Jordan Peterson funded by Russia? So Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Claims

[Aristides]

29 minutes ago, User said:

Why is the PM naming names publicly if they are classified and secret?

Make up crap... like the PM appears to have done about Jordan Peterson?

 

Good question

Maybe, that's why he should back up such a statement or not make it at all. 

Peterson is a Putin apologist but that doesn't mean he is on their payroll

[User]

16 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Peterson is a Putin apologist but that doesn't mean he is on their payroll

Peterson is no Putin apologist, but yes, the PM should certainly back up his crap and stop hiding. 

[Aristides]

14 minutes ago, User said:

Peterson is no Putin apologist, but yes, the PM should certainly back up his crap and stop hiding. 

He certainly is.

[User]

49 minutes ago, Aristides said:

He certainly is.

Nope. Folks like you have no idea. You heard a soundbite somewhere or are just regurgitating an accusation you heard. 

Anyone that listens to the guy on any regular basis knows how full of crap you are. 

 

Edited October 21, 2024 by User

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, User said:

Nope. Folks like you have no idea. You heard a soundbite somewhere or are just regurgitating an accusation you heard. 

Anyone that listens to the guy on any regular basis knows how full of crap you are. 

 

He isn't a booster but he is definitely an apologist for what Putin is doing in Ukraine.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jordan-petersons-astounding-ignorance-on-russia-and-ukraine/

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/07/jordan-peterson-youtube-video-russia-ukraine/676560/

Putin's invasion of Ukraine is the equivalent of the US invading Cuba.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

Why do you think ignorance is a virtue?

You missed the point.  What good is it to know names of those involved in foreign influence if you can't speak out about it?  You are the one in ignorance.  Agreeing to the government's security clearance silences the person who agrees to do it.  That is what the government wants to do, silence the opposition.  

 

[Aristides]

49 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You missed the point.  What good is it to know names of those involved in foreign influence if you can't speak out about it?  You are the one in ignorance.  Agreeing to the government's security clearance silences the person who agrees to do it.  That is what the government wants to do, silence the opposition.  

 

So you don't think anything should be classified or secret? You think it is OK for CSIS and the RCMP  to reveal their sources of intelligence to people who refuse to get a security clearance. Who is going to provide information to those organizations if they know some politician is going to broadcast their names to the media? The whole idea of a security clearance is to be confident someone will keep their mouth shut when given information that needs to be confidential. PP doesn't seem to be such a person, he wants to be critical without knowing WTF he is talking about. He wants to play politics with national security. I wouldn't trust the guy to take my dog out for a leak.

Edited October 21, 2024 by Aristides

[herbie]

19 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

For defemation he would have to prove Trudeau lied knowingly and that he suffered because of it. If he can prove that the case has merit, but that could be difficult.

That's exactly what I said. That's hard enough to do anytime, plus tack on security reasons, you won't see evidence without clearance and it won't be tried in an open court.
Way more than simply 'difficult'

[User]

40 minutes ago, Aristides said:

He isn't a booster but he is definitely an apologist for what Putin is doing in Ukraine.

You seem to be having a different argument here. You are highlighting criticisms of his take on aspects of the war, but you were claiming he was a Putin apologist. 

This is a real problem with some of you folks on the left when someone doesn't 100% sycophantly support war in Ukraine at any and all costs to defeat Russia. 

Peterson has clearly condemned Putins invasion. 

 

[Black Dog]

On 10/18/2024 at 7:33 PM, Michael Hardner said:

https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/03/08/how-jordan-peterson-repeats-kremlin-myths-to-justify-the-invasion-of-ukraine/

 

Yes, Peterson is Putin's cheerleader but he does it for free right?

Maybe they paid him in benzos.

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, User said:

You seem to be having a different argument here. You are highlighting criticisms of his take on aspects of the war, but you were claiming he was a Putin apologist. 

This is a real problem with some of you folks on the left when someone doesn't 100% sycophantly support war in Ukraine at any and all costs to defeat Russia. 

Peterson has clearly condemned Putins invasion. 

 

He is an apologist. He condemns it then makes excuses for it.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

So you don't think anything should be classified or secret?

I never said that.

But the names of MPs who are involved in foreign interference should be announced.  What good is it to keep it secret?

If the government is going to keep everything secret and handcuff the opposition in order to give them any information, then that right there should tell you there is something wrong.  

How can anything be done about it if nobody knows except a few politicians who agree to keep it secret?

If the public is told, that would be a big deterrent for politicians thinking of getting involved in it.

This is simple logic, like grade 1 school level.

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, herbie said:

That's exactly what I said. That's hard enough to do anytime, plus tack on security reasons, you won't see evidence without clearance and it won't be tried in an open court.
Way more than simply 'difficult'

Well as we already noted in later conversations he misspoke and what he said here wasn't accurate. So I will refer you to that conversation because what you disagreed with is it exactly accurate. He corrected what he said shortly after and that is accurate.

36 minutes ago, Aristides said:

He is an apologist. He condemns it then makes excuses for it.

There's nothing to apologize for. It's you Trudeau supporters who are in the wrong here. He does the right thing, you try and fabricate some reason why it's wrong, and then when he says no I'm right you turn around and call him an apologist.

He is absolutely correct. And he should continue to pressure every day for them to release the information. Trudeau is hiding the information because it makes the liberals look bad and it is the job of the opposition to pester him and make sure people don't forget that until he either does the right thing or is voted out

[User]

58 minutes ago, Aristides said:

He is an apologist. He condemns it then makes excuses for it.

Lets frame this up here in an analogy. 

A person, stops by the bank and withdrawals several thousand dollars in cash. They leave in their back pocket sticking out where anyone can see it, they decide to go out to a known criminal and gang area late at night by themselves, proceed to get drunk by themself, then while intoxicated proceed to walk down a dark alley with flashing neon signs that say if you enter here you will be robbed and beaten. They are still just sober enough to see those signs, but are feeling lazy and want to take the shortcut. 

They get jumped, robbed, and beaten. 

So here we are, you and I, we are having a talk about this situation looking back in hindsight. You clearly say, those dudes that jumped and beat that guy, they were clearly wrong. That was bad. It was awful. However, you know, there were some things the guy could have done along the way to make some better choices to help avoid that from happening. 

Me: HOW DARE YOU, YOU ARE AN APOLOGIST FOR THOSE CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!

That is this discussion in a nutshell. 

 

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I never said that.

But the names of MPs who are involved in foreign interference should be announced.  What good is it to keep it secret?

If the government is going to keep everything secret and handcuff the opposition in order to give them any information, then that right there should tell you there is something wrong.  

How can anything be done about it if nobody knows except a few politicians who agree to keep it secret?

If the public is told, that would be a big deterrent for politicians thinking of getting involved in it.

This is simple logic, like grade 1 school level.

Well if he got a clearance he could find out why? 
You don’t know anything yet you think you know something.

Intelligence agencies need to protect their sources, it is CSIS that is refusing to brief him without a clearance, not Trudeau. That’s their job.

Edited October 21, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Well if he got a clearance he could find out why? 

And then never be allowed to talk about it

You keep leaving that out as if it's not relevant. There's no point in knowing who the murderer was if you're not allowed to take action on it. Better to keep investigating

[suds]

On 10/19/2024 at 12:48 AM, West said:

It really is bizarre to see elected officials target private citizens. These Marxists are pretty sick 

Why would Trudeau even target Peterson in the first place? He's not a politician. He has nothing to do with official government policy. And as far as I can tell, there's no apparent conflict of interest. I support Peterson because he's a free speech advocate, and we could use a few more just like him. It doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.

[Michael Hardner]

31 minutes ago, suds said:

Why would Trudeau even target Peterson in the first place? He's not a politician. He has nothing to do with official government policy. And as far as I can tell, there's no apparent conflict of interest. I support Peterson because he's a free speech advocate, and we could use a few more just like him. It doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.

Two comments:

1. I would bet Trudeau hates Peterson, just based on the untouchability of the latter, and his constant §hit tossing towards the Liberal Party.

2. The guy you support is the worst argument for free speech, because he tosses his garbage opinions around, and seeks out uncritical platforms to broadcast them.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. The guy you support is the worst argument for free speech, because he tosses his garbage opinions around, and seeks out uncritical platforms to broadcast them.

Even if this were true... wanting to go on favorable platforms has nothing to do with support for free speech. 

That aside, I don't think this is true at all. Generally speaking, the way this goes, is that authors like him go on book promotion tours, they get invited to talk shows and other major media outlets to answer questions and promote their books. The major media outlets are notorious for blacklisting conservative folks like Jordan Peterson, because they don't want to rile up anyone in the LGBTQ community because he doesn't think men can be women... 

But this is your assertion, you have some evidence that he only seeks out uncritical platforms?

Much of his claim to fame around 6 years ago or more was his going around to very critical platforms, debates, etc... 

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, suds said:

Why would Trudeau even target Peterson in the first place? He's not a politician. He has nothing to do with official government policy. And as far as I can tell, there's no apparent conflict of interest. I support Peterson because he's a free speech advocate, and we could use a few more just like him. It doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.

It is a mystery and he should explain. I don't see this doing Trudeau a lot of good.

[blackbird]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. The guy you support is the worst argument for free speech

Why?  Because Peterson exposes the DEI nonsense of Trudeau.  DEI is part of Trudeau's foreign policy with China and India.  Those countries just laugh their heads off at Trudeau and his DEI policies, thinking he can impose them on China and India.   When will liberals learn they can't force the rest of the world to accept their DEI progressivism ideology?  Nobody is buying it much of the rest of the world, especially in non-democratic countries like Russia, China, India which have a somewhat different system than Canada.

Trudeau and liberals thought they could bring in thousands of Sikhs and these people could carry on their Khalistan stuff in Canada.  In India there are terrorists among them and there has been a history of trouble.  Now Trudeau is learning that allowing foreign groups to bring there struggles to Canada, such as the Khalistan movement and now the Palestinian radicals, just doesn't work.  It only leads to problems.

[Legato]

49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Two comments:

1. I would bet Trudeau hates Peterson, just based on the untouchability of the latter, and his constant §hit tossing towards the Liberal Party.

2. The guy you support is the worst argument for free speech, because he tosses his garbage opinions around, and seeks out uncritical platforms to broadcast them.

Those are not comments, they are misguided assertions.

[suds]

54 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Two comments:

1. I would bet Trudeau hates Peterson, just based on the untouchability of the latter, and his constant §hit tossing towards the Liberal Party.

2. The guy you support is the worst argument for free speech, because he tosses his garbage opinions around, and seeks out uncritical platforms to broadcast them.

Vindictiveness isn't exactly a quality anyone should admire in a leader. So why make excuses for one and vilify the other?

[Aristides]

22 minutes ago, suds said:

Vindictiveness isn't exactly a quality anyone should admire in a leader. So why make excuses for one and vilify the other?

MAGA's sure admire it.

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, suds said:

Vindictiveness isn't exactly a quality anyone should admire in a leader. So why make excuses for one and vilify the other?

Indeed, no one should make excuses for Trudeau.

Peterson isn't a villain, he's a pompous egoist.