3 ms·
Do you notice that your reply here is so lacking in substance that you could copy and paste it on just about any argument on any topic? In this thread, I've me
by pryce 8y ago
Do you notice that your reply here is so lacking in substance that you could copy and paste it on just about any argument on any topic?
In this thread, I've mentioned Peterson's works. I've described the content of Peterson's work, I've made reference to specific claims he has made (eg his claims of an academic Postmodern Marxist plot, his arguments against C-16) and my assessment of them (conspiracy theory &, transphobia, respectively). People are welcome to object to my assessments but the level of critique of them by you here and ekianjo above amounts to "nuh-uh".
- antidesitter 8y agoCan you explain how “his arguments against C-16” are “transphobia”? > I've described the content of Peterson's work You’ve done no such thing. Not at any level above name-calling, anyway.
- pryce 8y agoI've described the content of and linked to the full text of C-16 elsewhere in this thread. Have you read it before? > You’ve done no such thing. I don't mean to say my description is comprehensive, I mean that people objecting to my analysis so far and claiming I am unfamiliar with his work haven't even bothered to mention any specific ideas from his work, and it is hard to take their objections seriously.
- antidesitter 8y ago> I've described the content of and linked to the full text of C-16 elsewhere in this thread. Did you even read my question? Linking to C-16 is not explaining how “his arguments against C-16” are “transphobia”. > haven't even bothered to mention any specific ideas from his work Neither have you, which is what the people you’re referring to are objecting to.
- pryce 8y agoLinking to C-16 is not explaining how “his arguments against C-16” are “transphobia”. Of course it isn't, but it allows me to know what you are and aren't already familiar with, so I can know whether I need to first explain that part of it or not. I have accused Peterson of 'fearmongering' regarding this bill, and a substantial part of that is a deeply misleading characterization of the bill. I am trying to understand "are you familiar with C-16 through Peterson's portrayals of it and secondary commentary, or are you familiar with the primary text of the bill itself". I am also curiou whether you've seen the primary text around the time of the controversy and, or whether you've seen the text of the bill only after seeing it linked here.