9 Comments

  • This article and the people it quotes are as ridiculous as Cathy Newman’s interview technique. They attack a “Jordan Peterson” that doesn’t exist. Batul Gulamhusein’s comment typifies this:

    “By him claiming that he’s not going to use they/them pronouns, because he believes that the Canadian government shouldn’t get to decide what words you use, is saying to a whole bunch of people, ‘Hey, it’s okay for you to delegitimize trans identities and therefore, the violence that [subsequently] occurs.’ ”

    Utterly absurd. He is not saying that at all. He is not implying it. He has never said anything that remotely supports this interpretation. What he is saying is that government should not dictate the language people use. It is a fairly straight forward point.

    Peterson has gained wide support simply because he pricks the absurd rhetoric of activists like Batul Gulamhusein demonstrating that the emperor has no clothes. No wonder they want to shut him up.

    • Hi Adam,

      Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. We like to see discourse sparked by the topics we cover. I invite you to send a letter to the editor to lee@vueweekly.com for our consideration if you’d like to share more on this.

    • People cherry-pick so much now that they are bound to end up in the weeds. This topic is a perfect example of that—people getting into a complete lather about anyone transgressing on the rights of the underdog du jour that they themselves are battling over who has the most activist zeal for. It does come across as a form of passionate idealism typically associated with young people, which is fine, but still creates a particular context.
      If we could be honest, most people would admit to being fairly daunted by this apparent desire for new pronouns, although most are totally sympathetic to the concept of gender dysphoria. I think many will go out of their way to avoid communication of any kind due to confusion and sheer awkwardness. Understandable.
      Katie Couric did a special on this with many interviews where she pointed out the natural learning curve associated with this apparent social evolution and reasonably asked for patience. This was a much-needed perspective on the actual issue, Jordan Peterson aside.

      • Hi Tris,

        Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. There is indeed a learning curve society faces and dialogue is often the best way to resolve it.

        Keep sharing,

        -Sierra

  • I went to the Jordan Peterson event along with a group of friends, it was hardly the hate meeting that people like this would have you believe. The audience was diverse in race and sex and Peterson talked almost exclusively about trying to get your life together. The resistance to Peterson at times seems pathological and it really does scare me that implicit in all this critique is a constant threat. You constantly see freedom of expression is not freedom from consequences, well what are the consequences? What exactly are you saying you’re justified in doing? So if we say we do not want to a top down government solution to every issue, what are you able to do to us? If I even say that no amount of surgery can change your sex, what are you licensed to do? Press progress is far past hysterical on this issue and would hand over every freedom they had to allow government to oppress their enemies. It is the worst position possible. Peterson brought a lot of hope that night and it showed in the audience, anyone would could protest that event is a frightening ideologue.

    • Hi Kale,

      Thanks for sharing your experience; it’s important to hear from all perspectives. If I may clear one thing up, the article is not inferring any threats to those that attend either event. The overarching discussion of ‘freedom’ is simply qualifying that each of our rights have legal limits, namely when our freedom of expression infringes upon the rights of others, no matter affiliation. The purpose is not to frighten or threaten, but instead to encourage dialogue as you have sparked.

      -Sierra

      • Except, consequences is definitionally a threat. The problem is there is a difference between inalienable natural rights which are limitless and social ones that are situated. Free expression and conscious should not be bound by law. This is vulgarly demonstrates in your quote from progress Alberta “By him claiming that he’s not going to use they/them pronouns, because he believes that the Canadian government shouldn’t get to decide what words you use, is saying to a whole bunch of people, ‘Hey, it’s okay for you to delegitimize trans identities and therefore, the violence that [subsequently] occurs.’“. By situating the ends justifying the means of allowing the government to strip natural rights in order to avoid this slippery slope, is a direct call for an authoritarian state. Civility may call for a sort of polite neutrality, but the government should stay out of the morality game. End stop.

  • I was at the Peterson event and quite enjoyed it. The majority of his speech was self motivation relating to psychology, and goal setting.
    Nothing relating to race, gender, or orientation.
    The closest he went into anything identity politics related was when he mentioned how he did a video series on Genesis out of the bible.
    People freaking out are just making themselves seem irrational to those outside their community.

Leave a Comment