Jump to content

Jordan Peterson Warns of Surveillance State, Future ‘Secret Police’


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So......  the inside liner of his jacket is done to depict both left and right.

And you think he's a "clown" for that,

No I think he's a clown because he dresses like a clown.

F4bIJyeagAEYnLd.jpg

FrCnSkBXwAELIJL.jpg:large

Like, literally:

jp-wearing-a-new-joker-themed-suit-photo

Also he's funny in a "boy this guy is dumb" way, also like a clown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Your weak argument lost all credibility with the use of the word "clown"

Carry on.

He's a clown type, a court jester

.

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fjordan-peterson-daedric-prince-of-benzos-v0-kuj3sqbdqx6a1.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Df35c8e0597d23bc990d7dfe0e55453f22984ef66

51 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

 

Your hatred of everything not left-wing is disgusting actually . . .

People who want to stop opinions aren't right wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, eyeball said:

$10 says Jordan Peterson would be aghast at the idea that we surveil the state to the same degree. You'd be aghast too wouldn't you? $10 says Orwell would give the idea an enthusiastic thumbs up.

That doesn't even mean anything. what does "Surveil' the state mean? Your screwball plan to put 24 hour a day body cams on politicians?

Peterson is fine with the 'state' being required to document and be responsible to the public it serves and probably doesn't mind that much for people including himself in the work environment - but being a leftie you wouldn't understand that there is a difference between that and actually having someone monitor you and force you to account for your PERSONAL time.

Of course a man who thinks the state should own everything you have would think that you owe them an accounting of personal time as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

No I think he's a clown because he dresses like a clown.

F4bIJyeagAEYnLd.jpg

FrCnSkBXwAELIJL.jpg:large

Like, literally:

jp-wearing-a-new-joker-themed-suit-photo

Also he's funny in a "boy this guy is dumb" way, also like a clown.

Yeahh -  you don't know what a clown actually looks like do you :)  

 

I do get it - you can't argue with what he says or how he thinks and your angry he's smarter than you and that he's a conservative so 'clown' was the best you could do.

It's ok little guy. You're doing great keep going!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

He's a clown type, a court jester

Wow.  You've got a pretty serious inferiority complex going on over there about him.

Soooo - a company offered to make him 12 suits for his 'rules' - and he's had a laugh wearing them during friendly interviews.

https://www.newsweek.com/jordan-peterson-reveals-reason-highly-memed-designer-hell-suits-joe-rogan-podcast-1777538

and like all lefties - you jump at the chance to dehumanize him and dismiss him as a result.

News flash mikey - real people have a little fun now and again.

You're pathetic. 'THAT GUY"S HAVING A LAUGH - WE SHOULD DISMISS WHAT HE SAYS BECAUSE I DON"T LIKE IT".

please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeahh -  you don't know what a clown actually looks like do you :)  

Why don't you snap a selfie so we can see.

Quote

I do get it - you can't argue with what he says or how he thinks and your angry he's smarter than you and that he's a conservative so 'clown' was the best you could do.

Oh I can argue with most of what he says, but making fun of his retarded outfits is just more fun.

Quote

It's ok little guy. You're doing great keep going!

You when someone is mean to Jordan Peterson:

1692815911764?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=WIXz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Why don't you snap a selfie so we can see.

Ohhhh so witty !!!  LOL how long did you spend searching the web to finally come up with that gem?  You must just kill it with your kindergarten glass :) 

Quote

Oh I can argue with most of what he says,

You looked like an 1diot just trying to say he was a clown - i can imagine you trying to actually argue with anything he says.

Like i said - i get that you're jealous and "his custom suits are all i have to make fun of" is where you're at.  What a sad life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Peterson is fine with the 'state' being required to document and be responsible to the public it serves...

I see no reason to believe he's any more fine with this than you are.

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

....and probably doesn't mind that much for people including himself in the work environment - but being a leftie you wouldn't understand that there is a difference between that and actually having someone monitor you and force you to account for your PERSONAL time.

I'm subject to camera surveillance, GPS tracking and sometimes human observers at work to protect the public's interest. This is achieved without impinging on my personal space at all. I do have to pay the cost of my oversight however. The cost averages about $750 per day whether I make a profit or not. I can actually go in the hole.

You don't have the first clue about what I'm talking about or how to achieve transparency and accountability. I'm quite certain Jordan Peterson is just as clueless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No hatred for Peterson just to point out that he is known for speaking of things he's not expert or even TRAINED in.  Just read that first paragraph.

And the only reason he's in the public arena,  was another dire warning (compelled speech) that he had to retract when he appeared before parliament.

People need to hold public figures accountable for what they say, especially experts.

I don't think JP is wrong here, but I also agree with you that he's not an official expert in this field.

Per the retraction you cite, can you provide a link, I don't remember this.  Seems to me that his comments on compelled speech have been vindicated with the gender harassment laws in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I see no reason to believe he's any more fine with this than you are.

But i have a receipt!!!!!!!!

You see no reason period -you're blind to it.  If you don't like it, that's reason enough for you to declare it's got no reason.

He's talked about it.  Everyone's fine with it - the CPC did more than any gov't in history to try to make the gov't more accountable. It was you and justin who shut much of that down and got mad when they got caught by the stuff they didn't shut down.

Line i said - trust a leftie to not know the difference between that and surveillance in your private time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Is a smell of fear exuding from eyeball, Hardner, and Black Dog . . . . ?

Fear of what, being monitored?

I'm only afraid of not making enough money to pay for it. I have to try though. It's just a cost of doing business, like a fuel bill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

  Seems to me that his comments on compelled speech have been vindicated with the gender harassment laws in Canada.

Your conclusion comes from a misunderstanding of what compelled speech is.

It's not anything that forces you to not call someone he or she... It's something that forces you to utter a specific word.

So saying you can't call a trans woman "he" without having it classified as harassment is not compelled speech, although it is a legal modification or limit on speech. I'll see if I can find the clip where he explains his retraction based on a missing web page...

 

 

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

You see no reason period -you're blind to it.

I'm living it. You always do this. Saying it can't be done to people who are doing it.

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He's talked about it.  Everyone's fine with it - the CPC did more than any gov't in history to try to make the gov't more accountable.

You exist in a state of pure utter obliviousness that would leave even Dunning and Kuger shaking their heads in disbelief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

what does "Surveil' the state mean? Your screwball plan to put 24 hour a day body cams on politicians?

That would only be necessary on politicians who were found to be cheating or evading accountability.

In my case I would have to pay the cost of taking a human observer in addition to the digital surveillance.

The next level of enforcement would be the loss of my licence and then I'd be out of a job.

There's no force involved mind you, I always have a choice. And yes, a receipt is issued, to the owner of whatever vessel I'm running.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ohhhh so witty !!!  LOL how long did you spend searching the web to finally come up with that gem?  You must just kill it with your kindergarten glass :) 

Let's just say it took me significantly less time to come up with that riposte that than you spend posting here you f*cking loser.

Quote

You looked like an 1diot just trying to say he was a clown - i can imagine you trying to actually argue with anything he says.

I look way less like an id!ot than JP does in his retarded clown suits, man's tailor must hate his guts.

Quote

Like i said - i get that you're jealous and "his custom suits are all i have to make fun of" is where you're at.  What a sad life.

Yeah I'm jealous of the guy who's brain was turned into a thin slurry by benzos, who has lost his plum academic job, his license to practice and is reduced to writing incomprehensible gibberish in a failing newspaper nobody reads. lol.

Edited by Black Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

   Seems to me that his comments on compelled speech have been vindicated with the gender harassment laws in Canada.

 

You have to look at the question from Linda Frum at 35:18 to establish that they felt the law would reflect Ontario HRA. Then rewind to the first few minutes where Peterson says it's unclear what context you should use when looking at proposed law, and then says he used what was stated on that website which was since taken down.

 

Compelled speech still has not happened.  One of the senators asks if misgendering someone is not akin to insulting them and therefore in the domain of harassment. Peterson's answer is that, basically, people shouldn't whine about being harassed.

He thereby Dodges the question.

 

....

 

To add: I was still in his corner. At this point. I felt he had made a mistake, and I still didn't feel anyone had me had a good case that compelled speech was imminent, although I was against compelled speech.

Shortly after this, he hooked up with the rebel and started making big cash by saying outrageous things. That trend continued and so he spoiled an opportunity to actually be helpful to society.

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't think JP is wrong here, but I also agree with you that he's not an official expert in this field.

Per the retraction you cite, can you provide a link, I don't remember this.  Seems to me that his comments on compelled speech have been vindicated with the gender harassment laws in Canada.

Yet the only cases where anyone has been nailed by a human right's complaint for "misgendering" have been instances where the misgendering was part of a sustained campaign of workplace harassment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

Yet the only cases where anyone has been nailed by a human right's complaint for "misgendering" have been instances where the misgendering was part of a sustained campaign of workplace harassment. 

As per the findings, this is true. The defense was that continued use of the wrong gender was an error.

Judge didn't believe it, nor would anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Could I possibly dissuade you by saying that I was in his corner at the beginning. His increasingly erratic postings, and apparent addiction to fame caused him go off the rails and lose my support.

Off the rails?

I think that institution that's forcing him to go through "re-education camp" is off the rails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

He's a clown type, a court jester

.

Someone posts a picture of Peterson wearing a designer suit and you jumped on it like a starving dog making off with Sunday's roast . Another branch of a weak argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm living it. You always do this. Saying it can't be done to people who are doing it.

 

I've never done that - you just make crap up.  and you're not living it at all.  You don't seem to even remember what you were talking about as that doesn't make sense.

"oh no - i can't defend my position yet again, pretend i was talking bout something else!"  Man - if there's something one of us 'always does' its you doing that.

Quote

You exist in a state of pure utter obliviousness that would leave even Dunning and Kuger shaking their heads in disbelief.

You owe robosmith a dollar for using his word :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s funny, the pattern in all the threads seems to be kernels or mother lodes of truth and persuasion interspersed with determined obtuseness.  I don’t have to say who the mindless anti-thought obtuse posters are anymore.  Just look at the pattern on any thread and you see the patterns on all threads.  These anti-thinkers might as well be bots, because they never really grow or develop thoughts or ideas.  It’s always about compliance and settling for less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Legato said:

Someone posts a picture of Peterson wearing a designer suit and you jumped on it like a starving dog making off with Sunday's roast . Another branch of a weak argument.

I didn't see that post before I wrote mine.

To defend someone simply because they share your political stance is low fakery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,743
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...