Social Justice, Political Correctness, and the Left

Alright so I live in Toronto where this Jordan Peterson business is going down. I work three blocks away from where the protests have been and the viral videos were filmed. I've listened to some of his lectures and watched a handful of videos concerning him and the gender non-binary issue.

I've also been watching Ben Shapiro lectures. He talks a lot about politics and relevant issues today concerning political correctness and social justice. He talks about Black Lives Matter and American politics. He's been very informative for me, and for the first time ever in my life I feel like I'm beginning to understand America, and politics in a broader sense.

It seems to me like it is a crucial time in our history and big things are happening. I'm really starting to feel like it's time to get more involved and educated on these subjects. I'm religious and conservative. I agree with free speech, and I don't agree with social justice and political correctness. I think that verbal harassment should be a crime, but not hate speech. Peterson said something very interesting about hate speech. If these people aren't allowed to speak openly and publicly without fear of oppression from the government then they will go underground and we won't know who they are, where they are, or what they're saying. If people are allowed to speak openly, even if it's controversial, then they can be spoken with, and hopefully they can be reasoned with and corrected. And concerning legislating that people have to use certain pronouns or it's hate speech: the government shouldn't legislate what words people have to use. What words people use should be their own choice. Making it illegal is literally putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to, because if they don't then armed law enforcement agents come and arrest you.

I don't really understand much about politics. I did a political survey and it said I was in the same place as Ghandi, but I don't consider myself a liberal, and I'm not for non-violent opposition to evil. I wouldn't stand in front of a tank the way he did. I would fight against the government if it came to that.

I started this thread partly to discuss these issues, but also to educate myself and others. Please post instructional educational videos on the topic. I would appreciate any means to further educate myself. Below are some videos that I found very helpful, and so you can see where I'm coming from and getting my information:

From what I gather this is Peterson's original video that started everything. It was originally posted earlier than September and was taken down and re-uploaded. I'm not certain of that, but that's what I've been able to gather.


This is him talking about the backlash and things concerning people's responses to his first video.


Ben Shapiro on white privilege:


Ben Shapiro dealing with LGBTQ protestors:


Ben Shapiro on climate change (climate change is another topic I could use more information on):


Ben Shapiro talking about politics and arguing against leftist ideals:

I think learning about American politics from this Ben Shapiro guy is giving you a very distorted "understanding" of America and politics in any broader sense. He might be confirming what you already believe but there is another side, and that other side, despite what Shapiro says, is not just far-left radicalism that wants to take away your free speech and plunge your standard of living into the dark ages. I listened to a bit of his climate change video, and he makes an outrageous claim less than twenty seconds into the video. Then later as he's demonizing the Left, he claims they only want to bash the Right. (From what I heard he seems to think it's a reasonable argument that we should do nothing because third world countries won't do anything, and the assertion that environmentalism is a luxury of the rich is just an attempt to demean a position that is not just an opinion but a consensus of very solid scientific study.)

If you want to know about climate change, then watch this series of videos:

Climate change explained, and the myths debunked

As for solutions . . . there are solutions, and they don't propose taking us back to the days of hunters and gatherers. But we all need to get on the same page, and pretending today is all that matters, and screw our children's and grandchildren's future, is beyond outrageous. (And baby steps are better than nothing, and there is the possibility we're too late anyway, but just because it might be too late to stop before going off the cliff doesn't mean you don't apply the brakes and try to swerve.)

That's my position. As for me, I'm very much in the middle, and I think a strong Republican party and a strong Democratic party is the best situation. What we in America got in 2016 was the absolute worse the parties had to offer, and so we got an unqualified narcissistic billionaire TV reality star as president, and "That's not going to be good for anybody."

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

there's no Left-wing in the US....

Kaplan, is your climate change link supposed to be a short clip from Sienfeld?

LOL No, I was going to add that video to the end of my post for the sake of levity and messed up when I had to edit the original link. The link is fixed now.

I watched the first video on your playlist Kaplan, and I'll continue watching more. It was pretty helpful actually. What do you think of Rebel Media's Gavin McInnes?



Also I'm curious to know more about your feelings towards Ben Shapiro. You watched "a bit of his climate change video?" Is that all you watched?

What I don't understand is how when a person is on the "right" they seem to automatically have a pre-defined set of opinions, at least a lot of the time. I don't understand how there appears to be such a strong correlation between conservative economics and climate change denial. A question I have for you, if you don't believe that government should regulate speech, what are the major "things" that government should actively look to control/legislate?

__________________

I don't have any deep opinions of Ben Shapiro because I wasn't aware of him until you posted about him. However, doing a little research and listening to some of his videos gives a pretty clear picture of what his politics are and where he's coming from. My point wasn't to bash him, only to point out that he is firmly on the Right, and therefore he is presenting one side--and not just that, but he is presenting his side by demonizing political positions that are left of his.

I am aware of Gavin. I've watched several videos of his, and he has cornered a niche, it seems. A Canadian hipster right-winger. Go figure. In contrast there is someone currently gaining popularity, at least on Facebook, by calling himself the Redneck Liberal. I forget his name. There's another guy, an African American pro-gun right-winger who spews out stuff about blacks that would get any white person saying it labeled a racist. I kinda liked him, until he proved to be a phony and a jerk, and now I avoid his videos.

Anyhow, Gavin lost me with his pro-Trump BS. I can relate in a very small way to his general attitude and found some of his other rants amusing, even while many were tedious, but ultimately I again find him a bit of a phony, and I can't tolerate his promotion of Trump.

None of these people are what I would consider anything more than internet entertainers, whether you find them amusing or irritating. They're people who are very good at presenting their opinion in an entertaining way. Nothing wrong with that, and they can provide a way to delve deeper into the issues, but they should all be approached with some skepticism. I try to gravitate toward those who have the background and methodology to back up their positions.

I'm pretty sure this is how the other side always looks to everyone. I mean, if you give me any one of your opinions about a major political issue, couldn't I guess most of the others?

Regardless, obviously the least charitable answer is simple group think. The most charitable answer is that they share an underlying view of the world (about God and/or human nature, for example), which logically leads them to lots of other specific beliefs that anyone else with that same starting premise is very likely to also reach.

I can keep going, but this comment sort of reads like a drive-by, so I have no idea if you were actually interested in discussing it.

Well, it depends on what you actually mean by "climate change denial." Is there actually a strong correlation there, if you take them term literally, or is there just a strong correlation between conservative economics and people who don't think climate change should be counteracted with economic regulations? Most of the people I talk to about this don't bother to make this distinction: they assume that the existence of climate change automatically necessitates twelve other things, up to and including a basic restructuring of our economy.

I know a lot of conservatives who think the planet's getting steadily warmer. I'm one of them, in fact. But it's not a straight shot from that conclusion to, say, a massive carbon tax, and I'm consistently surprised at how often all the things inbetween are taken for granted.

Kaplan, I did find your strong cautioning of Shapiro a little condescending. I’m not going to take it to heart, but I hope you don’t think that I just agree with everything he says without thinking for myself. What I was trying to get at is that I find him very informative. I am starting to understand American politics, and he puts things into perspective for me. Take, for example, the gun laws. I used to just think they were absurd, but now the way that Americans are so protective of their gun laws makes sense. I still don’t agree with their gun laws, but I no longer think it’s just absurd.

Gavin is an entertainer, completely, but for an entertainer I find it refreshing that he has a fair amount of substance to his content.

I was also wondering about this. When I hear the phrase, “climate change denial” it makes me laugh. Personally I don’t have a stance yet on climate change because I don’t know enough about it. A lot of people around me say really ridiculous things about “global warming.” I am skeptical of the widespread nonsensical talk revolving around the phrase “global warming,” and even a lot of what people say about “climate change” at least has me wondering how much of it is reliable information. People say a lot of things, and most of the time they don’t really know what they’re talking about. So right now I’m just trying to learn about how the atmosphere behaves and what carbon emission does to the environment. But I’ve heard some really good points about how a lot of things proposed for curbing “global warming” are impractical. Concerning cars, why can’t we just use ethanol? Wouldn’t that solve the problem? I don’t know much about it, but I’ve heard that it gives a nice clean blue flame and it’s cheap and easy to manufacture. Didn’t Brazil switch to Ethanol, and it supposedly brought the country out of debt? My brother was telling me about a documentary he saw on the subject. I haven’t seen it myself though.

The government should legislate against verbal assault and physical violence.

I once posted an essay on facebook concerning homosexuality. A few people accused me of hate speech. I explained that these were my religious beliefs which are protected from being accused of being hate speech. In fact their accusations of hate speech were a form of hate speech because they were attacking my religious beliefs. But I didn’t turn around and accuse them of hate speech. I didn’t make a big deal of it and get upset. It is a certain kind of person who will use these laws against people who say things they don’t like. Decent people are not going to call the cops on you just for saying something they don’t like. I think it’s very twisted. I think it’s intolerance.

i didn't read the article so i'm not gonna assume you were spewing hateful things, plus i don't really know you or what religion you follow, but i don't agree that something can't be hate speech because it's a "religious belief." certain religious beliefs are hateful against gay people. saying it's your own personal belief doesn't somehow change that fact.

__________________
letterboxd

I think because the US political system is so far to the right (more than any other major power) that by default people are going to be on one side on every issue. It is odd, but usually things come down to money and priorities, between social and economic issues.

Hate speech doesn't have to be hateful, it just has to be offensive. I`m Christian, and the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. You can probably see why the LGBTQ community would find it offensive to hear that their sexual orientation is immoral. They saw it as discrimination. But that`s the sensitive nature of "hate speech." Just because someone finds something offensive, doesn't mean the other person is trying to be offensive, or attacking the other person. But the law now says, at least in Canada, that it doesn't matter what your intent is. As long as it's offensive, it's hate speech. Where it really gets tricky is that discriminating against someone for their religious beliefs is also hate speech. So if someone believes that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it is, and someone else says something offensive to that religious person, then the offender is guilty of hate speech. One of the problems that Jordan Peterson is addressing is that the legislation is written in very vague terms, and at the very least it needs to be rewritten. The legislation in question is bill c-16.

I think hate speech should not be a crime. If someone says something offensive about my religious beliefs do you think I'm going to call the cops on them? Should it be illegal to say that God doesn't exist, or that God is stupid? How can you police speech like that. I think the law right now is absurd. I will never call the police on someone for saying something offensive to me. They are entitled to their opinion. I might call the cops in a case of extreme verbal abuse though. If someone repeatedly hurls insults and vulgar profanities at me and will not stop, as a last resort, yeah I'd call the cops and get a restraining order, but it would have to be pretty severe for me to go that far. If someone called me a she instead of a he, I would just ignore them.

Being gay myself, I have to admit, I don't think hate speech should be an offence. People making such remarks make people who support my right to get married, and adopt and foster children question exactly why they support such ideals, and why they reject people who explicitly oppose them.

Nevertheless, I think it is ludicrous that people use their religion to excuse acts, that are, in my opinion, inexcusable. A good example would be the Northern Irish couple being refused a cake because the owner said it was against their religious beliefs. That's not right, it isn't speech, it's an act of discrimination based on pre-conceived ideas, and using religion to justify such behaviour is purely wrong in my opinion. It is just a cake admittedly, but there have been cases of gay couples being refused rooms at hotels or B&Bs because the owners played the religion card. Things like that make my blood boil, because service to an interracial couple, or someone of an ethnic minority group would never be refused, but it's the same act, just applied to a different minority.

So it's a difficult one, because although I strongly support freedom of speech, there still needs to be boundaries protecting minority groups from forms of discrimination. Thankfully, I just happen to live in one of the fastest secularising countries in the world anyway

As for the Bible explicitly saying homosexuality is a sin... that's questionable in itself since it comes from the parts where it has people allowing their daughters to be gang raped, commanding you to wash your arms up the elbow in case you touch a non-believer in the streets etc.

And never boil a kid in its mother's milk!

Alright, this is getting interesting.

Okay, this is a really interesting comment. I'm Christian. The Bible explicitly says that homosexuality is a sin. However, I still support the right for homosexuals to get married and adopt children. Even though I don't condone homosexuality, those people should still be legally allowed to marry and adopt kids. I don't condone being selfish either, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Edit: I agree with your point though, about how people who think hate speech should be an offense make us question why they agree with homosexual marriage. Do they just agree with what they like and oppose what they dislike? Are they being hypocrites? What exactly is the nature of a person's "rights" and "freedoms?" They should be free to do what they want and say what they want as long as they aren't violating another person's freedom.

Do you have a link so I can see exactly which case you're referring to?

Do you think that people have the right to refuse to serve whoever they want? Or do you think that they should be forced to serve everyone no matter what? Because where do you draw the line? If I open a business, do I have to serve everyone who comes in even if they're rude, or can I refuse anyone even if it's just because of their skin color or sexual orientation? I think a business owner should have the right to refuse anyone, rude, polite, black, white, gay, straight. They don't need a reason. They can serve whoever they want and refuse whoever they want, it's their business. How are you going to legislate that without violating people's rights to freedom?

Why do people need to be free from discrimination? Do you think people can be forced to not discriminate without their own human rights being violated?

The way I look at it, there is decent behavior and indecent behaviour, and the government can't force people to be decent. If it's immoral, that doesn't mean it should be illegal. It may be immoral to discriminate, but it's also immoral to be sexually perverse, or to lie, or to be selfish, but none of those things should be enforced at gunpoint by the government. Because let's remember that making something "illegal" means the police will come with guns and arrest you, and a court order will force you to comply or go to jail. Do you think a gun should be put to someone's head because they don't want to sell a cake to someone who's gay or black, or is it only people who are just plain rude that can be refused service?

Being plain rude is a choice. Being homosexual, black etc. isn't , you should serve everyone, you shouldn't be permitted to cherry pick who you do and don't, that's discrimination. I hugely disagree with the idea that an owner can serve who they like and not provide a reason. It's a bit like saying you wouldn't give this person a job interview because they're gay, and this one because she's a woman etc. It's taking your beliefs and then acting in a way that isn't fair to everyone.

No I don't think a gun should have been held to their head because they didn't serve them a cake, but they should be sanctioned for it. They have every right to believe what they want about us as a community, but they can't then abuse their position because of said beliefs, that crosses the line for me. If a black couple were refused service, there would be outrage, but it's the same principle, just a different group. I hope that makes sense.

The link is being a bit funny as well (I'm on my phone), but the incident was the owners wouldn't ice a cake saying it supported gay marriage, so they refused service. They appealed a decision ruling against them, but still weren't successful due to several reasons, one being that icing a cake doesn't mean you conform to the message on the cake. "Northern Ireland gay marriage cake" shows the results in more detail, though!