their opinion on the matter. You pointed that out clearly.


gmyers1314

I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels this way.


FreddyXII

Ya me too. The development of his claims in the last view month has been a downward spiral. Sheds a whole new light on so many things what he said years ago...


gmyers1314

Exactly! He made so many claims which sounded reasonable. My friends on the left said that he was a bad fella and I defended him. His lectures were so well thought out, how could he be bad? And now their accusations seem justified and I’m left holding the bag for someone I thought was a hero.


FreddyXII

He introduced me to Nietzsche, whom I came to like even more then Peterson even before he turned Into this hermit. I made the same experience. My Friends on the left also never liked him and I felt the need to defend him. After all he induced a whole new debate about reaponsibility and ecouragement, things I always lacked. He became a mentor to me. I always thought he had a couple of opinions that I didn't hold so I was able to agree with my friends here and there. But now it's just over Have you seen the video with his weird poem about Trudeau and Pinocchio? When he released that I thought it can not get any worse. Then the Sports Illustrated Tweet plus Video... And now this... What a decay.


princesoceronte

I'm glad people are starting to realize he has been lying for years about his stance on trans people. It was never a free speech issue, he clearly has a bias against them.


tiensss

How are these doctors criminals?


DaleLeatherwood

Personally, I do not agree 100% with what I am going to say, but one might argue that performing gender reassignment surgery on a physically healthy but mentally unwell individual is criminal. And not just "criminal" as in "morally wrong", but criminal as in assault.


rusty022

It is odd. I can’t think of another mental illness that is treated by affirming the patient in their delusion and even surgically modifying the patient to more accurately represent that delusion. I’m open to having my mind changed on that, but it just feels like giving liposuction to an anorexic person.


manoliu1001

It's great to acknowledge our own limitations. Kudos for you mate!


errantprofusion

Well for starters you're operating on the fallacious premise that gender dysphoria being a mental illness means that trans people are delusional. Mental illness and delusion are not synonyms, and trans people are not delusional (at least not any more so than cis people). Transgender people are generally well aware that "sex is real" and that their biological sex doesn't match their gender identity. So when you call trans people delusional you're not pointing to any objective fact that trans people are unaware of or not acknowledging. You're saying that you don't believe transgender identities are valid, based solely on your own experiences as a cisgender person or the words of anti-trans ideologues. In other words, you're not stating objective fact; you're stating your own biased opinion as if it were fact and willfully disregarding the experiences of most trans people. This same bias is what leads to your second assumption - that trans people's bodies (as determined by their birth sex and unmedicated, untreated hormonal states) are more important than their minds, i.e. the people themselves. It's objectification, and it becomes pretty obvious when you see the things transphobes say about trans men "mutilating" their "healthy breasts" and other creepy language. Gender-affirming care is endorsed by experts because it's been shown to lead to the best possible outcomes for trans people, all else equal. You can't therapeutically stop someone from being transgender any more than you can therapeutically stop them from being gay, and trying basically amounts to malpractice and torture.


rusty022

That's a lot and I haven't thought this entirely through so bear with me... >Well for starters you're operating on the fallacious premise that gender dysphoria being a mental illness means that trans people are delusional. Mental illness and delusion are not synonyms, and trans people are not delusional (at least not any more so than cis people). Transgender people are generally well aware that "sex is real" and that their biological sex doesn't match their gender identity. Maybe delusional isn't the best word. Mistaken? Basically, their perception of themselves doesn't match reality. Gender identity is essentially a made up thing. It is essentially 'all in our head'. What is in the trans person's head does not match reality. >So when you call trans people delusional you're not pointing to any objective fact that trans people are unaware of or not acknowledging. You're saying that you don't believe transgender identities are valid, based solely on your own experiences as a cisgender person or the words of anti-trans ideologues. In other words, you're not stating objective fact; you're stating your own biased opinion as if it were fact and willfully disregarding the experiences of most trans people. A trans' person's insistence that they are transgender is quite literally just their opinion. A person's trans-ness cannot be proven as a fact. >This same bias is what leads to your second assumption - that trans people's bodies (as determined by their birth sex and unmedicated, untreated hormonal states) are more important than their minds, i.e. the people themselves. I don't think bodies are always more important than minds, but surely there is a line given certain situations. I wouldn't suggest that we satiate the anorexic girl's mind by further harming her body. That seems to be what we are doing with trans people. >It's objectification, and it becomes pretty obvious when you see the things transphobes say about trans men "mutilating" their "healthy breasts" and other creepy language. They do have healthy breasts prior to surgeries. That's not creepy language, it's a statement of fact. >Gender-affirming care is endorsed by experts because it's been shown to lead to the best possible outcomes for trans people, all else equal. You can't therapeutically stop someone from being transgender any more than you can therapeutically stop them from being gay, and trying basically amounts to malpractice and torture. I'm not against people *being* trans or gay or whatever. I'm against this argument that we need to medically transition trans people. If gender is a social construct, then why remove breasts or penises? And why, especially, push it as a solution for people who are under 18? The only real justification I hear is the suicide rate, which raises even more questions around delusion and mental illness.


errantprofusion

> Maybe delusional isn't the best word. Mistaken? Basically, their perception of themselves doesn't match reality. Gender identity is essentially a made up thing. It is essentially 'all in our head'. What is in the trans person's head does not match reality. See, you're prioritizing trans people's bodies over their minds again. Trans people are not unaware of or mistaken about their chromosomal sex. You are imposing from outside the judgement that this is the only thing that matters, i.e. "reality". This is also a "made-up thing" on your part, with the main difference being that your side of the argument has to ignore the thoughts and words of the vast majority of the people whose lives and well-being are at stake. > A trans' person's insistence that they are transgender is quite literally just their opinion. A person's trans-ness cannot be proven as a fact. In the same sense that most subjective human experiences cannot be "proven", as that is the nature of subjective experience. If you tell me you're in pain, I have to take your word for it - even if we put you under an MRI or EEG or what have you, the physical state of your brain can't be reliably mapped onto any specific subjective state. We can see whether or not your brain is behaving consistently with others who claim to experience pain, but there's no way to *prove*, as such, exactly how much pain you're in. We generally take your word for it, because generally it would be cruel not to. > I don't think bodies are always more important than minds, but surely there is a line given certain situations. I wouldn't suggest that we satiate the anorexic girl's mind by further harming her body. That seems to be what we are doing with trans people. I think this comparison between the harm done by anorexia and the "harm" done by gender-affirming care is entirely spurious, as is the implicit comparison between body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria. The harm of anorexia is that the person is starving themselves. The "harm" of gender-affirming care exists only relative to what biased external observers think someone ought to be doing with their breasts and genitals. > They do have healthy breasts prior to surgeries. That's not creepy language, it's a statement of fact. It's a fixation on the observer's interest in what they see as desirable parts of female bodies that has nothing to do with any genuine concern for the transgender person's well-being. > I'm not against people being trans or gay or whatever. I'm against this argument that we need to medically transition trans people. Not all trans people medically transition, and they catch a different kind of hell from the anti-trans crowd. Whether or not a trans person medically transitions and to what extent is between them and their doctor. > If gender is a social construct, then why remove breasts or penises? Well for one, not all trans people choose to undergo surgery. Two, literally every aspect of human interaction is a social construct. Three, something being a social construct doesn't mean it has no effect on people, and it also doesn't necessarily mean that it exists entirely in the realm of external interaction. In other words, there's a distinction between gender identity and gender roles, between "I'm a girl" and "girls are supposed to do x, y, z". > And why, especially, push it as a solution for people who are under 18? It's not pushed for people under 18. Gender confirmation surgery is virtually never performed on people under 18. You might be thinking of puberty blockers, which aren't surgery and are safe and reversible according to the vast, overwhelming majority of evidence. > The only real justification I hear is the suicide rate, which raises even more questions around delusion and mental illness. The suicide rate is a function of 1. whether or not trans people can get the care they need, 2. whether they have support in their family and/or community and 3. whether society accepts them or not. Give trans people 1 and 2 and their suicide rates drop precipitously; give them all three and they're indistinguishable from equivalent cis populations.


rusty022

I’m not gonna go line-by-line, but I’m just curious. You accuse me of prioritizing body over mind, but you are clearly doing the opposite. You are in favor of removing normal bodily functions and organs to allegedly improve the state of the mind (research is very young on that, especially at scale). Why is mind more important than body for you? Edit: and thank you for your perspective. It’s making me think a lot since the trans scenario does seem different from mental illnesses like anorexia, at least enough to perhaps change the advised medical care. Reminds me of how abortion doesn’t really have a proper allegory.


errantprofusion

...I'm not sure how to respond to that, honestly. Why *wouldn't* I prioritize people's minds over their bodies? I see people as people, not as a collection of body parts. The body parts are important insofar as they affect the experiences of the mind relative to itself and other minds, of course. But why would the body parts ever be an end of themselves? What is the value in "normal" bodily functions if the person whose body it is has to suffer? How do you even define "normal" without falling back on the naturalistic fallacy?


rusty022

It's always a balance, no? Mind isn't always prioritized over body. The hypocratic oath (*do no harm*) is a complex thing in a scenario like this but surely there are medical decisions (removing healthy eyes?) that would be considered harmful even if they did result in better mental health. I guess I'm thinking about that line. Removing healthy penis or breasts seems fine from your perspective. I wonder where that line ends. Remove limbs? Remove eyes? I think your position in the trans scenario assumes the mind is right and the body (in many individuals) must be changed to comply with the mind. I think it is equally reasonable (moreso IMO) that the mind is wrong and that the mind must be healed. That's what we do in other mental health scenarios. And yes, I know it's not cool to identify trans as mental illness but I think it's obvious that it is. AGAIN, thanks for discussing this. I find your perspective gives me a lot to think about even if I'm not being persuaded by it. I have my own underlying assumptions that are different than yours and this makes me think about them.


tiensss

One might argue many things. Some people argue that getting chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer is criminal.


ScarletSailor

i dont think talking about "sins" is "making sense".


timbotemon

What part of the criminal code did the doctor violate?


vegoku92

Please JP take this as a message to get off twitter.


bedasp

I just don’t think the tweet had a good reason behind it. I mean it’s unbecoming if a deep thinker like Jordan. Like what was the goal here JP? Love you but wtf?


Sherwoodccm

He just wrote an article for Dailywire….this was totally a calculated move to make a point….and we all fell for it.


bedasp

Can you elaborate? I actually assumed it was calculated.. I’m gonna go read the article but what do you think his covert goal was?


Sherwoodccm

There’s also a video on YouTube too. I think his point was to goad twitter into banning him, to give him some fresh material for his new partnership with dailywire.


bedasp

…. Nah I don’t buy that, I disagree. Thanks for your opinion though.


Harrisburg5150

Im probably gonna get downvoted but here it goes. I don't understand why he would tweet that. Who the fuck cares about Elliot Page. Why is he wasting time concerning himself with what someone else is doing with their own body. His stance on compelled speech I agree with 100%... however him pointlessly criticizing trans people I don't get. Trans people are here to stay whether you like it or not, and hurling insults like calling his/her doctor criminal only serves to further the divide making open dialogue/discussion less likely. That tweet served absolutely no purpose besides to say "TRANS PEOPLE BAD".


nate_rausch

I disagree. It has been clear in the last month that the gay movement has been mostly taken over by the woke authoritarians and is the latest front in the war against what is true and good in this world. And someone needs to say it, and Jordan is willing to be that someone, even if he says it imperfectly I am very happy he does. This story was just an example. And I dont think the critique of pride being a sin is vacuous. I think it is in a deep way spot on. Pride is to be certain you are right, and therefore not being able to recognize your errors, which is exactly what is being celebrated by the woke.


timk85

I think part of is that JP lives (figuratively) very close to the culture war of this. He's a clinical physician. He has *strong* and *developed* opinions on things like "gender," transgenderism, dysphoria, etc. I also think JP seems the potential for massive harm with some of the methods society is going to "coddle" these folks, and feels like it's his responsibility to step up to the plate. So – yeah, he's going to toe the line here. He's going to draw attention. He's going to be charged.


tilidus

Well said


dbelow_

Why should he not have and share an opinion with those that would follow him? He's commenting on a public figure. If a celebrity decided to cut off two healthy functioning arms I'd call their doctors criminals too for performing the procedure. As far as I can tell, you just want him to only say things that are meaningful to you in particular, and not have all those nasty opinions that you don't like.


nomadnesss

He does it to keep stoking the outrage fire. It’s what keeps him in business these days.


Roku-6

> Why is he wasting time concerning himself with what someone else is doing with their own body. Easy. 90% of his schitck is a culture war. Always has been. See the people backing him here. He just wants them to dig deeper into their trenches so they never question him.


ViceroyInhaler

Jordan Peterson getting banned from Twitter is a good thing. Now he can realize that social media is a nusense and a waste of time. I much liked him before he came back from Benzos to be honest. He's been a real prat since he returned and was like oh I have another book you can all buy. Then he went and toured in the states for right winged assholes in the absence of Trump so he could make a buck while he got farther from his base of followers. Anyone that cries through his speeches like he does needs to get their house in order.


Chromonkey

He also needs to read up on the history of systemic racism in the US. He looks like an idiot when he talks about something he shouldn’t be talking about.


FrenchCuirassier

Systemic racism has never been proven. What does "systemic" mean? Intrinsic? How can a hateful instinct be intrinsic without being written down in policy or taught in schools? It cannot. It doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination. The reason they taught this to you, through papers written by interpretivist social science--which is basically "interpretation" rather than a science. As in, a whole field of study, where they interpret things based on how they feel rather than objective evidence. The reason they use "systemic" is because they cannot say "systematic" because everyone would accuse them of lying. So they say systemic, and then redefine the word use of systemic. Systemic often used in a medical context. Similar to how Nazis used to diagnose societies as "sick" and "systemically ill" etc. In this case, they are diagnosing America as sick and "systemically racist"... Despite no evidence to support it. What policy do they point to? None. What institutions? Police?? based on statistics? Even though more white poor people are shot as a total number? Redlining? Even though that's based on poverty metrics and lone risk formulas rather than race? They have twisted your whole mind into a mental pretzel. In order to accomplish that they need to manipulate your understanding of WORDS.


Chromonkey

>Systemic racism has never been proven. Never is a long time. Do you know what Jim Crow laws were and how many people survived them that are still alive today who never received any form of reparations from the government? >What policy do they point to? None. Well you have to be careful here. They point to policies that disproportionately affect minorities. Your side argues that it comes down to personal responsibility and for some reason certain minorities just don’t have as much personal responsibility because they have too many single parent households. They point to things like the for-profit prison system. The war on drugs. Inadequate access to polling stations or mail-in ballots. Under funded inner city school systems. >Redlining? Even though that's based on poverty metrics and lone risk formulas rather than race? But what could possibly put black people on the bottom of poverty metrics less than a hundred years after slavery was ended?


_En_Bonj_

Can we stop the petty downvotes on this subreddit and just let the discussion happen.


BackgroundEnd3567

Yes please! I always thought downvotes were more for people that didn’t follow the sub’s rules, e.g. using emoji or not staying on topic. Not for disagreeing with people who articulate a different thought than you. I’m a self-taught Redditor lol so I may have missed or confused some key guidelines.


DongEater666

Systemic as in there are systems eg laws and institutions in place that disproportionately affect one race over the others. It's just something you can see in crime stats. If you want to argue about the underlying cause, or whether it even matters, that's fine. But it's not that deep, that's all people mean when they say systemic racism. It doesn't have to be intentional, just have a disproportionate effect on a racial group


Jake0024

> Systemic racism has never been proven. What does "systemic" mean? Intrinsic? How can a hateful instinct be intrinsic without being written down in policy or taught in schools? It cannot. It doesn't exist. It's a figment of your imagination. What an absolute ride.


Inaplasticbag

JFC, this is the dumbest fucking nonsense I've ever read.


[deleted]

ta mère suce des énormes saucisses mon gars


ViceroyInhaler

There's a lot of things he shouldn't talk about. I still respect the guy I just think he's not the same person he was before he disappeared for two years due to his addiction. I feel like he decided to monetize himself off of trump supporters because he didn't have the same income coming in. I still think he has great points like how Twitter banned trump over Jan 6 but allowed the leader of the Palestinian movement to stay on their platform despite him calling for the death of all Jews. But JBP has indeed changed and I think he needs a reality check. As Chapelle said in his last Netflix.special. Twitter isn't a real place and I always thought JBP shouldn't have engaged in that cesspool of nonsense.


Hot-Box-6003

Doesn’t it sound silly to you to think he goes public with his opinions *just* to satisfy the Trump supporters? Like is it not at all possible he’s just talking about what he’s observed as a clinical psychologist and speaking his opinions? I don’t understand the logic when stating he does it just to ‘monetize himself’. Obviously… that’s the point. You’re saying his whole stance on things is null and void because of this. It’s just a pathological assumption of his motives - which I don’t think you can defend with certainty


ViceroyInhaler

He goes away for two years because of his addiction and is silent. Now for someone who listened to him for many years before this it was an insult to come back and be all like hey I'm not really going to address this at all but here's a new book you can buy on ten rules to live your life. Also then he's like Fuck Canadians because of this lockdown nonsense I'm gonna go to the states and do shows there for anyone that will see me which is especially trump supporters who will give me money for "freedom n' shit". Then complain nonstop about all the regulations we had in place before he left on twitter. But also he's not gonna mention any downsides to Trump over the conservative movements at this point whatsoever because fuck that, it would cost me money. Even though he personally doesn't agree with a lot of what Trump was about he realized he could milk his followers for a few dollars more. And then singles out one person's choice to get breast removal surgery despite the fact that he already knew people were doing this. So no I don't think it's pathological to disagree and lump sum him into this category at all. He's been profit motivated since he got back, and his decision to join the twitter space was asinine to begin with.


24amesquir

they literally proved all his points for him he dosen't even have to try


beebee_boi

What is JPs take on things like circumcision? Genuinely curious, does anyone know?


timbotemon

Or tattoos? Or breast augmentation in cis women?


thinkbox

You mean women?


timbotemon

No, had I meant other I would have said it. In any case the answer is...?


thinkbox

Not sure you know what a woman is. Not sure we can have a conversation if you have definitions that have no basis in reality.


timbotemon

Just answer the question please.


thinkbox

Your question is a continuation of a question about what someone else’s take on a topic is. I can’t answer for JP. You’re asking me to. I have no answer for you on behalf of JP on a topic he hasn’t talked about. If you can’t tell me what a woman is, how can we even talk about women? I think we’re done here. Unless you want my view on those things. I could tell you how tattoos are different from cutting off sex organs.


timbotemon

Do you always try to run away this fast when asked some basic questions?


Chromonkey

Why go after Elliot Page? This hurts his point that he only cares about compelled speech.


FrenchCuirassier

He didn't go after her, he accused the physicians/psychologists advising him.


Chromonkey

Who did he name in the tweet?


FrenchCuirassier

He named the same human being formerly named Elliot Page. At least I think because I'm not sure.


Chromonkey

Nope. They are currently known as Elliot page, not formerly.


FrenchCuirassier

Wait was she Ellen Page before then? Both girly names so I can't tell. Also how do you know she is currently Elliot Page, what if she detransitioned, we can't know that, we can't read her mind at any moment. We don't know at this very moment what gender.


Chromonkey

You do realize that Peterson went out of his way to mention page? I can understand why you are confused but it is the confusion of Peterson, who chose to tweet about page, that bothers me.


FrenchCuirassier

How do you know? The names are very similar, he could have simply did some googling and thought that was her name. What bothers me is how you, in authoritarian fashion, try to enforce peoples' language and if someone made a mistake then you punish them for it. Peterson didn't say anything wrong and he was punished for not knowing the current state or name of someone who just recently transitioned or detransitioned.


Chromonkey

Peterson was a dipshit and should have stayed in his lane. It wasn’t a simple mistake where he mispronouned someone. He referenced the surgery and did it anyway. Dipshit style.


VectorPowers

Bruh jp didnt make a mistake. He's smart. He said exactly what he wanted to say.


perhizzle

I do believe it's one of the 12 rules.


dr3adlock

You could just as easily assume he knew what he was saying as much as you believe he dident. I guess we will have to wait and see if he tells us if it was intentional or not.


FrenchCuirassier

They should unban him until he says what he was actually thinking. Otherwise it would be banning him on the basis of a thoughtcrime and it would be Orwellian.


SnooRobots5509

Are you actively trying to prove that you're dumb? Because your post reeks of (quite impressive) stupidity.


wallace321

>This hurts his point that he only cares about compelled speech. only? He's allowed to care / have an interest in other "issues of the day". I don't think cosmetic double mastectomies were even a thing waaaaay back in 2018.


Chromonkey

You misunderstand me, I think. Peterson got famous because of bill C16. He said he would use the pronouns of trans people if it was voluntary but if the government compelled it he would not stand for it. But now he is deadnaming Elliot Page and using the wrong pronouns and that has nothing to do with governmental compelled speech.


FrenchCuirassier

What's deadnaming? Never heard of it.


Chromonkey

It’s referring to a trans person who has changed their name as their old name, even though you knew which name was current.


FrenchCuirassier

How do you know that someone knows which name is current?


Chromonkey

Because he referenced the surgery and the coming out. That’s like acknowledging the housewarming party but sending a card to the old address.


FrenchCuirassier

And what if the person detransitions we can't know whether it's the old or new house because there's only two houses and neither of the houses are sold or gone. Do you know on this very night what gender the person named Page is? Surely they can change their mind considering how recent the transition was.


Chromonkey

It’s called basic research and detransitioning is pretty pretty rare in the trans community. I can’t even think of a single trans celebrity who ever detransitioned, ever.


FrenchCuirassier

How do you know if they are or are not detransitioning? Or how do you even know it's rare, did you take a survey? Maybe it's very popular and trendy. We can't predict the future, we won't know if transitioning or detransitioning will remain popular. But likely with current scientific advancements in "transition surgery" being "affirmation surgery" and crude and having serious life implications, that means detransitioning or not transitioning fully will likely be the more stable and healthy option for most of society.


gotnothing2say_

Hey I’ll sum it up for you real simple. The idea is that if someone says they’ve changed their name/pronouns to something, then until they say otherwise, you’re supposed to use the name/pronouns they asked you to. Pretty simple :) Now you can choose *not* to use that name or pronoun, but guess what, we’re gonna choose to call you an asshole in response :)


FrenchCuirassier

I don't have to do anything you tell me. Why do I have to listen to what you ask? Well I think you're the asshole for supporting an enforced language system upon humanity in an Orwellian way. I think you are the asshole and I will call you that as well :). I have no reason to agree, bend to your foreign dictatorship Orwellian ideas, nor will I do as you say just because you said it or asked. I know for a fact, without a doubt, you didn't invent this BS, you just parrot it not knowing its origins. We cannot possibly know if they are transitioning or detransitioning at this very moment, it could change at any moment. It's a bit like Schrodinger's Cat. So why would I be forced to change my language like that. What if someone said "when I am in a happy mood call me King, and when I am in a sad mood call me Sad Orangutan." Will you comply to my language change proposal?


nimbus_47

If he knows about the surgery and stays up to date with whatever is hot in trans community for the sake of his profession, why would you even suggest that he is perhaps ignorant on this matter? Also, isn't research a thing? If it was a genuine "mistake" and if he wanted to respect his name and pronoun, his daughter would have spread the word already.


FrenchCuirassier

so now his language is dependent upon how current and up-to-date someone is about their surgeries and transitions/detransitions? >isn't research a thing? Imagine us researching solving climate change or researching how to live on Mars or Space stations, and here we got people asking us to research the personal lives and latest trans/detrans status of various individuals. The very fact that I have to debate this with you totalitarian trollfarms is a decay of society/humanity. That I am unable to convince you on logic and reason is even further evidence of your trollfarm paid shill attitudes. >If it was a genuine "mistake" and if he wanted to respect his name and pronoun, his daughter would have spread the word already. But you don't know if it was a mistake or not when he was banned. So morally speaking, the ban was logically immoral. It cannot be any other way. And even if it wasn't a mistake, who are you to dictate his language? Are you dictator of the world? or dictator of the proletariat?


Buttpooper42069

We'd be living on mars and curing cancer if it wasn't for those pesky trans people! Damn the decay of society/humanity.


nimbus_47

Yes, his language is dependent on because that's what he claimed he would personally do without the government needing to enforce it. That's the whole point. Learn about the facts of his own claims on this matter before running to defend him. Also, he is a social commentator who got his fame talking about pronouns...it's not hard to expect a professional in his field to do research before talking. It's more ridiculous to expect him not. Also, you're trying to defend a psychologist whose job is to research and find out why people do what they do. It's a subjective field so he can definitely argue with people but he said it himself that he would call a person by their preferred pronoun. He even has the right to change his mind but still requires public explanation given that's the life he has chosen for himself. I actually agree that Twitter shouldn't have banned him, but he had this criticism coming his way either way.


whiterrabbbit

its almost as if it was never about the bill at all??


Jake0024

It's JP's claim. He said he doesn't care about trans people existing as long as he's not forced to his specific language. He's proving himself wrong.


wallace321

>doesn't care about trans people existing as long as he's not forced to his specific language. > >He's proving himself wrong. Isn't he being called out right now for calling her the wrong name, using the wrong pronoun?


Jake0024

For calling him a "sinner" and his doctor criminals It was never a very convincing story


paulbrook

Hurry up, Musk.


LookDamnBusy

JP does not have the mentality for Twitter. As a psychologist, he could some self-analysis in realizing this, which he actually HAS a couple times. But he always comes back; what's he getting out of this?


tiensss

I thought he said he already quit Twitter? Did he lie?


OrigamiMax

They’ve been waiting for the first excuse


Zybbo

Yeah take that Heathen! Banished for blasphemy!


Khaba-rovsk

Seeing that unhinged tweet they are doing hm a favor.


[deleted]

[удалено]


elwood80

Lol. It’s absolutely the sin of pride. That’s the whole point.


[deleted]

[удалено]


elwood80

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/ds68e/norm_macdonald_on_gay_pride/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf


B4NNED4LIFE

I don't think twitter has been beneficial for him either, but we have to recognize the cultural significance of this obsessive narrative. In this case, the media found a poster child to parade around. Her image serves as the unquestioning testament to increasingly radical support of life altering surgeries. This person's life choices should not be a staple for projecting it as something the public should view as encouraged or desirable.


Wolfman_Black

>Almost as good as pretending not to know what "pride" means in reference to "gay pride" and how that isn't the same as the sin of pride. From what I've seen of pride parades, I'm not convinced.


OakyFlavor2

Not everything needs to be nuanced intellectual discussion.


blaze_blue_99

They’re absolutely the same meaning. Pride cometh before the fall, as they say.


Totally-Todli

Regardless of what was said Peterson is a human prone to error. With anyone you need to pick and choose the good from the bad. You can say the same for anyone. I appreciate his work because he introduced me to voices I never would have learned about. I now hear people exalting him and I find an issue with this. Sure appreciate him for the good but understand their are unlikeable qualities about him just like you or me. I also wish peterson would steer clear of these niche topics I don’t care about transgender people do what you want I understand the issue with pushing this on children but past that is where I stop caring wtf happens. The west needs engineers yesterday and I think Peterson has an amazing platform to push for improving education and assisting people to discover this path.


CameronGSnow

Who is Elliot Page?


xela2004

I really am not sure I understand why he had to tweet about this. I mean lots of women have had double Mastectomies, like Angelina Jolie. It’s one less cancer to look forward to. It’s done everyday. Now, Elliot did it for other reasons, but they are an adult and can do what they like really. Twitter banning people really elevate these “hateful” tweets to a whole other level. I mean how many more people saw this tweet cuz it’s now a news story. Seems like Twitter is spreading the “hate” more than the original tweeters. Ps is the hateful part just calling her Ellen instead of Elliot ?


bugunc

Elon doesn’t get in trouble. Everything he does is very calculated. The radical libs are freaking out because they’ve been using bots to create an entire army of people who do not exist. The woke crowd is significantly smaller than social media would have you believe.


bugunc

It’s insane the way they’ve erased Ellen Page from history. Not revisionist history but Soviet style ghosting. Oh and Caitlyn Jenner won the 1976 mens decathlon. Insanity.


rvngstrm

People still follow this Peterson joke?? Lmao, anyone with half and education and a desire to think for oneself can tell he's a schmuck. People really overestimate the opinions of people titled "Dr." with an audience. No wonder the world is in such a state, being made up of morons such as his followers.


sakuraigt

Because fuck education and science right?


rvngstrm

I'm all for education and science. But this man does not represent that. He man express that he does to his audience that affirm each other. But expression and reality are not the same.


rh681

So if I wanted to say that Ellen Page did a great job in the X-Men movies, is that still allowed? Can you say Bruce Jenner was a great athlete? All so stupid.