University of Toronto Rally For Free Speech

[PODCAST] #464: SPEED AND POLITICS (Interlude – “A Discussion Is Beginning” – The Opportunity At University of Toronto)

Play

Today's podcast is an expansion of the previous episode. It features an interview with Geoffrey "Biffo" Liew. He is a University of Toronto student, the organizer of the now infamous University of Toronto Rally For Free Speech, and a longtime listener to the School Sucks Podcast.

Some footage from The University of Toronto Rally For Free Speech:

The "pronouns" debate:

My Questions For Geoffrey "Biffo" Liew:
- Who you are and what you're studying at U of T?
- what has the campus climate been like for the last 2 months, how pervasive through U of T is this conflict we're all watching online?
- How have you tried to connect with Social Justice activists? What has the dialog or lack thereof been like with people who are hostile?
- The Pathology of "No justice, no peace."
- Reflecting on past experiences, we can both understand the SJW mindset
- what were the outcomes of the on-campus gender pronoun debate?
- what motivated you to organize an event for Jordan Peterson?
- How has Peterson influenced your life?
- what opportunities are students missing by allowing him to be cast as an intolerant villain ?

What This Series Is About:
Political thinking is often quick thinking.

Thinking quickly is is an evolution-driven feature that was once necessary for our survival. But in a vastly more complex world than the one our species grew up in, this mode of thought is often dangerous and destructive. Look around.

Sometimes some people, even libertarians, use mental shortcuts to arrive at faulty conclusions, and then engage in a process of rationalization for those conclusions.

This series will combine observations of the left and pro-Trump right over the last year with the valuable lessons from Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. The goal is utilize examples of thinking errors to avoid making them ourselves, often without even noticing.

Related Shows:
[PODCAST] #449: Sex-Ed (Part 2) – Widening the Space
[PODCAST] #446: Sex-Ed (Part 1) – Back To Biology Class?

Look Closer:

COMPLEXITY MANAGEMENT THEORY: MOTIVATION FOR IDEOLOGICAL RIGIDITY AND SOCIAL CONFLICT

Please Support School Sucks

Our Amazon Wish List
Donate With Bitcoin
Or Join the A/V Club
Support Us On Patreon
Shop With Us At Amazon

Your continued support keeps the show going and growing, which keeps us at the top of the options for education podcasts and leads to new people discovering this message. This subscription also grants you access to the A/V Club, a bonus content section with 200+ hours of exclusive audio and video.

If you are a regular consumer of our media, please consider making a monthly commitment by selecting the best option for you...

A/V Club - Basic Access - $8.00/Month AP Club - "Advanced" Access - $12.00/Month Sigma Sigma Pi - Full Access - $16.00/Month









 

Check Also

[BONUS] Brett and Andrew’s Teen Saga, Part 5 – Burning Grandma’s Chairs

(1 HOUR, 8 MINUTES) Brett remembers his freshman and sophomore years in college. Things take ...

One comment

  1. Listening to the interview with Geoffrey “Biffo” Liew is uplifting and a good springboard to diving into this topic, there is a lot to reason that will bring the spirit of the listeners down and so Brett really helped me keep positive going through minutes upon minutes of discussion on the topic. Biffo gives insight into the works of Jordan Peterson and the quest of being in pursuit of the meaning of life, which does not come through any of the video on youtube so I was glad to hear about this aspect being a priority of Jordan Peterson because he can seem to be a pretty disgruntled individual, which I understand is part of a process of walking the path in pursuing the meaning of life, in his view point.

    Watching the first couple of video screams pretty much a tornado of poo poo that is sticking to every word, thanks Rebel Media for trying, in and of the topic, the whole thing stinks in topic when watching these videos, but thanks to Brett we are saved. It’s hard, no sorry it’s impossible to make heads or tails in all the “dialog”, acts of incomplete sentences, accusations and plain old bad “human” behaviour, there is really no honour that can be found in any of this from Jordan Peterson or anyone else, just a huge ramble of opinion at the end of the day.

    English is an expression of thought, it’s a language which forms the way in which those using it will be forced to present thoughts and concepts in a way which implies assumption between the way the speaker and the environment engage, English inherently forces ownership of an individuals surroundings which leads easily to egocentric perspective. Could this entire argument be avoided, if we as a species, adopted for argument sake Shakespearean english, around pronouns. Is it fair to slander Shakespearean english because of gender identification, I think not, yet the argument of changing the pronoun used in our day to day language is an aesthetic of of species and does not devalue the human as an entity, a human holds qualities different in distinction to other spices and therefore the focus on pronouns acts as a distraction of what it is to be human, point being that pronouns of the human species can be and should be altered for the purpose of understanding the species but does not bare value as a topic defining what it is to be human as an absolute, therefore the argument is moot.

    Jordan Peterson’s analogy of the Walt Disney’s story of Ursula in the Little Mermaid was actually surprising and interesting as this starts to open another topic on how culture of the populous is formed. He makes a good point that what is developing here is the product of culture which has been formed through predictive programming by culture influences, it’s a good point to me because much of this is really just a justification of actions which are unconscious to a large part. The stage has been set and the actors are carrying out their roles to a tee without understanding that they have been manipulated sublimely in their final justifications.

    I just want to state that it should not be necessary for a person to claim their position on this topic to anyone, the idea of someone having to first state their position is a trap that can be seen used in the videos and an attempt to bring forward assumption without hearing a persons opinion, Jordan Peterson makes this clear in his debate that he has been placed on his ‘hind legs’.

    While listening to Mary Bryson opening statement I could not help think that the argument being made against Jordon Peterson was based on his predictive programming through his own studies on this subject, which is the point I was writing in my previous paragraph, ironically Mary Bryson is correct about this influence but forgets to acknowledge that the same is true for those who are making the argument for non-homosexuals, the point works in both ways. Listening to Mary Bryson I was reminded that of the issue of the Birth Certificate of a Person.

    When you look at your Birth Certificate you will notice that the individual is identified by sex and several other attributes. You will also notice that on the certificate an attribute exists in describing if the individual is human or not, the reason for this is that the individual is already classified as a ‘Thing’ not as a human. The birth certificate of an individual is a representation of a stock in the population of that country governing corporation, meaning it is a certificate of value in a corporation. As with all stocks the purpose of issuing a stock is for monetary value, to count the value of the corporation and provides a trading platform between parties in negotiating it’s value. The attributes of a certificate provides the parties in trade to negotiate the value based on the assumed productivity of the stock. When focusing on the attribute of sex on the certificate ‘Male’ has been classified as being better suited for higher production of physical labour while “Female’ has been identified as being better suited as an “insurance” similar to a bond due to the support provided to the company as the attribute of ‘Female’ implies the ability to give birth. The whole argument can be avoided by focusing on the potential of being able to birth or not to birth, it’s an economical value, nothing more. The argument presented here between Mary Byson and Jordon Peterson overlooks the issue of human value, the semantics of the attributes of the ‘Thing’ in existence distracts the parties from making the point that humans are not “Things” but rather conscious beings able to interact with the environments aspects of Space and Time unlike other documented species which have yet to be found to do the same thing. Without the attribute of Human on a Birth Certificate the individual does not have any standing ground to claim rights as a human and therefore will be treated without these rights. It’s up to each and every individual to claim the designation as being Human to claim these rights, they are not inherent and action is required before these claims can be made to make argument, I present to you the Last Will and Testament for this action. The direction of this discussion may only bring to existence a third type of attribute of the Thing under ‘Sex’ being ‘Other’ which does not address the issue of changing the identity of the Birth Certificate of a ‘Thing’ to the Birth Certificate of a Human which is really the issue that needs to be brought forward. Simply the entire point is moot as we are looking at “Things” which are claiming rights as Humans, when they have note been able to claim such an identity in legal terms.

    In Canada people have rights to use, according to the constitution and the supporting international human rights community which includes United Nations, on the condition that they are used appropriately. If a person is unable to argue their rights then they lose the rights in defence by argument. What is very evident here to me is that people have lost their ability to make the point of an argument and have resorted to violence which immediately would place them into contempt which would lead them to lose those “inherent” rights.

    I feel sorry for the non-heterosexual community, be that subdivided by many different groups because they are human first and foremost and this is where the argument is lost, the rights on non-hetrosexual communities can only be established on Human Rights, if a human is saying that their non-hetrosexual rights are not being acknowledged they are placing attention away from their human rights. Human rights will always superseded the derivatives of sexual orientation. The point should be moot, as sexual orientation is an attribute to being human not a classification of itself. What I witness here is a fear from the non-hetrosexual community to be treated like other minorities who have also failed in distinguishing their inalienable rights as humans and have tried to differentiate themselves and instead fallen away from human identity because of placing focus on the wrong values.

    I’m curious to present a hypothetical situation, if the Queen of England was bi-sexual, homosexual or transexual would that human be treated any different in the court of law? My assumption is no, as the Queen of England holds title to the position which grants rights of ruler that can not be taken away. The issue is not the title that uses the word queen, the word queen does not bear any alternative to king, these are just words of convenience that have been used to describe a position of partnership between the sexes, out of tradition. Changing the name from Queen of England to Ruler of England is a convenience which has no bearing in altering the the rights the position holds, it’s a moot point. The important aspect of the title Queen of England holds the value of being human and this is what differentiates the true rights and privileges from those who have not claimed such an identity.

    Jordon Peterson argues the point of gender in terms of phycology, the study of behaviour of humans, which is void of the study of absolute truth, if I may say. It’s fair that Jordan Peterson states his opinion in this regard as a warning of how redefining gender may have an effect of human behaviour although it is not the foundational proof of the environment of the universe and it’s physical forces which exist in an absolute manner for all humans, regardless of gender. Jordan Peterson’s warning is just that a warning, a prediction to and a prophesy to the mass population but this lacks the value of effect on the universe and it’s absolute physical forces on us as a species. Here the community of non-hetrosexual identity argues against a prophesy, it seems that the non-hetrosexual community may have misunderstood the value of a prophesy in it’s own right which is just an opinion. The argument against Jordon Peterson should be, ‘Is Jordan Peterson prejudice against the human species?’

    The question that is burning on the edge of a blade for myself is how this argument would contribute to the existence of the human species and for that matter Life on earth if Life was threatened as a whole?

    After viewing all the videos presented here I noticed that nothing was spoken in relationship to the student/teacher environment. Is’t this really what this is all about? A student trying to impose a restriction on a teacher, a rebellion to authority under the guise of gender. This is a universal truth of physics, a force which is greater in mass in relation to neighbouring bodies exerts a unseen but present tether of influence on the surrounding bodies, an example would be gravity. A satellite object which enters into a orbit under the influence of a planet will always be subjected to the planet’s gravitational pull, the satellite may want to oppose the gravitational pull all it wants but ultimately no special treatment is explicitly given by the planet on the satellite, they are all treated in accordance to the rules of physics. Someone in a position of power is in a position using that authority granted to them, as a student we enter into a classroom under the unspoken condition that the teacher is in authority of that area and should expect to witness actions of authority on all the students in the class, the trade off is that if the student is able to persevere under the authority of the teacher, they would be able to walk away with the body of knowledge they initially entered the class seeking? The student trusts the institution which employees the teacher to interact on certain moral grounds and is allowed to make a complaint to the institution if these moral grounds are breached. The student is void of being able to impose a condition on the teacher directly as they have given up the right of authority, in that area being when walking into the class, the situation changes once the student and teacher walk outside the class but no personal engagement is allowed by teacher and student and therefore the student is either to accept the conditions or not. The issue here by student is coming to terms with the reality that they have no authority in the class, it’s a matter of maturity, if the student does not accept these conditions they have the right to leave the class. So the question that begs is has Jordon Peterson broken the moral ethical code of the institution? I can’t see any evidence of this, the institution is wrong for ousting him on his opinion based on the discomfort of the students. The entire case has been perverted based on misassumptions by individuals arguing against Jordon Peterson, the students are not the jury, they are just the witnesses and have the right to document the actions as they interpret them nothing more. Once again school sucks!

Leave a Reply