Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

Mariama

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
An interesting news item about a 14-year-old boy who transitioned to a girl, but decided to become a boy again after taking puberty blockers. He is now waiting for an operation to have his breasts surgically removed, which apparently can only be done in a few countries like South Korea.

His mother and a Sydney paediatrician and professor voice their concerns about doctors who do not allow kids to grow out of their 'gender dysphoria'. Mum did support her son transitioning and even states that 'no child would do this on a whim', but seems to forget that 12-year-olds do not understand the consequences of their actions and I think she didn't either? Eventually she gave in to his wish, because she was afraid he would commit suicide or run away which suggests issues that are far greater than wanting to be a girl. She allowed the child to take her oestrogen medication even though the law in Australia stipulates kids have to wait until they are 16 and have court approval.

Although I understand the distress this must have caused her I do think she refuses to take responsibility for her own role in this tragedy. FWIW.

 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Great and nuanced article about the new movie "The Rise of Jordan Peterson":


Can't wait to see it!!
 
"Fair warning," it read, "several community organizations are planning to shut down your showing of the Jordan Peterson propaganda film. While many of us aren't Christian and some even flat-out condemn the religion, we do not want any harm to come to your place of worship or those within. However, we cannot allow fascism to continue to rise and will not tolerate its presence in our city, whether it is on the streets or on the waterfront or in a church. Read some history books, read about eugenics, read about sex and gender and then compare it to Peterson. Pray on it if you must. Do the right thing. As much as we joke about it, we really don't want to have to bring out the guillotine to fix society."

Jordan Peterson Documentary Faces Cancelation and Threats
Katie Herzog

A new documentary about Jordan Peterson has been canceled by three venues.

About halfway through my conversation with filmmakers Patricia Marcoccia and Maziar Ghaderi, they got two pieces of bad news. First, they found out from their tour manager that a planned screening of their film, The Rise of Jordan Peterson, had just been canceled by a theatre in Toronto.

This was not entirely unexpected. Another venue in Toronto recently canceled a week-long run of the film, as did a theatre in Brooklyn, citing complaints by the staff.

“The people who run these venues are so worried about getting in trouble,” Ghaderi said. “An old professor of mine once told me that artists are supposed to be fearless, but when I'm reading these emails from these gatekeepers, I'm thinking, ‘Man, you people should go work for the government or something.’”

We kept talking, and then, a moment later, Ghaderi received a text message from a pastor outside of Portland. The pastor had agreed to screen the film at his church and had been getting complaints—and threats. He forwarded one of these messages to Ghaderi.

"Fair warning," it read, "several community organizations are planning to shut down your showing of the Jordan Peterson propaganda film. While many of us aren't Christian and some even flat-out condemn the religion, we do not want any harm to come to your place of worship or those within. However, we cannot allow fascism to continue to rise and will not tolerate its presence in our city, whether it is on the streets or on the waterfront or in a church. Read some history books, read about eugenics, read about sex and gender and then compare it to Peterson. Pray on it if you must. Do the right thing. As much as we joke about it, we really don't want to have to bring out the guillotine to fix society."

The timing was slightly ironic. Right before Ghaderi got the text, I'd asked the pair what impact they thought the backlash against Peterson, a controversial Canadian psychology professor, has had on his rise to fame.

"The attempts to shut him down definitely brought him a new level of fame," Marcoccia told me, "but if it was just that, I think he would have had his 15 minutes and that would have been it. He wouldn't have had any of the staying power and he would not have reached people on this level. I think that has to do with the ideas he talks about."

Marcoccia has known of Peterson for 15 years, well before he was a public figure. She discovered his first book, Maps of Meaning, as a psychology student at McMaster University in Ontario.

“I found a lot of his ideas fascinating,” she said, “especially because I came from a very religious family and I kind of went away from religion but was still interested in the big questions about purpose and ethics.” A friend happened to be taking one of Peterson’s classes at the University of Toronto and she would occasionally tag along. Turned out, he had quite a fan base among his students. He was the kind of professor students would hang out after class to speak to, waiting for 20 minutes just to get in a word.

Today, Peterson is best known for his opposition to identity politics and political correctness, but his academic interest is in social psychology, specifically how people find meaning in life. He’s a follower of Carl Jung, the Swiss psychoanalyst who was a contemporary of Sigmund Freud. Where Frued thought religion was all about self-deception and superstition, to Jung, it was a natural manifestation of man’s quest for meaning. Peterson seems to believe this too, and much of his work is on the utility of religion, myth, and storytelling, with a particular emphasis on what drives people join in murderous causes and movements.

“One of the things he would always say in his classes is that it's important to realize that if we were in Nazi Germany at the time of the Holocaust, 95 percent of us would have joined,” Marcoccia said. “You may think you're a good person, but the reality is, in that situation, the majority of us would have been Nazis. He takes that really seriously. It's consumed him from an early age and he's seeing it in places where other people haven't been attuned to it.”

In 2015, a decade after first reading his book, Marcoccia and Ghaderi started making their documentary, which was, they thought, going to be about Peterson’s friendship with a Native wood carver on northern Vancouver Island.

“The film we were originally making was very artistic,” Ghaderi says. “We wanted it to be Cascadian magical realism with a lot of animation and talking about dream interpretation. We have this footage of Jordan dancing around a bonfire at an Indigenous longhouse surrounded by men in wooden masks. But then the pronoun thing happened, and we just kept the camera on.”

The “pronoun thing” began in fall 2016, when Peterson released a three-part series on YouTube, where he’d begun posting his lectures. The first in the series was called “Part I: Fear and the Law,” and in it, Peterson reacted to a proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code that added the terms "gender identity or expression" to the list of protected classes. Peterson argued this amendment might force people to use gender-neutral pronouns for people who identify as nonbinary or risk a criminal complaint.

The amendment passed. Some legal scholars have contested Peterson’s interpretation of the law—and it’s not clear what the implications will be until complaints are brought forward and a legal precedent is set—but his basic argument is that government-compelled speech is a step on the path to authoritarianism.

“This is the scenario I’ve been running through my head,” he said. “I can envision a student or colleague insisting that I call them using gender-neutral pronouns. Ze or zhe or zir. I'm not doing that. I'm not doing that. I think it's manipulative. And I don't recognize another person's right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won't do it.” He claimed these words were tools of Marxist ideology and said that he would not be a part of spreading it.

The video was nearly an hour long and instead of actually appearing on camera, Peterson speaks over a series of text-based, black and white slides. There are no images at all, and it’s hardly the type of thing that generally goes viral on YouTube.

But, oh, did it.

The video, or the story of the video, spread around the University of Toronto and online, and trans activists, allies, and many Peterson’s colleagues were deeply offended by it. He received two letters of warning from the university and there multiple protests were staged on campus, with the anti-Peterson and pro-Peterson sides attempting to shout each other down. The media quickly started reporting on the drama, and within two months of that video, Peterson would appear on Joe Rogan, one of the most popular podcasts in the U.S. and the place where many of his fans first encountered him.

Peterson’s profile only grew from there, as did the backlash. After the publication of his book 12 Rules for Life in 2018, he went on a massive world tour and tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of his followers showed up to see him. I’m not a Peterson devotee but, interested in why a psychology professor was drawing such crowds—and such backlash—I went to two of his events. “Passionate” isn’t quite a strong enough term to describe his fanbase. Many of his followers consider him a sort of father figure or a self-help guru, and they were as devoted to him as some people are to Allah or Jesus.

But for all of his fans, Peterson has just as many critics, and in many cities, his appearances were greeted by protests. And not just by members of the public: last year, the city council of Durham, North Carolina, issued a statement condemning Peterson before he came to town.

What is it about Jordan B. Peterson that inspires such love and such hate? That, really, is the question at the heart of Marcoccia and Ghaderi’s new film. Despite what activists attempting to shut down screenings seem to think, it’s not exactly pro Peterson propaganda. The film makes ample space for his critics, including one of his old friends and former colleagues who wrote an article calling Peterson “dangerous.”

Is he dangerous? A lot of people think so. Over the weekend, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a parent worried about children being recruited online by racists. She wrote that she almost lost control of the car she was driving when she heard her son use the word “triggered,” which she calls a “calling card of the alt-right.” She names Peterson videos a sign of radicalization as well, writing that his “perspectives on feminism and gender are very popular among young men and often are a path to more extreme content and ideologies.”

This argument has been made frequently—and it’s addressed in the film—but many of the Peterson fans I’ve spoken to have told me the opposite: Peterson didn’t guide them to the alt-right; he guided them back from it. This discrepancy between what his followers see and what his critics say can make the outrage over him seemed like a kind of moral panic. In the 1990s, parents were being warned not to let their kids listen to heavy metal, lest they turn into devil worshipers. Today, they’re being warned not to let their kids listen to Jordan Peterson lectures on YouTube, lest they turn into Nazis.

I’ve always found the outrage over Peterson both hyperbolic and counterproductive, but after watching the film, I started to see where the danger lies. This is not, however, because of the ideas and values he preaches. Yes, some of what he says is obviously wrong. For instance, he once said ancient Egyptian art represents the DNA double helix. And his ideas about sex and gender do tend to be retrograde. But far more of Peterson’s rhetoric is about independence, personal responsibility, and resisting the creep of authoritarianism than it is about political correctness and gender-neutral pronouns. He tells people, "clean your room," and, for some reason, they actually listen. It’s hard to see the danger in that.

The danger, instead, lies in devotion. Peterson fans can be so obsessive that, if he wanted to, he really could start something terrible. Every time I’ve written something remotely critical of Peterson, I’ve gotten flooded with complaints by his followers. (Then again, every time I’ve written something positive about him, I’ve gotten flooded with complaints by his critics.) There is some irony in this: the man who preaches independence could start a death cult if he wanted to and I suspect a number of his fans would sign-on. Of course, some people would probably set themselves on fire if Justin Beiber told them to. Fandom is a powerful force.

All of this—the myth of Jordan Peterson versus the reality of Jordan Peterson—is what this film is about, and much like its central figure, the backlash to the film, with cancellations and threats of violence, is getting more attention than it otherwise might have had. “When something seems forbidden, it gets people’s attention,” Marcoccia said. And she’s right. If you want an idea to disappear, bringing out the guillotine is not the way to go about

The Rise of Jordan Peterson will be screened on Wed. November 13, at 7:30 PM at Pacific Place in downtown Seattle if—and only if—enough tickets are pre-sold. You can purchase tickets here for that screening, or here for the screening outside Portland, which has not been canceled—yet.

 

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
https://soundcloud.com/jordanpetersonpodcast%2Fepisode-3-the-necessity-of-virtue
University of Toronto professor and clinical psychologist, Jordan Peterson, delivers the 2010 Hancock Lecture entitled The Necessity of Virtue. He discusses virtue from a contemporary perspective that both encompasses and extends beyond moral and religious contexts. Through compelling stories and research, Dr. Peterson illustrates the necessity of virtue both for the individual and for society at large.
Original Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwUJHNPMUyU
 

Pashalis

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Just received the latest update from thinkspot:

ts.

Ideas live here.



On September 30th, we opened our beta platform to new users and the initial feedback has been very encouraging and supportive. Our small team is working round the clock to develop the best community possible, and we are carefully reviewing all user feedback to ensure we achieve our vision of building a positive and engaging online community.
Our growing list of contributors now includes Jordan Peterson, Jocko Willink, Heather Mac Donald, Michael Shermer, Stephen Hicks, David Pakman, Bishop Barron, Bettina Arndt, Gregg Hurwitz, James Altucher, and many more.

We plan to launch dozens of new contributors over the coming months as we expand our vast media library, including thinkspot original content.
We are working hard to develop and improve thinkspot, and we thank you for waiting patiently to join our community. During our beta period, we will continue to invite thousands of new users each week and are excited for everyone to join us.
Stay tuned for exciting announcements over the coming weeks!
 

PhoenixToEmber

Jedi Council Member
An interesting news item about a 14-year-old boy who transitioned to a girl, but decided to become a boy again after taking puberty blockers. He is now waiting for an operation to have his breasts surgically removed, which apparently can only be done in a few countries like South Korea.

His mother and a Sydney paediatrician and professor voice their concerns about doctors who do not allow kids to grow out of their 'gender dysphoria'. Mum did support her son transitioning and even states that 'no child would do this on a whim', but seems to forget that 12-year-olds do not understand the consequences of their actions and I think she didn't either? Eventually, she gave in to his wish, because she was afraid he would commit suicide or run away which suggests issues that are far greater than wanting to be a girl. She allowed the child to take her oestrogen medication even though the law in Australia stipulates kids have to wait until they are 16 and have court approval.

Although I understand the distress this must have caused her I do think she refuses to take responsibility for her own role in this tragedy. FWIW.


Going to share a personal story relevant to this whole discussion. So for the past few months, I've been teaching high school art (drawing and painting) and I have two trans students. Navigating that has been interesting. Most interesting of all is that one of these students I knew back from another school I worked at, when "he" was a "she" in middle school. This student was absent half of her 8th-grade year, and we later found out that they now wanted to be called Atlas (interesting name for this student, who is so awkward and fragile in demeanor, yet perhaps representative of her cognitive state in some way; a feeling of lifting the world on one's shoulders?). Wasn't the first time this happened, but there are clearly other issues going on with this student than mere gender issues.

What's interesting is that "Atlas" also has a younger sister, and the following year, this sister also began to identify as a boy. Now a sophomore, Atlas has been absent for about 3 out of our 7 weeks of school. I met the mother (the third week of school) during Back to School Night (which is when parents may show up to meet teachers) and it was absolutely heartbreaking. Even before we began to talk you could see a look of concern on her face (Latina woman, middle-aged, heavy accent). When she told me who she was I told her that I knew both of her kids when they went by their other names. Because of that, she started to open up to me, telling me how difficult it's been, that she's been trying so hard to adjust. And that she thinks the younger one may just be copying the older (to which I agreed was also my suspicion as well). Told me that Atlas has been pushing for hormone treatments and the father will not allow it, so she's taking it out on the mother, who won't go against her husband's wishes. But she said that she also doesn't want to be responsible for anything that could possibly go wrong later, especially because Atlas is apparently on different meds, has sleep apnea, too. I mostly listened, then shared my perspective (even came out to her as gay, told her I understand what struggling with "identity" and all of that is like to some extent, that I was familiar with the subject of "trans-ness" and the controversies around it) and reassured her that she was making the right decision for her daughter.

Throughout our talk she kept confusing the pronouns. I did a couple of times, too., then pointed this out to her. We kind of laughed about it, yet it was upsetting to her, too. She started crying, saying how she's tried to explain to Atlas that she(he) needs to understand what this is like for her, as a mother, that "for fifteen years you've been my little girl, mi hija" and that it's not so easy to just adjust to a new name and pronoun. I felt so, so sorry for this poor woman - I could feel her distress emanating from her. We hugged. She told me to keep a close eye on Atlas, even to say some of the things to "him" that I told her (although I'm not so sure that's a good idea, despite the fact that this student seems to like me). Except Atlas has hardly been in school at all...

Deeply concerning. I'm worried about this kid.
 

Voyageur

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
If it wasn't Rex Murphy conducting the interview, I don't think he would have done it. Murphy has supported Peterson's work over the years and is an excellent journalist who's managed to maintain his integrity even though he's been in the mainstream media for decades.
Just to quote this again, and for those who don't know Rex, here he is from earlier this year speaking primarily about resources and creating something that in the mean time is being torn down - a robust society.

It's an election night here, and it's not looking good as the population has been well engineered to lean in differnt directions - old game.

As for being an excellent journalist, Rex is humble about that as you will hear - and talks about leaving the CBC as it became the "temple of political correctness" while putting things in terms of the common people struggling for work - and finding meaning from it. He speaks of Newfoundland and the fisheries when, with the stroke of a pen, it was wiped out and a whole people fell into despair. These things are remembered, just as the boom-busts cycled across the lands in time from coast to coast.

Here, Rex (like Trump, Putin and others) is talking about how things are getting destroyed and who by, and the opportunities diminishing day by day.

 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
This is interesting - there is now an "IDW community", kind of a sophisticated forum with different levels etc. Haven't looked deeply into it and I don't know who's behind it (they say it's more of a "fan site", but that the creators are in touch with some IDW members). The thrust of it seems to be a bit similar to our forum (for example, they have some psychological information in their guidelines and so on), although for a wider audience. Might be interesting to observe how this develops/evolves, or devolves.

 

Zar

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Mikhaila Peterson posted an article on FB about a book that was released on her and Jordan's behalf, about their diet, and TheDailyPot could not help themselves but jump on this and throw in some smears at the Peterson's.


It seems the person who posted the book on Amazon, Johnny Rockermeier, has another half dozen books on JP thought only this recent one is posted as being authored by JP and Mikhaila. Anything to make a quick buck or a potential attack on Mikhaila's work as her Liondiet is getting traction and actually helping people.
 

herondancer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
It seems the person who posted the book on Amazon, Johnny Rockermeier, has another half dozen books on JP thought only this recent one is posted as being authored by JP and Mikhaila. Anything to make a quick buck or a potential attack on Mikhaila's work as her Liondiet is getting traction and actually helping people.
Yeah, she's a little peeved about it too.

Capture.JPG
 

Esprit

Jedi
FOTCM Member
The word police is making it's way into the U.S. it seems. I don't think it will hold up, hopefully people will put up against it to avoid another bill C-16.


Massachusetts Democrat’s Bill Criminalizes Calling Someone ‘B*tch’


Massachusetts Rep. Democrat Daniel J. Hunt is driving a bill that would essentially make it illegal to call someone a “bitch” as part of his act “regarding the use of offensive words.”


Hunt — a Democrat — introduced a bill in May that would criminalize calling someone a “bitch” in an insulting manner.
The act states:
A person who uses the word “bitch” directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person in violation of this section, and shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsections (a) and (b). A violation of this subsection may be reported by the person to whom the offensive language was directed at or by any witness to such incident.
The penalties include a $150 fine for the first violation and $200 plus possible jail time for any offenses that follow, according to the Boston Herald.

Hunt said he introduced the legislation, which is slated to go before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary on Tuesday, per a constituent’s request.

“Any time a constituent approaches me with something that is of concern to them, I follow through with it,” Hunt told the Boston Herald.

“In this instance, someone asked me to file a bill that they deemed was important and I thought it was a good exercise to let that bill go through the process,” he added.

However, critics, such as Cambridge civil-rights attorney Harvey Silverglate, say the bill would never hold up in court.

“If it’s challenged in court, it will take minutes for a judge to see through it,” Silverglate said, according to the Herald.

“It doesn’t have a prayer of surviving, so why should the Legislature even burden us — the citizens, the press and the courts — why would they burden us with this nonsense? Surely they must have more important things to do,” he continued.

“This is just the latest futile effort but the word police to control what other people say and indirectly control what they think,” he said.

“Beacon Hill Democrats like @repdanhunt are fearlessly taking on the biggest problems facing the commonwealth,” the Massachusetts GOP tweeted the day before the Judiciary Committee’s Tuesday hearing:

Beacon Hill Democrats like @repdanhunt are fearlessly taking on the biggest problems facing the commonwealth. #mapoli pic.twitter.com/xxyECXmd6J
— MassGOP (@massgop) October 21, 2019
Do you believe free speech matters? Tired of @massdems dictating what you can say?
Judiciary Committee will be taking this up tomorrow at 1 pm.
Come on down to the State House. Rooms A1&A2. First floor. Let 'em have it. #mapoli ConservativeNotCrazy on Twitter
— MassGOP (@massgop) October 22, 2019
Welcome is Massachusetts where, thanks to Nanny State liberals, life is a… word you can't say publicly without breaking the law.https://t.co/R4HoFbNmFF@MassDems @MassGOP #MAPoli pic.twitter.com/vjeYpdvxkx
— ConservativeNotCrazy (@IAMMGraham) October 21, 2019

A sincere proposal to criminalize a word was formally considered at the highest level of a state’s government.
On Tuesday, Massachusetts legislators considered a bill that would criminalize certain uses of the word “bitch” — making it punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine up to $200.

The bill, introduced a month ago by state Democratic representative Dan Hunt, states that “a person who uses the word ‘bitch’ directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean the other person shall be considered to be a disorderly person” and would be guilty of a criminal offense punishable by “a fine of not more than either $150 or $200, or jail time of up to six months.” The offense could be reported not only by the person being called a bitch, but also a third-party witness.

As many legal scholars have pointed out, the proposed law is blatantly unconstitutional. For example, Ari Cohn, the former director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told The Washington Examiner:

The First Amendment does not and cannot sanction prohibiting words simply because they are subjectively used to “degrade” or “demean.” If the word “bitch” can be outlawed when used to demean, why can’t “MAGA” or “liberal”? Going down the road Rep. Hunt proposes would expose to prosecution nearly all of the speech that the First Amendment was meant to protect.
Jim Manley, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation (which litigates free-speech issues), told Reason something similar:

As the Supreme Court has said there’s no happy talk requirement in the First Amendment. You cannot ban a word when it’s used to annoy someone but let them use the word when they are using the word in a positive way.
“Legislatures can’t just pluck words out of the dictionary and ban them,” he said.

Basically, the consensus is clear that this would not — and could not — ever become law, but honestly, I still find myself disturbed by the fact that it was even discussed in the legislature in the first place. After all, this means that the public servants in Massachusetts actually have so little knowledge of the Constitution (which the taxpayers are paying them to protect) that they spent their (taxpayer-funded) time earnestly considering it.
 

Voyageur

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The word police...(quoting) "Massachusetts legislators considered a bill that would criminalize certain uses of the word “bitch” — making it punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine up to $200.
Does this include people overhearing dog breeders and then creating a ruckus? The main point are the very people who pursue and ultimately then propose such laws (point about C-16 is noted).

Who are they that dare to do this?

Did a person once overhear a dog breeder's comments and being so self-absorbed they thought they were speaking about them?

Perhaps they are people like 3012-6-B, or another number (and yes that is cryptic until you reach the end of the following when it becomes more clear).

So, sometimes an author pens something that is rather unusual - and to the point. It could go in many threads, and yet in the end it all comes round to the same thing with a 3d capital C. In this light, people like JP and so many more have run head on into this postmodernist machine of new rules. We run into it around every corner, in every meeting and on many phone calls - its come home to the hearth and dinning room table: it's subtle and absurd, and it creates self-censoring.


By Jon Rappaport posted today:

The trial of John Doe vs. [Censored]



October 30, 2019



The trial took place in a quiet empty room, in an underground bunker, at an undisclosed location in [Censored].

The Judge sat behind a high table. John Doe stood below him.

Judge: You are John Doe? You have a website called Doe Doe?

Doe: Yes, Your Honor. May I know your name?

Judge: Of course. It’s Judge.

Doe: That’s your title.

Judge: It’s also my name.

Doe: You’re Judge Judge?

Judge: Correct. Now, let’s get down to business. You’re the author of an article you posted on your site. The title of the article was, “A Catalog of Sexual Assaults and Other Crimes Committed by Migrants in [Censored], 2015-2017.” The subtitle was, “Soaring Migrant Crime Rate Is a National Disaster—[Censored] Women Fear for Their Safety.”

Doe: Yes.

Judge: How did you assemble this “catalog?”

Doe: I cited articles in the [Censored] press. I obtained access to police reports in [Censored]. I interviewed over two hundred citizens and their families. I interviewed law-enforcement officials.

Judge: You traveled to [Censored].

Doe: Correct.

Judge: And as you were exiting the country, you were detained by [Censored] Customs and Immigration and told your visa was canceled and you were banned from returning to the country.

Doe: That’s true.

Judge: That’s certainly a black mark against you.

Doe: I don’t see it that way. The government didn’t want me to accumulate all that information and spread it.

Judge: You’re aware of a foundation called “Anti-Hate-Crime Speech?”

Doe: I am.

Judge: The foundation was formed by GoogleFacebookTwitterYouTubeFooFooShooShooAmazonStarbucksMerckTheCIA
FoundationForBetterLiving
and 167 other groups.

Doe: So I understand.

Judge: And several of those groups canceled your donation account, de-monetized your videos, deleted your site from six search engines, and convinced a local delivery service to stop bringing pizza to your house.

Doe: Right.

Judge: You’re accused of hate speech against immigrants.

Doe: I published facts. I wasn’t speaking against anyone off the cuff.

Judge: But that’s how it was interpreted. Your article was incendiary, because it inspired a negative view of immigration.

Doe: Inspired? I wrote facts. How others took those facts was their business.

Judge: It’s a question of the greater good. Exposing a few cases of wrongdoing versus alarming and biasing a whole population.

Doe: There is another element. Suppressing important information. Keeping people from seeing what’s happening to their communities and their nation.

Judge: Hate speech cannot be tolerated.

Doe: Who says it’s hate speech?

Judge: A non-profit in Alabama. Two media outlets. They’ve been hired by the Anti-Hate-Crime Speech Foundation to scour articles and identify hate.

Doe: Well, they’re wrong.

Judge: They can’t be wrong.

Doe: Why not?

Judge: Because they’re authorities.

Doe: According to whom?

Judge: These groups are setting a standard. Someone has to.

Doe: How about someone else setting a standard?

Judge: Who would that be?

Doe: The point is, I was exercising my 1st Amendment rights.

Judge: Your what?

Doe: I have a right to speak and write.

Judge: Not if it upsets the good order of the community and causes suffering on the part of people associated with those you accuse of committing serious crimes.

Doe: I disagree. And why shouldn’t I disturb “the good order” if the order is ill-advised and based on the fear of speaking out?

Judge: Let me explain something, Mr. Doe. You have created a generality of hatred.

Doe: A what?

Judge: By publishing your article, you created a generality of negative reaction against a whole group.

Doe: I reported facts, not generalities.

Judge: What you reported can’t be divorced from the effect it had on other people.

Doe: Of course it can. My work didn’t have an automatic effect on other people. They inferred whatever they inferred from my article.

Judge: The overriding principle is: everything is connected to everything.

Doe: You lost me there, sir.

Judge: Everyone in this world is connected and interdependent. Therefore, whatever you do spreads like ink on a blotter.

Doe: How can that be? I gathered specific facts. Those facts don’t apply to all people.

Judge: That’s the old view of things. Now we know that all of us are together as One. A charge against a few is a charge against many.

Doe: That’s illogical. It’s also dangerous. If what you’re saying were true, no one could speak out…

Judge: But you see, there is an important exception to the general rule. I have a list of groups. Certain groups are protected against accusation or slander. Other groups may be accused. In fact, they must be accused.

Doe: Where did you get the list?

Judge: From our leaders.

Doe: Our who?

Judge: Leaders. The people who have knowledge of these matters. The people who understand history. The people who are—

Doe: I see. I exposed certain members of a group that can’t be accused.

Judge: Correct.

Doe: This is over-complicated. I come back to the principle of free speech.

Judge: There is no such principle. At one time, there may have been, but not anymore.

Doe: You’re losing me again, sir.

Judge: It’s quite simple, really.

At this point, six men in black masks holding rifles and burning torches entered the room. One of the men said, “This proceeding is over. We are [Censored]. We have taken the sacred oath of [Censored]. We are cells of the body of the Soros.

Judge: Welcome. Was your oath the [Censored]?

Masked Man: Yes.

Judge: I, too, have taken the oath of the [Censored]. We are One. What message do you bring?

Masked Man: Our leader instructs us to tell you that the defendant, John Doe, is to be sentenced to six days without food or water in the burning desert of [Censored], after which he will be transported to a re-education camp in [Censored], where he will undergo a one-year period of [Censored]. This is the Word.

Judge: I see. Very well. My sentence is thusly made.

Doe: You take orders from these men, Your Honor?

Judge: These men and I are not separate. We are One.

Doe: How did that happen?

Judge: Once upon a time, we were losers. Now we are winners. We overthrew the old order and instituted a new one.

Doe: That must have taken a great deal of planning.

Judge: Decades. More.

Doe: Why haven’t I heard about it?

Judge: Because you are one of those people who would have tried to expose our agenda. Suffice it to say, we worked in secret. We introduced chaos. As just one strategy of many, and I only mention it because it’s one of my favorites, we introduced, into the culture, a long series of absurd rulings and situations that defy logic and rationality. Such rulings paralyze the mind. The mind retreats. It becomes passive. Quiescent. A grandmother grows vegetables on her lawn. She is hauled into court and prosecuted for defacing the appearance of the neighborhood. A child brings a pastry to school and bites it into the shape of what might look like a gun. The child is suspended. Colleges offer rooms with dolls and hot chocolate to students who are triggered by a pronoun. A college student council decides that all white people are demons and must be excluded from decision-making roles. A four-year-old child is encouraged to talk with his parents about the child’s “choice” to change his gender. A manual used by elementary school teachers suggests discussions on all possible forms of sexual intercourse, even sex with animals. Parents are told their vaccinated children are protected from disease, but must not play with unvaccinated children, because then they could get sick, even though they are protected. A state which is in debt to the tune of half a trillion dollars proposes accepting immigrants without limit and giving them many government services without charge. Any politician who speaks with a Russian faces a potential charge of trading with the enemy. Do I need to go on? Over time, one fantastic and absurd thing after another is piled up upon the consciousness of the public, until the insanity reaches to the sky. What is the effect of all that? The befuddled public surrenders and becomes passive. And then we come in behind that and impose our agenda.

Masked Man: Enough. We will remove the defendant now and take him to [Censored].

Judge: Of course.

Doe: So I’m not really guilty.

Judge: You are what we say you are. That overrides all questions of guilt or innocence. There is no more guilt or innocence. There are only rulings. For centuries, guilt and innocence have been twisted by men in power to suit their own ends. We have stopped that. We have stopped the corruption. Now we make decisions based on the greater good. We are the pure ones. We have no agenda except service to the people.

Doe: You’re destroyers.

Judge: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

Doe: You’re going to lose.

Judge: Why is that, Mr. Doe?

Doe: You’ll go too far. You have no idea what people will do when you put them against the wall. That passivity you spoke of is going to evaporate.

Judge: We will see. We will see.

Doe: Are you even human?

Judge: Of course I am. Do you think I’m AI android number 3012-6-B, third generation, extruded at Factory [Censored], produced by [Censored] in accordance with regulations under the [Censored] code of [Censored]…?
 
Personally, I think we shouldn't give the gender-benders even one tiny inch.

I'm late for the thread and the conversation, but I'm 100% with you And I say it because the sad reality is that they are gaining territory. I move a lot in the university field, within my area of studies (graphic / indsutrial design) and day by day inclusive language is entrenched in people's minds. Not only young people from 20 to 25 years, but men and women (mostly women) over 30 or 40 years!

Even in the family environment, (sister) I have to endure this torture of inclusive language by changing the letter of the word.
However, most people now take it as a joke, but the point will come where they will become bold and will want to impose it at all levels. And the argument (which is not such) always lies in the patriarchy and invisibility of minorities or women.

The University of Córdoba (Argentina) approved the language for texts in the School of Communication.

The most striking thing is that not only can the use of language be used in academic texts and research, but it can also be used in administrative writings from the secretariats or management spaces, for now, exclusive to the Faculty of Communication Sciences.

Argentine social science faculty approves use of inclusive language

 
Top Bottom