Isn't Peterson the dumb **** who doesn't understand how laws work?

All I know is there's a lot of pseudo psych evaluation while the SJW class remains undefined.

All i know is their in colleges and for some reason conservatives are getting their asses kicked in starting private colleges and applying for jobs to influence state schools. Maybe they should pull up their bootstraps and man up if they are having trouble competing.

Freudian pun, comrade?

More like im an idiot.

I don't think so

compared to you? probably

isn't it funny how he articulates things with incredibly depth and precision and the response from 2p2 SJW's is either silence or some totally blunt and ignorant statement you would expect from interviewing the crowd at a monster truck rally

well to answer your statement directly, he cites multiple lawyers including those that prime ministers consult with. he also notes that the university legal team agrees with him and their warning letters demonstrate this. he also has a debate available online with SJW lawyers involved and they basically agree with him. the only thing the SJW lawyers clarified is that the justice tribunal can't put you in jail, they can just fine you for everything you own, and if you don't pay, then another branch of government will be the ones locking you up, not the justice tribunal (which has happened). that wasn't even a disagreement, just a clarification as to how they arrive at the same point

if you're watching the peterson videos and not learning anything while simultaneously making simple and blunt comments on the topic, take a moment to pause and reflect

Why watch a video of someone who uses the stereotype SJW with a straight face? I'll read a synapses of the ideas the video contains if one is posted ITT.

definitely dont pay attention to a tenured psychology professor who taught at a place called harvard about the psychology behind philosophy in communism and marxism. its only decades he's put in to this. he also has a degree in political science

for sure ignore that and just pay attention to.... who? oh right, theres nobody on the far left even attempting to articulate anything, never mind a counter argument. so far the only counter arguments we have seen are useless labels. you're behaving just as expected. keep up the good work and keep ignoring the people that explain in great detail how and why you predictably behave this way

That doesn't look like synapses. He can't be that smart if his ideas are impossible to rephrase because of his credentials.

I didnt say i had given countless examples to you in particular but I have given many examples in a few of these threads.

We will stick to university's and start with micro aggressions for now though. It is true there are no official punishments for students using them except perhap being outcast and labelled something they are not by other students for not using them. If you are a faculty member it is a whole different story though.

Having a look through the list of micro aggression some really do seem quite socially clumsy but at the same time ones I cant even imagine being used all that often and other stuff is just innocuous and others are almost political opinions that they are trying to discourage people from saying. Things like saying I believe the most qualified person should get the job. What the hell is wrong with saying that?

But my fear is that the lists will expand and students and faculty members will be treading on eggshells in case they say the wrong thing and lose their jobs. Im also concerned that it will breed a attitude where people will begin to look for racism or slights in everyday language.

The first example is where a professor at Clarmemont collage was forced to resign after responding to an email to a student who was struggling to fit in. She emailed back a a supportive email in which she offered to meet and talk to the student. Her Heinous crime? To use the phrase "dont fit the mould" when referring to the student.

http://college.usatoday.com/2015/11/...dent-protests/ The email is included in this article.

This resulted in mass protests, hunger strikes and of course the professor lost her job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlB7Vy-lZZ8 Here is a video of the protests in which captures some of the protest and her apology. Its actually difficult to watch , i dont see a civil rights movement battling to overcome racists I see ideologues taught to see racism everywhere bullying en mass a nice women who happened to use the wrong phrase in an email. The video is really long but at 8.40 you can see her apology.

This is happening at a liberal arts collage , the administration here are among the most progressive in the country. If these people can lose their jobs for being racist anyone can.

This is a perfect example of how teaching people that innocuous phrases are racist or aggressive can snowball and lead to a very poisonous attitude and all in the name of social justice. There are alot of examples of how this authoritarian attitude has infected university's particularly in the US and alot of faculty members are scared to speak out as they are in fear of losing their jobs.

Not to be outdone Cardiff university in the UK recently produced a list of micro aggression that have been criticized by academics for being authoritarian. Banning words like manpower and tax man. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-s...wales-39153731

Dr Williams who featured in this article also published results of a free speech university rankings and found that 63% if university's actively censor speech.


The lecturer asserted that the students premise was wrong and the the wage gap was real despite the fact that many academics including feminist ones have debunked it. The premise is not flawed the wage gap is very much up for discussion, the theory has many holes in it and doesn't take into account many factors before reaching its conclusion and to dismiss the students premise and not let her use non feminist sources is pushing their own ideology down the students throat.

just keep accumulating 10's of thousands of posts on 2p2, ignore experts on the topics you participate in, and pay attention to..... who? right. exactly. just keep being you champ

i dont know why you think people should provide you cliff notes as if your time was valuable or youre worth convincing. perhaps demanding sound-bite information and then accumulating 10's of thousands of sound-bite posts might elude to the depth of your thoughts and reasoning

just do you champ. pay attention or don't. articulate an idea or don't. maybe reflect on you post count and think about what sort of content or ideas it has produced. as far as i can tell its just an endless stream of what we see on this page. i can't tell if you and others like you are here to discuss politics or just lonely

Why are you trying to tell me what to do or not do, or continue to do; and why are trying describe what I am doing like you can't know what I do?

That doesn't help explain the ideas video represents one bit.

Hey, You used the time and space that may have been used to describe the video to instead write fiction and speculation about people. I like to know why people do that.

I don't know if that helps with you not knowing why anyone would want to know if a bunch of great ideas in a video is describable. Is the video describable? I don't know and I have plenty of the meantime to wait to find out.

Do you mean SYNOPSIS? You mis-used 'synapses' not in one reply but in more than one...

You understood. Noted.

I really wonder what alt right sites slug mostly reads given he's Scottish and most of his "proof" is small or anonymous Canadian schools. Mind sharing, slug?
Dude literally got mad that a student was told to use academic sources for post secondary courses. Most classes would give you an F, she got told to try try again with actual sources. Anyone who has been to University would be mad the prof was so lenient tbh.

I don't get why the people like slug, juan and others who aren't involved in academia, have aren't currently or never have been to university are researching and defending any instance of a student or prof getting involved or hurt by "SJW." I've searched for Slug, Juan, Wil and others to see one post about penn st, baylor, minnesota or others and see if they're outraged by the much more prolific cases on campuses there. Nope! Nothing! Wonder why!

Slug, Juan, either of you want to answer why if you're so concerned about campus behaviour you have both spent tens of thousands of words on "SJW behaviour," but not one on the mass coverup of child sexual assault or sexual assault on campuses, with full fledged investigations at all three of the above mentioned cases?

Well, you said that you'd given countless examples. If the three to me personally are anything to go by, volume isn't going to help here. But in spite of that, instead of just dealing with the first two (the one you couldn't remember but were sure of, and the one from a Christian pro-life propaganda site with zero details) you're now bombarding me with three, four, and five.

Here's how it goes. You give examples, some get dealt with, but instead of ever retracting or discussing them, you make sure to slip in an ever increasing number and later remember it as "countless examples" in spite of never producing one good one. All that happens is I have to play catch up constantly while getting buried in paperwork.

But let's talk about the evil microaggressions again. We've gone from "you're not allowed to ask where someone's from" to "it's not a real offence but you might get socially ostracised"? Is that where we are on the evils of this supposed authoritarianism?

I posted before an anecdote, you can treat it as a hypothetical, in which the question "where are you from?" seemed, to me at least, more than mildly ignorant and offensive. As far as I can tell, that's all anyone's talking about here. These little instances where passive treatment of certain classes can amount to an aggregate of mild discomfort. Does that seem reasonable to you?

I remember seeing the Claremont stuff posted at the time, but I don't remember the details. I do remember the students of the time claiming that it was about more than e-mail and that the offensive line was emblematic of a campus that failed to provide protection to certain classes of student. Whether that's fair or not, I don't know, I don't expect to solve that by reading the e-mail again. I do know it's in ****ing Missouri, so racism is probably a thing there.

The Cardiff thing, it's a shocking headline to then get to "encourages the use of "gender-neutral terms". Seems fine. What's wrong with that? Again, I can't actually find anywhere that states their exact policy (although I haven't tried very hard) to see if this is more than a mere suggestion, but that's not stopping anyone from getting so upset by it. Who the **** cares about such a tame and reasonable suggestion? Again, if this is part of the "countless examples" I'm still not sure what your problem is.

And finally, the wage gap essay. I can only repeat: maybe the student's premise was actually flawed? Maybe instead of being a provocateur bemoaning the liberals, they could've said what the essay was even titled, or what terrible research they'd attempted to use, before we got a shock horror the professor said to use real research.

So, for now, I'll give you the Claremont case in a very very tentative maybe pile, and put the rest in the category of **** I don't care about.

As Bladesman said, wouldn't occam's lead us to think that a first year student just used shitty research and handed in a shitty paper? Rather than hang our heads about the evils of SJW, perhaps, just perhaps that a teenager did poor research and wrote a poor paper?

It is totally 100% normal for a student to have to have their research sources OK'd by the teacher or professor of the class. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the students should be teaching the professors, and that's not how academia works.

You do know that the paper wasn't written, right?

Isn't one of the central premises of the anti SJW movement that the academic world, and in particular the social sciences, is filled with people who spend an endless amount of times performing what could be regarded as little more than intellectual masturbation?

That's him to a tee. Which I don't object to as long as doesn't come with a lucrative salary. But celebrating him as a hero of free thought is just lololol.

Nobody really thinks there should be no censorship in terms of what professors can say, we would just disagree on what and why. He doesn't like the official recognition of non binary gender designations, so he's protesting by eating the fines that'll be thrown at him. Bravo. Fight the power, brother.

The incidents posted by slug weren't even examples of institutional censorship - it's a case of uppity teens complaining, and then people resigning from jobs from what seems to be a negligible amount of pressure.

But if you're targeting a specific group of people who, like SJWs, are desperate to find a cause to champion, then this makes for great click bait.

So, it was a standard process where a research paper had to have the sources OK'd by a professor first (this is usually worth like 5-10% in these classes) and their bad sources were rebuked and this is bad because...?

Usually research papers work this way in these classes because it makes the student actually use University accepted sources and so they're not doing a 12 page paper the night before it's due.

Also "Why the wage gap is a myth" is an awful topic for a paper. If she had approached the subject as "Is the wage gap a myth? Let's find out and see" and actually used academic sources I bet she would've gotten a much different response.

This didn't really happen at my uni until dissertation work. You were welcome and encouraged to find your own relevant sources, but then you were completely responsible if the examiner read your essay, marked it down, and wrote "WTF is a Breitbart?" as a note. Though this is moot because usually what would happen if you wanted to do that is you'd email a tutor to get their opinion and they'd message back something much like the example here.

Honesty, wouldn't it be better to actually read the post/article and find out what is going on instead of making things up to fit into what you believe occurred?