Jordan Peterson: Id Rather Die Than Delete Truthful Tweet For Cancel …

A few days ago, I penned an irritated tweet in response to one of the latest happenings on theincreasingly heated culture war front in response to the decision of an actress (actor) named Ellen (Elliot) Page. I am employing this awkward and impossible multiple-naming style becauseit is now apparently mandatory and probably doing it wrong, nonetheless, as youre doing itwrong is the whole point of what has been made mandatory but also to make a point.

I have essentially been banned from Twitter as a consequence. I say banned, althoughtechnically I have been suspended. But the suspension will not be lifted unless I delete thehateful tweet in question, and I would rather die than do that. And hopefully it will not cometo that, although who the hell knows in these increasingly strange days?

What was it that I said that caused such a fuss? And, even more importantly, and complexly,what exactly was it that I said that resulted in the ban? Here is the tweet in question:

Remember when Pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminalphysician.

The response from Twitter:

Violating our rules against hateful conduct. You may not promote violence against, threaten, orharass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender,gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or serious disease.By clicking Delete, you acknowledge that your Tweet violated the Twitter Rules.

If you think weve made a mistake, submit an appeal to us. Please note that should you do so,your account will remain locked while we review your appeal.

Lets take this apart. First, it is clearly the case that I did not promote violence against orthreaten anyone with my missive. So that leaves the arguably lesser sin of harass. Letsassume that was the crime, and, further, harassment on the basis of gender identity. SinceTwitter did not do me the favor of actually specifying my crime, we unfortunately have to guessat why this has occurred and thats actually a big problem in and of itself, and also indicativeof the utter carelessness of the Twitter organization with regard to the propriety of its owncensorial actions. I should at least know exactly what I did wrong if I am required toacknowledge that my Tweet violated the Twitter Rules.

CLICK TO READ MORE DR. JORDAN PETERSON ON DAILYWIRE+

What rules, you sons of bitches?Exactly? Precisely? Because such things matter when the accusations start flying.

So what did I say that might constitute harassment? Many things, hypothetically. Lets beginwith Remember when pride was a sin? Although that is merely a factual statement becauseunder the old rules, applicable even a decade ago, pride was a sin, and had been recognized asperhaps the cardinal sin for thousands of years previously. It still might be regarded asunacceptable to the authoritarian moralists who now insist, for example, that we celebratePride Month (not hour or day or week, but month) and who have literally called it PRIDEMONTH instead of LGBT+ Month. I dont regard PRIDE as a virtue; it has been classicallyregarded as a sin.

I dont see sexual orientation or sexual desire of any sort as something tocelebrate or to take PRIDE in, and what I said was merely a fact. Its possible that I hurtsomeones feelings because I pointed out that PRIDE goes before, for example, a fall, but I dontcare about that, would do it again, and also consider it my duty to warn those who are about tofall into a pit that the path they are on leads suddenly down hill. But that was probably NOT thereason that I was banned from Twitter although, as I said, I am in the position of having toguess.

Next phrase to interrogate: And Ellen Page Now, why did I stop there? Because, in alllikelihood, it was this seemingly innocuous phrase, including the name of a well-known actress(there, Im in trouble again), that likely resulted in my ban. I committed the fatal crime of whathas come to be known in the appalling censorial terminology of the insane activists as dead-naming. Thats the act of referring to someone who has transitioned (another hated piece ofjargon and slogan) by the name, and by inference the gender (really sex) that everyone knewthem by previously and in the case of Ellen/Elliot, that millions of people recognized andknew. So I should have called him/her/they Elliot instead of Ellen, although, as we will discover,that would have made it impossible for me to say what I wanted to and need to say in theremaining phrases. Not that such a problem would bother those who are objecting to myspeech in the first place.

The next phrase is just had her breasts removed. This bit suffers from a very similar problem. Iemployed the forbidden pronoun her when Elliot is now to be regarded as a he, or else. Buttheres a conundrum here, to say the least and not just for me, although I have been bannedbecause of it. Was Elliot/Ellen a she or a he (or Ellen or Elliot) when she or he or they (thatsElliot or Ellen, by the way) had his or her or their breasts removed? If he or she was a he, thenwhy was it necessary to have the mastectomy? And how could those I am writing to makesense of what I was saying if it was his breasts that were removed? Were those male breastsor female breasts that were removed? If they were male breasts, then why were theyremoved? If they were female breasts (and had therefore become objectionable to the degreethat surgery generally reserved for cancer treatment was morally obligatory) then wasnt Elliotstill Ellen and he still she?

How could I possibly have written that sentence in any sensible manner whatsoever whilesimultaneously making my point understandably and not breaking Twitters rules against so-called hateful conduct?And Elliot Page just had his breasts removed?

Was he Elliot then? When, exactly? He was definitely Ellen at some point in the past, or soindicate all his/her/them/their film credits? Will all those have to be reshot, since they employthe hated deadname (that doesnt exist, by the way, that deadname category, except in thecensorial and addled minds of a tiny fraction of insanely narcissistic and increasingly dangeroustrans activists). When precisely was it incumbent on me to switch my terminology in regard toElliot/Ellen so that I was not engaging in hateful conduct? And how can I describe the fact thatsomeone who was once a woman (and really still is) had her breasts cut off becauseshe/he/her/them had fallen prey to a viciously harmful fad without using the appropriate sex-linked pronoun and the real name of the real person to whom this was really done (withher/his/their voluntary but unfortunate acquiescence)?

And so it was impossible to communicate what had happened to my audience without,apparently, running afoul of the impossible and absurd rules that now hypothetically governmorality itself in the days of the degenerated postmodern and Marxist ethos that we must still,no matter how impossible it is, abide by or else.

And, you might object: Ellen/Elliot is an adult (thirty-something) and fully capable of making upher/his/their own mind about such things and she/he/they are welcome from the liberal andthe libertarian position to go to hell in a handbasket as she/he/they see fit. And, fair enough to some degree. But I dont believe it is either merely picayune or inappropriate to point outthat Ellen/Elliot, who is quite a good actor/actress, is also a ritual model for emulation, being astar, with all the privileges and, let us point out, the responsibilities that go along with that.

So, by acquiescing to this surgery, publicizing it and insisting upon the sanctity and moral virtueof his/her/their new expensive, dangerous, and medically-enhanced identity (and byparticipating in the whole identity charade), Ellen/Elliot has undoubtedly enticed many a poor, confused adolescent girl to blame her emergent pubescent self-consciousness, confusion, anddiscomfort on being born in the wrong body and believing that the courageous, self-affirming, and morally admirable route is hormonal treatment, sterilization, subjugation to alifetime of expensive medical complication (how delightfully profitable) and misery. And Ibelieve, firmly, that Ellen/Elliot bears moral culpability for that.

And, finally, with regard to the final phrase criminal physician, I must say that I have hadsome post-coital (so to speak) regrets about that phrase. It is clearly the case that the surgicaloperation performed by the butchers who butchered Elliot/Ellen was legal. So, was it criminalor not? Were the operations undertaken by the fascist physicians who carried out the Nazimedical experiments legal? Yes, under the laws of the time. But were they criminal? Ill leavethat question up to you to answer.

And, further, perhaps it might be objected, What about thedamage done by hypothetically leaving those confused about their identity to dwell in theirconfusion? Arent we morally obliged to intervene? And I would say, NO.Why? Well, first do no harm as the Hippocratic Oath (remember that?) insists. And, second, ithas been a matter of historical consensus that sins of omission are less egregious than sins ofcommission. Thus, leaving someone with gender dysphoria no matter how warranted (andperhaps it is, in a very tiny minority of truly unfortunate cases) to suffer the consequences ofthe theoretical mismatch between soul and body is a less of a risk, ethically, personally, socially, and philosophically than the extremely active interventions that constitute so-called gender-confirming (another hated phrase) surgery.

I might also point out that the trans surgery enterprise is now a $300 million per annum growthindustry (rate of expansion: 15% per year; projected increase by 2027 to $750 million per year).An expanding enterprise in a time of global uncertainty! Time to invest both in the requisitesurgical skills and, perhaps, in any industry associated with this vicious and unconscionable fad,primarily entangling (as such things so often do) the youthful and female. Isnt that a concern,intersectionalists? Not when push comes to shove, or ideology to scalpel. Is that not a truemoral hazard?

And Im not taking down that tweet, or acknowledging that my tweet violated the Twitterrules. Up yours, woke moralists. Well see who cancels who. And I think, as well, that you wokefolks at Twitter, working so hard to improve the world by so carelessly censoring (under themorally superior guise of regulating hate) have no idea what a tangled web youve entangledyourself in. Again. Yet again.

Im really starting to think youre just not that bright.

See more here:

Jordan Peterson: Id Rather Die Than Delete Truthful Tweet For Cancel ...