Tweets Jordan Peterson.
His podcast #287 — "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality" — was deemed "Content glorifying or inciting violence against another person or group of people" or "content that encourages hatred of another person or group of people based on their membership in a protected group."
The podcast title is the title of a book — described here at Wikipedia — and Peterson interviews the author.
[Helen] Joyce writes that the book is about the idea "that people should count as men or women according to how they feel and what they declare, instead of their biology", describes this as gender identity replacing sex, and says this has "far-reaching consequences". Joyce states the book is not about transgender people, but about the lobbying of trans activism.
पोस्ट्स
३८ टिप्पण्या:
YouTube has been banning RFK Jr's videos too. The America we aspired to be is dead. Killed by tech billionaires.
"was deemed "Content glorifying or inciting violence against another person or group of people" or "content that encourages hatred of another person or group of people based on their membership in a protected group."
So youtube banned Mz. Hale's manifesto. I had a hunch they were involved. I've heard of the digital world creeping into mainstream flesh-land before, but this is ridiculous.
Fortunately, there are remedies in the law.
It is illegal to defame a person. Or restrain their trade.
He should sue Google.
It incites violence FROM the trans community. (an angry bunch)
Not TO it.
Any critical word towards the holy and precious untouchable trans community - inspires HATRED from them so much hate that one rage-filled trans murdered children.
leftist extremist have infiltrated academia, the media/politicians(now the same).
Their constant attempts at re-defining reality(words), is just another data point, demonstrating their agenda, ideas, cannot be sustained, in the arena of ideas.
So, the leftist extremist,ie, youtube, must censor speech that exposes the lies.
As long as you understand big tech has a huge mission, to shape all your thoughts, ideas, and beliefs, you can see the scam.
More importantly, you will then understand, the Democrat party and agenda, are unsustainable whithout the censorship provided to them.
toxic masculinity
anti-choice
homophobia
terf
gender
gender affirmative care
affirmative discrimination
redistributive change
ethnic Springs
albinophobia
rape culture
diversity
political congruence ("=")
abortion
"Hate speech" sowed the seeds. Now we are reaping the fruit.
Raising eyebrows, rolling of the eyes, dirty looks will be next. A hearty thank you to all the lib educators out there fomenting this nonsense.
That podcast was from September of 2022. Since it has gone 9 months without being called hate speech; is there any actual evidence that it directly did any of the things that supposedly hate speech does?
"protected group" gee! i was *i* could get me one of those "protected groups"
Christian? not a protected group
American? not a protected group
white? not a protected group
cis male? not a protected group
hetero? not a protected group
i guess *i'm* fair game!!
Are categories of what constitute "hate speech" expanding to include the criticism of what can still be considered, elective surgeries?
Can we see the case of a surgeon refusing to perform "gender affirming care" coming down the pike?
Today you must bake the cake, and you must cut my child's penis tomorrow.
It's worrisome.
Can’t get to the podcast because it’s banned, but exactly how did Peterson “glorify and incite violence”?
I’m guessing he didn’t in any way that a rational person would see it.
Homophilia (e.g. "=", RFMA, social distancing from others in the transgender spectrum) is transexclusive. Two men and a womb is misogynistic. Two women and a donor is misandristic. Coupling is polyexclusive. Gender simulation is transhumane in the majority without scientifically valid forecasts of minority benefits and known deficits (e.g. sterility, dysfunction).
There are a number of cultures, including some of those indigenous to North America who if I’m not mistaken created a piece of artwork Jordan Peterson treasures and uses as a logo, who don’t find people we’d call “transgender” to be some kind of threat and appropriate targets for marginalization or deprivation of rights. Are their beliefs also an ideology with “far-reaching consequences” supposedly aimed at destroying Western civilization? Just curious.
Also, why are the most anti-trans activists men with such obvious sexual defects as Peterson and Ben Shapiro? I understand it can be odd to see poorly passing transgender people blurring the lines between male and female, but the same thing can also be said every time one hears the feminine, high-pitched squeaks emitted from Shapiro and Peterson’s mouths. They do not have healthy, adult male larynxes and talk like women, so how is that not a threat to what they say they’re trying to protect? Do they need testosterone injections? Is their anti-trans activism based in some kind of personal compensation or projection? It would seem so.
Only Democrats can be defamed.
Hate speech laws violate the Constitution, as they violate our right to freely express our thoughts and opinions, no matter how daft or, yes, hateful.
Period.
"content that encourages hatred of another person or group of people based on their membership in a protected group."
Hard to discern: Does this policy protect only certain groups within a protected classification, or all groups within a protected classification?
If the former, it's Animal Farm, where all animals are called equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Protected People (PP) has wicked allusions.
Peterson may have to avoid Canada, France, New Zealand, Britain and Scotland or risk prosecution.
So how will he tour?
Meanwhile, our hate speech laws circumvent the Constitution by attaching verbal acts to simple assault charges, which can include not touching someone but just "bullying," or "creating fear," or merely subjective, imagined intent. As we expand the meaning of those terms, activist prosecutors can, and do, chip away at free speech.
You can argue that we have an absolute right to free speech, but that's on paper. In practice, the hate crimes industry has been moving us towards the British, and worse, Canadian enforcement protocols with this handy go-around for years. I used to keep better records but am now concentrating on one heinous case, which I'm even afraid to mention by name, lest the imprisoned, innocent, elderly victim suffer more.
This is why the Department of Education was such a central part of Bill Clinton's 1997 Hate Crimes Conference. Their contribution was a nationwide curriculum called Hate Hurts, which has and does brainwash children, some now adults, into the current belief that words are as or more harmful than physical crimes.
It's not the law that matters. It's the application of the law, and its interpretation by unelected, unaccountable executive and judicial bureaucracies.
During training for enforcing extralegal hate speech laws -- and the training is where the enforcement is determined, Elena Kagan and Eric Holder crafted police and prosecutor manuals in which slurs against biologically born women wouldn't count (bitch, whore, cunt), but slurs (even the same words) against trans and cross-dressing men imitating women would.
Just in case if you were wondering how we got here.
The same distinction applies to rape and murder, serial killing, sexual assault, torture, and mutilation, by the by. Kill one trannie prostate or stranger, the feds and state hate crime units descend. Kill a female prostitute or stranger, or five, or 20 or 50, they don't.
Yes, Youtube and Google execs will certainly be re-examining their behavior toward him, after such a tongue-lashing. Next time they accuse him of "hate speech", Pederson should up the voltage and say to Youtube: "Not cool, dude. Not cool".
But I'm sure there won't be a next time. No one wants to face the wrath of Peterson more than once.
Jordan is such a cuck.
Hpudding (head?) was that an attempt at logical argument? Total fail.
I think the summary of Peterson’s opinions on the matter:
1. Leave children to develop without intervention. No puberty blockers, cross sex hormones or surgeries.
2. No changing language to reflect personal realities.
3. Let children grow up and slowly find out about sexuality when possible. Do not teach kinks before they understand the purpose of sex.
4. Work to find any underlying psychological and neuro-developmental (my field and addition) issue for adults before transitions.
5. Be kind to people, who, in the end, do transition.
6. Stop the $$$$$$$$ trans train for doctors and hospitals.
Total hate crime!!!
"Raising eyebrows, rolling of the eyes, dirty looks will be next."
DO NOT MAKE EYE CONTACT.
"Hate speech laws violate the Constitution, as they violate our right to freely express our thoughts and opinions, no matter how daft or, yes, hateful.
Period."
How asinine.
Free Manure While You Wait! said...
"Hate speech laws violate the Constitution, as they violate our right to freely express our thoughts and opinions, no matter how daft or, yes, hateful.
Period."
How asinine.
--
Yet it's been a bedrock principle behind the First Amendment since our founding.
So....why not offer a counter argument?
Tina Trent said...
"During training for enforcing extralegal hate speech laws -- and the training is where the enforcement is determined, Elena Kagan and Eric Holder crafted police and prosecutor manuals in which slurs against biologically born women wouldn't count (bitch, whore, cunt), but slurs (even the same words) against trans and cross-dressing men imitating women would.
Just in case if you were wondering how we got here."
Point us to those manuals, please.
"'Hate speech laws violate the Constitution, as they violate our right to freely express our thoughts and opinions, no matter how daft or, yes, hateful.
Period.'
"How asinine."
Ha! Well, FMWYW!, I see you're making good on your nom de plume!
gaslighting
NOUN
the practice of psychologically manipulating someone into questioning their own sanity, memory, or powers of reason.
examples:
direct lie:
Making a statement that contradicts empirical evidence.
eg: "Puberty blockers are completely reversible and don't cause harm."
pedantic lie:
This employs edge case anomalies (typically quite rare) as 'disproof' of general definitions.
eg: "There are humans with other than XX or XY chromosomal configurations, proving sex is non-binary."
pseudo statistical lie:
Verbiage that is meant to sound as if it supports the premise but actually does nothing. This is typically done using "weasel" words or phrases with no supporting evidence.
eg: "There are a number of cultures..."
Comment
Are we enjoying the acceleration as we approach the 'imagined' slippery slope's bottom?
https://youtu.be/Qgzm2Vhhq28
Triumph of the Will is still available on YouTube though.
Perhaps the greatest most effective propaganda movie of all time.
In support of National Socialism
John LGBTQ Henry
1. Leave children to develop without intervention.
As decided by whom? Politicians, priests or physicians?
I’m fine with physicians being the ones to decide which interventions are appropriate or not. Their track record on that post-WWII is much better than leaving it to the politicians and includes avoiding suicide as a legitimate outcome: As opposed to the ethics of the conservatives and their politicians who are much more comfortable with the dead bodies of genitally “pure” minors who killed themselves because their society’s politicians valued that more than they did even their very own lives.
Anyway, nice attempt to start a political list. Should they be chiseled on stone tablets?
"I’m fine with physicians being the ones to decide which interventions are appropriate or not."
Physicians brought us the Tuskegee Syphilis Project. That killed 300 black men in the most painful way possible. I predict the "surgically mutilate healthy teens project" will harm far more people.
"As opposed to the ethics of the conservatives and their politicians who are much more comfortable with the dead bodies of genitally “pure” minors who killed themselves because their society’s politicians valued that more than they did even their very own lives."
The longer term data available from Europe indicates exactly the opposite is true. Pushing people in critical mental distress down the path of surgical mutilation results in MORE dead bodies due to suicide and engagement with hard drugs!
Tuskegee took place before the Helsinki Declaration and other research protocols for ethical medical experimentation became standard following the Nuremberg trials.
Tuskegee also took place incidentally in a part of the country admired by European fascists for the racial codes that subsequently provided inspiration for the Nuremberg Laws.
No comparison to contemporary medical practice in countries respecting civil rights and abiding by Helsinki and other protocols.
Does a ewetoob determination hold any sway legally?
It matters who is slinging that label/libel.
It's clear social media is in the tank for this shit.
We still haven't properly dealt with platform vs publisher issues.
The Left loves this since it allows gatekeeping and an overall chilling of oppositional speech.
Anna Kepper: there are scores of manuals available through the DOJ's OJP though the proof is in the enforcement. The original prosecutor's manual and manual for police appeared directly following the 1997 conference where excluding women was accepted. Holder and Kagan's contributions come from the Clinton Library resources. Other testimony I gathered privately from state bureau and statistics employees who confirmed that what is in the manuals is not what they are taught about excluding biologically born women from the sex or gender category in their trainings.
A Simon Weisenthal Center trainer, for example, admitted to me that they "always" get asked about counting biological women subjected to stranger assault or lesser crimes, but they "don't put that in writing." Instead, they address women only during unrecorded Q&A. A DA in Los Angeles bragged to me that she only prosecuted cases involving sex assaults of transvestites, not women, as hate.
So how did I prove a negative? By attending and getting tapes of conferences where excluding women was once openly discussed (they're smarter now). By tracking state by state cases of simple assault and "hate crime vandalism." The 1996 ADL manual for passing hate crime laws in the states, with sample legislation used by almost all states, that directly announces that counting women would "distract" law enforcement and "overwhelm" the statistics they were seeking provides legislative intent; the Kagan, Holder, Clinton memo on serial killers; interviews with honest statisticians; congressional hearings during which the subject of "counting" women were discussed ... and then tracking the subsequent, damning, two plus decades of hate crime prosecutions during which none of the approximately 10,000 annual victims of stranger, serial rape or stranger rape and murder were counted as hate victims unless, rarely, another factor such as ethnicity, gay sexual orientation, transgenderism, or race triggered the hate crime enhancement.
Worst of all, there are the cases where a serial offender targets many women but is only prosecuted for hate crime in the cases of some of them, the ones who fit that extra identity. So even victims of the same crime by the same offender are put in an unequal hierarchy in the justice system -- and sentencing for their identical victimizations.
You can check my footnotes to find sources, and you can order the long version reports of the purportedly expanded 2009 HCSA and HCSAs dating back to 2000 or find them in some academic research libraries. Let me know what I got wrong. The same exclusion, by the way, applies to male victims of serial killers who target other males, thanks to pressure by the gay lobby.
That's how they get the statistics they want.
“There are a number of cultures, including some of those indigenous to North America who if I’m not mistaken created a piece of artwork Jordan Peterson treasures and uses as a logo, who don’t find people we’d call “transgender” to be some kind of threat and appropriate targets for marginalization or deprivation of rights.“
That’s not at all a z Peterson talking point: he’s definitely NOT transgender. Who cares what people “identify” as? They are valuable humans and we should be kind- polite, at the very least. But- nooo-oooh. Never good enough for some who want to be put on a pedestal for their bravery and unique, forward—> thinking. Not happy w/being treated “normally” even if/when they don’t look “normal”, they need you to call them by their special/specific gender.
Just. Grow. Up.
And stop trying to entice kids to mutilate their pronouns…
“ Also, why are the most anti-trans activists men with such obvious sexual defects as Peterson and Ben Shapiro?”
Just- wow. There must be an Alinsky rule that you’re following, CustardPie- I’m just too tired right now.
“ That’s not at all a z Peterson talking point: he’s definitely NOT transgender.” **
** incomplete thought. I guess that’s what happens when I don’t want to lose my train of thought. I get ahead of the engine or uncouple the caboose!!
Peterson is NOT transphobic.
He also will not be forced into saying something he believes is untrue. Key word: forced.
Also, developing humans should NOT have their maturity disrupted. Wait until someone is done developing before twisting and bending them. If they so choose. Who even knows the unknown consequences of disrupting hormonal and chemical workings on a growing person? Our entire systems rely internally on each other.
Quit monkeying around w/the kids.
The First Amendment recognizes no such banned or regulated category as "hate speech." Arguably, the 1A was designed to protect just such speech, since that is the kind most likely to be demonized by the State. And of course, to define "hate speech" is merely subjective, which is why it is susceptible to political and social manipulation.
I would only submit to hate speech laws if I can personally define what is hate speech.
No comparison to contemporary medical practice in countries respecting civil rights and abiding by Helsinki and other protocols.
Given the covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates and passports pushed and supported by the CDC, the NIH and numerous local boards and organizations, and a vast swath of practitioners who were unable to think for themselves, that rings particularly hollow.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा