3 ms·

Can 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 leve

Can 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 ago
I'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 ago
    Linking 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.

3 ms·

Can 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 leve

by antidesitter 8y ago

Can 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 ago
I'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 ago
    Linking 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.