ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, June 22, 2018

Cucks always crumble

Jordan Peterson is befuddled by a journalist comedian throwing out a basic appeal to civil rights.
Making people make a cake for a gay wedding.

Making them do it? I don't think that's a very good idea.

Here's the argument. Should they be able to deny making a cake for a black couple if they don't like black people?

Allowed to? Probably. That doesn't mean it's right.

Okay, so we had the Civil Rights movement, where they said, black people, we had to serve them in your restaurants and stuff like that, and it did work, and it did make our society better.

Yeah.

But you still argue that wasn't right?

No, that was right.

Why is that different to now, if you didn't want to make a cake for black people?

Maybe it's not. Maybe it's not different. Maybe I was wrong about that.
So much for the right of free association in the eyes of the grand champion of individualism. Remember, this leading philosopher of the 21st century, this irreplaceable man who believes only he can save the world with very important thoughts never thought before, previously managed to lose a debate to SAM freaking HARRIS over what the meaning of "true" is.

What a joke.

Labels: ,

57 Comments:

Blogger Kettle June 22, 2018 11:07 AM  

SAD.

Civil rights was wrong. Freedom of association is critical.

Blogger Eduardo June 22, 2018 11:09 AM  

Now Now Vox, that makes it look like Sammy is a dumb guy... teehee.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 22, 2018 11:09 AM  

I can't tell if JBP hasn't thought about this obvious angle or is just afraid to state his position. Either way, the man is genuinely unimpressive.

Blogger Salt June 22, 2018 11:11 AM  

J.B.P.

Just. Been. Pwnd.

Blogger Eduardo June 22, 2018 11:13 AM  

Well the crux here is the Idea that Civil Rights made Society Better.

But better in which way exactly???

Jordan doesn't really care for Historical Statistics so to him there is no reason to deny that Civil Rights was better because it made Black People more like everybody else in Public/Open to the Public Places, but has it made society better for real???

That is the Question.

Blogger Unknown June 22, 2018 11:14 AM  

Disappointing. All you have to say to counter this type of argument is something to the effect of "civil rights was a cultural shift more than a legal one; most businesses in the South determined that they would make more money by catering to more people, without any laws forcing them to do so. This general culture of racial inclusion is what allows freedom of association and proof that it doesn't automatically lead to exclusion."

Done.

Blogger OGRE June 22, 2018 11:20 AM  

Jordan Peterson is befuddled by a journalist

Its worse than that. The interviewer is Jim Jefferies, an Australian stand-up comedian and only in the loosest sense could he be considered a journalist.

Blogger L' Aristokrato June 22, 2018 11:21 AM  

You could use that same logic to advocate for rape.

Blogger Warunicorn June 22, 2018 11:22 AM  

Okay, so we had the Civil Rights movement, where they said, black people, we had to serve them in your restaurants and stuff like that, and it did work, and it did make our society better.

Oh, it did? lol That's some astounding lack of self-awareness there. See wonderful, vibrant places like Detroit for examples.

It's getting to the point now where saying you don't like someone based on what they look like is a crime. Orwell was a prophet.

Blogger Cecil Henry June 22, 2018 11:25 AM  

Yeah, he's never been challenged to account for his criticism of 'identity politics' in the face of his prominent defense of Jewish interests and ethnic activism.

ITs a glaring hypocrisy.

Blogger Cecil Henry June 22, 2018 11:32 AM  

@6: that doesn't do it.

Because the issue is freedom of association and thus freedom to disassociate.

YOu're argument just concedes the point and agenda for the left by a different means.

https://i.imgur.com/S2YPZHB.png

Blogger Matt Robison June 22, 2018 11:43 AM  

Ugh. What's dumb is that you can make an appeal even under the Civil Rights framework. There is no excuse to fail on this issue.

The bakers were not discriminating against them because they were gay. The bakers would have been happy to make a birthday cake, or a graduation cake, or whatever, regardless of their sexual orientation.

It's the event itself they don't want to participate in or celebrate.

Anonymous Anonymous June 22, 2018 11:44 AM  

1) do blacks or fags clean their rooms?

2) Peterson needs to adopt a pet niglet ASAP to bring up in these struggle sessions

Blogger NO GOOGLES June 22, 2018 11:47 AM  

@6
Except that's not true. In reality, you can't have a club or an establishment that is whites only. That was one of the major goals of the civil rights movement: to allow nonwhites to force their way into white areas and to give them legal cover to do so.

The clever way they hid this goal is the lie that it's not OK to refuse service based on race at all - in reality, nonwhite establishments can deny service to whites and it's very unlikely anything will be done at all. Nevermind that in reality it was white establishments that blacks wanted access to, and not the other way around.

It's one of the sneaky tactics the left uses to disguise an unequal outcome as an "equal" one. In reality, white people formed their own clubs and establishments for themselves and civil rights denied them that right. But it doesn't affect nonwhites in the same way, even though by the letter of the law it should. Even if it were enforced by the letter of the law, whites weren't clamoring for access to nonwhite establishments - it was the other way around. And that's the entire idea: disguising a law forcing one group to cater to another as a law that gives everyone "equal" access.

Blogger NO GOOGLES June 22, 2018 11:52 AM  

In re: Jordan Peterson - he's just another leftist (sometimes they call themselves "liberal" or "conservative") that cares because now it's his ox being gored. He didn't care about any of these problems before they started affecting him, and he still doesn't care about principle if the situation doesn't affect him.

That's one of the many issues Peterson has - he realizes why freedom of association is important, but unlike what many of his defenders will say, he's extremely resistant to any principled stand for anything that doesn't immediately affect him.

He's all for defending free speech to the hilt when it's his speech that's under threat of censorship, but as soon as it's Faith Goldy or someone he disagrees with, it's "oh well pragmatism is best" excuses. It annoys me that he gets this wholly undeserved reputation for being principled when in reality he's never stood up for a principle that didn't benefit him specifically. That is the OPPOSITE of being principled.

Blogger Matthew McDaniel June 22, 2018 11:53 AM  

Do I have the right as a customer to demand a BLT at a kosher deli?

Blogger Matthew McDaniel June 22, 2018 11:55 AM  

Not cucking here, but the equating of 60s Black civil rights with gay rights is ridiculous. I’d be offended if I were a black person.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums June 22, 2018 11:56 AM  

This "bake the cake" issue has become a litmus test for Left or Right.

It also applies to who is for or against free speech. Ironically enough Peterson made a whole career over his refusal to use compelled speech though in this clip it takes some quick-witted leftist comedian only a few seconds to make him change his mind.

I'm beginning to think Leftists don't fundamentally understand what free speech is. At this point for them it's another buzzword like inclusivity, diversity, multiculturalism, etc. The far-left ones want to ban free-speech without understanding that free speech is the only way they can accurately identify and isolate "bigots". The center-left ones want to make free-speech mandatory but at the same time deplatform Faith Goldy for being "too hot a property".

Blogger Amy June 22, 2018 11:56 AM  

Jim Jeffries used to go on O&A and Ron and Fez just to talk about his addictions and how he’d screw pretty much anything that came his way. Haven’t listened in years to him, his comedy was good for a laugh here and there but something put me off. Then he got a girlfriend and had a kid, I dunno maybe he is a married family man now, but the push for most crass commentary...I understand it, and a lot of it might be stage persona, but when you’re paid to pretend and exaggerate for a living, it becomes hard to separate the performer from the man.

Comedy Central has this sort of hipster cool cachet that reels in lower tier HS and college kids by the score. It was made to make them think they’re smarter/better/wittier than their peers, worthy of inclusion by the real movers and shakers, simply by nature of repeating Trevor Noah’s talking points.

Ok then.

I liked Kilborn as the host but he was too PUA and edgy for the show. That’s how they get you! Let you think you’re edgy, than cut you with your own edge.

But back to Peterson. C’mon. Brothers be down low and sheeet. “Black couples” and wedding cakes happen but why’d they wanna get a whiteman to provide when they got they own bakahs? This is why multicult won’t survive. Oh, it is surviving, but only until the money runs out for the grievance industry.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora June 22, 2018 11:58 AM  

He's as spineless as ever. The curse of the eternal moderate. And looking at his twitter it appears he's trying to suck up to NNT to maybe get on his good side again. Guess that serves to indicate the angle he'll take in his upcoming debates with Harris. Of course all he'll do is waffle and fail to do the position justice. The comments between all these fan bases really shows how awful the JBP and Harris audiences are in their own ways.

Blogger Cecil Henry June 22, 2018 12:00 PM  

In fact here is where a globalist like Peterson's argument against freedom of disassociation leads to.


Here is a Tweet from 'The Economist': ('All facts, no truth')


White Genocide is the agenda. Always has been:


"It is time to deliver the final blow to the tolerance of birthright by allowing people to choose the countries where they will live," says Jackie Stevens of @NorthwesternU.

#OpenFuture https://econ.trib.al/a6XlcyF


Come on Jordan, is this what you promote? Am I free to opt out?

Hotel Diversity: you can check out any time you like, but you can NEVER leave.

Blogger Aracuru June 22, 2018 12:03 PM  

I was somewhat neutral to negative about Jordan Peterson when he first came on the scene a few years ago. He came across as sort of a weenie about what he believed and that what he "believed" was already insultingly obvious. Nothing he stated was informative or insightful.

VD has done an excellent job of exposing this weenie-fraud. It's like everything Jordan Peterson believes is insubstantial, fluid, and subject to change on a whim...kind of like the SJWs. hmmm...

Blogger Manus June 22, 2018 12:08 PM  

( first comment here )

"Okay, so we had the Civil Rights movement, where they said, black people, we had to serve them in your restaurants and stuff like that, and it did work, and it did make our society better."

This statement is blatantly wrong , Civil Rights Movement wasn't about "restaurants and stuff" . It was about the Federal government and states discriminatory laws in institutions like ( the army , education , health and various department ) . I would forgive the Australian and the Canadian their ignorance .

Blogger NO GOOGLES June 22, 2018 12:11 PM  

It's obvious but I've seen a surprising number of people on the right miss it:
Just opposing the insane left SJWs does not make you "right wing" and it doesn't necessarily even make you an ally. At best, strange bedfellows. Peterson is doing what he's doing because it's in his interest and he's convincing some people that he's this principled messiah figure. He just wants SJWs not to gore his ox - he's fine with them goring anyone else's.

Blogger Garuna June 22, 2018 12:14 PM  

Embarrassing.

It's clear that the guy is a fad with no staying power. As I've said, Peterson is simply benefiting from a period of denial against identity politics. In a couple or so years, people will come to accept that identity politics is inevitable. And then, the gig is up for this mentally ill faggot.

Blogger freddie_mac June 22, 2018 12:16 PM  

@5 Eduardo
Well the crux here is the Idea that Civil Rights made Society Better.

But better in which way exactly???


When blacks are calling for segregated college dorms (https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28906/) and commencement ceremonies (https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/34202/), it indicates that this idea of mixing everyone together has a definite expiration date.

Pre-Civil Rights, there were thriving (vibrant?) black communities that had local business districts, and they did quite well. Black colleges served their constituents fairly well also.

Seems that separation served everyone, but now when whites try to separate from a group, that's raycis!

Blogger Looking Glass June 22, 2018 12:19 PM  

@26 freddie_mac

Look up the stats & pictures from 1950s Harlem. Quite a different world.

Though, now one has to start asking who set off the race riots of the 60s?

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey June 22, 2018 12:20 PM  

I think Leftists were gung-ho behind the idea of forcing Christians to bake wedding cakes, and pushing them around and so forth under the banner of equality. But then Trump got elected, and Leftists discovered the need to persecute anyone wearing a MAGA ball cap. They started kicking them out of bars and coffee houses, you name it. So they backpedaled on the Christian bakers, self-servingly. SCOTUS, on queue, followed suit (and left the door open to come back to the issue once Trump is nicely disposed of).

These are evil, powerful bastards. Peterson's on board with them. They don't give a damn about freedom of association, Christianity, the Constitution, even children at the border -- UNLESS, they can use it against us.

Blogger Man of The West June 22, 2018 12:33 PM  

I wrote a paper about the conflict between the civil rights movement and the freedom of association individualist concept in America for a middle school history class. As a non-idiot, I obviously concluded that the civil rights movement was an emotional reaction that resulting in a net negative for American freedom. If JBP hasn’t already pondered this basic question, and didn’t have the foresight to see the question being set up in this conversation, I would be skeptical of his IQ being anywhere above the 100-110 range. This is 8th grade level stuff here.

Blogger eyeslevel June 22, 2018 12:47 PM  

This shows how silly a middle of the road position is. You either have free association or you don't. If you concede that you do not have it in one area, you are conceding that you do not have it in all areas. Any compromise is an inherent contradiction.

This applies to the alt-lite and all cuckservative compromises. If you accept that anyone can be an American (German, Briton), you can't then argue for borders. Any immigration restriction becomes completely arbitrary.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 22, 2018 1:00 PM  

Making people make a cake for a gay wedding

.Should they be able to deny making a cake for a black couple

As a couple of people pointed out already, this is such a simple bait 'n switch that it's pathetic. The former is specifically requiring someone to engage in an independent artistic endeavor that promotes an action (homo "marriage") that is counter to his religious beliefs, and is specifically intended to mock them. It's much closer to requiring him to bake a cake for a Black Mass than it is to the "civil rights" canard.

The latter is the classic "minority 'civil rights' are more important than white freedom of association" argument. The wrong side won that one, of course, but there's no need to go into that. Just reject it as irrelevant.

Unless some Christian baker is refusing to sell any kind of baked goods to people who appear to be differently sexual preferenced, this is a deliberately poor, completely non-parallel analogy.

If Peterson doesn't see this, he's either:
1. Really bad at abstract thinking, or
2. Compelled to accept the progressive frame for this issue, because he knows that making effective arguments for the "wrong" side would place him outside the legacy media's Overton Window.

Oh well. I'm off to order my swastika cake at the Jewish bakery, and my pork pie at the Muslim bakery. I'll let you know if they "respect my civil rights" or not. I'm sure the ACLU will back me up, right?

The other implicit assumption here (of course) is the "Born This Way" trope -- that homosexuality is an "identity," rather than a type of sexual act. Suppose someone "identified" as a rapist, and had felt strong urges to rape, ever since childhood? Should you be allowed to "discriminate" against them? They were "Born This Way," after all...

Blogger English Tom June 22, 2018 1:14 PM  

@Wuzzums Fuzzums

They want to ban the free speech that gives them licence to call for the banning of free speech.

Blogger English Tom June 22, 2018 1:17 PM  

@Cecil Henry

The tolerance of birthright.

The arrogance of these snakes is breathtaking.

Blogger Bogey June 22, 2018 1:46 PM  

Jim Jefferies? He rolled over for that stupid cunt?

Blogger Thucydides June 22, 2018 1:53 PM  

He's still useful for instigating "Blue on Blue" firefights:

Jordan B. Peterson hits university with $1.5M defamation lawsuit
'This is a warning, let's say, to other careless administrators and professors'

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/21/jordan-b-peterson-hits-wilfrid-laurier-university-/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=manual&utm_campaign=20180326&utm_term=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert

Blogger Cloom Glue June 22, 2018 2:11 PM  

@23 The "Greensboro Four" waiting to be served at Woolworth's
Photograph by John G. Mobius, reprinted with permission of the News & Record, Greensboro, NC.

https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/civilrights/strategy.htm

When the movement was directing efforts at government departments and the laws establishing those institutions, it looks like it was about strategy, timing, not omission of other targets.

Blogger Valtandor Nought June 22, 2018 2:24 PM  

I guess as someone from abroad I must still be missing some context. How is it that civil rights is such a sacred cow that people will abandon all sorts of principles once it can be shown that a rigorous application of those principles would be bad for it?

Suppose a world in which all white shopkeepers want to sell to blacks is better than a world in which some don’t. It doesn’t follow that we ought to force all white shopkeepers to do business with blacks whether they want to or not. Still less does it follow that we must not allow any refusal to do business with anyone on anything if such allowance would have a chance (by application of logic and analogies) of weakening our power to force whites to sell to blacks.

I just don’t get it.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 22, 2018 2:33 PM  

The other response to this sort of leftist attack is just to put it back on them.

They're not actually engaging in honest argumentation here; they're just rationalizing the currently-fashionable position using a very simple algorithm.
Remember, there are no competing interests here -- you are simply right (because "progress"), therefore the other side can only be motivated by sheer hatred and ignorance.

Make some make appeals to "equality" and "civil rights," plug in one (or several) of the standard list of different varieties of "hate" to which the other side is supposedly prone, and you're all set. Your job is to make the other side "stop hating," and to "educate them." Your TV (or the NYT) can assist you by informing you in more detail about the preferred rationalizations for the current party line on this issue.

Life is easier when you don't even try to comprehend (let alone engage with) the other side's arguments. This is the essence of progress in the current year.
So just do the same thing:

I don't see you trying to compel Muslim bakeries (or Orthodox Jewish ones) to openly endorse ceremonies that deliberately mock their religious beliefs. Why not? Clearly, you're not really motivated by an irresistible need to sacralize buggery, as you claim, but simply by your vitriolic, unreasoning hatred for Christianity. Please try to be more tolerant. Educate youself. Help us to eradicate the scourge of Christophobia in the current year, so that we can move forward. Together. We Must Stop the Hate.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums June 22, 2018 2:57 PM  

You guys are missing the point with the whole civil rights issue. It's not relevant here at all. Jim Jefferies may be a leftist but he is not delusional, he's fast on his feet, and he knows what people want to hear.

He's using a combination of rhetoric and talking quickly enough to make Peterson stumble on his BS. If JBP would have come up with the perfect retort for the civil rights issue, Jefferies would have come up with another angle to tackle him by.

The question itself was a Catch-22 type of trap which Peterson didn't see coming. If he agreed that "baking the cake" was similar to the civil rights issue (which he did) then he has to either say "bake the cake, bigot" which is hypocritical or otherwise argue against the civil rights issue which would have made him look bad. If he didn't agree that the civil rights issue was comparable to "baking the cake" Jefferies could have said something like: "well the civil rights issue is an example where forcing someone to do something makes society a better place". This would put Peterson in the same position as with the first instance.

TL;DR version: Jefferies knew Peterson is worried about optics so he put Peterson in a position where he had to abandon his principles in order to save face.

Blogger VD June 22, 2018 4:06 PM  

The question itself was a Catch-22 type of trap which Peterson didn't see coming. If he agreed that "baking the cake" was similar to the civil rights issue (which he did) then he has to either say "bake the cake, bigot" which is hypocritical or otherwise argue against the civil rights issue which would have made him look bad.

This is an easy test. Tell the truth, stand by your principles, and completely fail to worry about how the morons think it looks. Then attack back.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 22, 2018 4:22 PM  

I'm very surprised that Peterson didn't go into a rambling 1500-word non-answer, bringing up thoroughly discredited theories in numismatics and organic gardening.
That's his usual pattern when given a direct question.

Blogger SirHamster June 22, 2018 4:48 PM  

Man of The West wrote:If JBP hasn’t already pondered this basic question, and didn’t have the foresight to see the question being set up in this conversation, I would be skeptical of his IQ being anywhere above the 100-110 range. This is 8th grade level stuff here.

There's a side effect of high IQ where you start to think you can compute everything real time and you don't need to do do your homework. Seems to work often enough in school.

Then you run into tough problems that can't be solved in 5 seconds, and you need to answer RIGHT NOW, and so dissemble and deflect and something incoherent comes out.

Intellect is not wisdom. Intellect is raw horsepower, which can *can* do the work, but maybe it didn't.

In this case, JBP didn't, and he may be too self-absorbed with "saving the world" to notice the contradictions and how his answer breaks itself. Ironic then, that he violates his own advice about cleaning your room before trying to fix the world. (but, Gamma) The ideas in his room are not in order.

Blogger Thumos June 22, 2018 5:04 PM  

School integration made America objectively, measurably worse. I went to all-white schools until high school, where it was 50% white and 39% black. That was a traumatic experience for all of us who had a capacity to learn. It dramatically brought down the level of education we were able to receive. Half of my classes were in the honors cohort which had just a few tokens in them, but elective classes were mixed. I remember looking on these people with pure disgust and resentment while trying to learn French. I was happy to be there and they simply did not belong there.

There's a reason Americans never wanted this. Integration brings down the performance of whites because you have different classes of people in the same room. It is shown in studies, and anecdotally speaking I can certainly attest to losing interest and throwing up my hands because there was no point. Many of the teachers had the same mindset. My parents didn't make enough money to send me to the Catholic school, where I would've had a much better experience. This is the real "systemic" oppression that is happening in America.

Blogger Sam June 22, 2018 5:14 PM  

@37
The Civil Rights movement was a cover for the American elite to ethnically cleanse and breakdown poor white neighborhoods. Think of it like a low scale version of the Hodomoor, complete with the blaming of the Kulaks for their own starvation (in this case white flight and murder).

As is usually the case when a monstrous evil has been committed, it binds together those who enacted it and they vigorous persecute any alternative narrative.

Blogger Thumos June 22, 2018 5:17 PM  

JBP and other enlightenment liberals who are trying to "save western civilization" with the same enlightenment liberal principles that failed need to be mocked, scorned, and called out relentlessly as the frauds they are. Vox has been the most aggressive in doing so. Most others are too mainstream, too cowardly, or not bright enough to see through the vacuousness of the JBP worldview, because the appeal of standing firm against SJW's provides a lot of easy talking points to garner viewers and shekels. Stefan Molyneux is part of the same problem. Despite that he gives nods to nationalism and racial consciousness, his main credo is that reason will save western civilization. Reason, which was made biblical by Anglo scholars and elites, and has failed in every way--logically, rhetorically, metaphysically. And now nearly half of our population can't into reason in the first place.

Blogger J Melcher June 22, 2018 5:30 PM  

One problem is that "whites only" establishments were often compelled by government to put up the signs and monitor who was in, or out, or sat where, based on observable skin color. It's not so different from jurisdictions now that require bars to put up signs and monitor the age of their patrons; and so at one remove require all those with a potential desire to ever enter a bar (to use the restroom or get a snack or even drink liquor) to carry government-issued-certification of age. Peterson clumsily objects to the compulsion question, but in the comparison surrenders on everything else. That is, if the effect would be "to make society better" then he surrenders on the compulsion issue as well. As people do with motor cycle helmets, vaping, buying health insurance, paying a carbon dioxide tax, respecting a delusional persons pronouns, or driving Muslims out of Sihk/Buddist regions of India...

Blogger FP June 22, 2018 6:03 PM  

Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:I can't tell if JBP hasn't thought about this obvious angle or is just afraid to state his position. Either way, the man is genuinely unimpressive.

That is pretty much JBP in a nutshell on any issue.

Blogger Mark Stoval June 22, 2018 7:19 PM  

@43 Thumos

I hear you.

I graduated high school just before desegregation ruined it. I have taught math in public high school and in Catholic middle school.

We claim that "no child should be left behind" but we ask them to do things they can not do. For example, we know damn well that trying to teach Algebra to a kid with a 90 or less IQ will never ever work --- yet we are supposed to do that. Can't get a degree in my state without passing Algebra one.

And Thomas Sowell has pointed out that many all black (teachers too) schools worked well before desegregation and now almost no integrated schools work.

It is almost as if the elites wanted to keep the masses from getting a real education, ain't it?

Blogger tublecane June 22, 2018 8:23 PM  

"Okay, so we had the Civil Rights movement"

This constitutes a disturbing share of leftist argumentation over the last several decades. That it still works on people is a testament to peer pressure

Blogger tublecane June 22, 2018 8:59 PM  

@14- Same with gender association. Men's clubs are under assault everywhere. Women gots to get into the Navy Seals, firehouse, the Citadel, Augusta golf course, men's locker rooms after sporting events, all the way down to Pop & Pop barbershops.

Meanwhile, try and get the authorities interested in punishing Curves for disallowing males. No one cares. Gender-exclusive establishments for me, not for thee.

Blogger tublecane June 22, 2018 9:13 PM  

@39- Jeffries may be quick on his feet, I wouldn't know. Far as entertainers go, comedians are usually more intelligent, because they have to write their own material and improvise. Though some of them are people of low intelligence blessed with the "gift of gab."

However, the civil rights/homos are the new black people trap for cake-baking is pro forma. It's been done almost to death. There's no excuse for Peterson to have been caught off guard by it.

Blogger Unknown June 22, 2018 9:15 PM  

I'm not sure how to quote...

@11
@14

So I agree with you guys in principle. I guess my suggestion was more of pure rhetoric. In other words, I suggested it as a way to "win" the gotcha, rather than a statement of principles. As it happens, when it comes to the questions of Civil Rights, I tend to side more with Malcolm X.

Blogger Arthur Isaac June 22, 2018 11:20 PM  

Civil rights turned some communities I know of into Jack Pine Barrens....

Blogger tz June 23, 2018 1:51 AM  

George "Ill" Will is another example.

Blogger The Foolproof June 23, 2018 7:46 AM  

Utterly pathetic. Peterson has devoted his career as public commentator to opposing compelled speech, but he failed to note how that applies to this case (Thomas’ ruling explained this well) and ceded that ground to SocJus. He can’t stand firm on even one matter on principle.

Blogger Pozzy Shelly June 23, 2018 4:18 PM  

This is just more evidence that when the Reformed Free United Republic of America is formed the first right in its Bill of Rights, written in all caps, l33t spe@k, pig Latin, English and Klingon (the two official languages), needs to be the absolute right of FREE ASSOCIATION. If that single right had been respected over the last 50 years basically 90% of todays problems would have never come about.

Blogger eyeslevel June 23, 2018 8:28 PM  

But you're allowed to discriminate based on political beliefs?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-red-hen-virginia-restaurant-reportedly-kicks-out-sarah-huckabee-sanders.html

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts