A bit on Cobert caught my attention for so egregiously slamming Trump, and Mika and Joe being on, and the level of “but I was only just”, “but they were only just”, and recasting what has happened – say, regarding judge Curiel, was astounding.

I could go on and on, but I won’t.

But a reminder – they lie.

A smaller example. This is less for the “oh boy they lie, grr…..” but to show you how totally and brazenly they’d lie, and because the videos by Peterson, like damn near everything of his, are well worth watching.

A week or two back I stupidly got stuck in a small flame back and forth over something that was a total tangent to the main point of the article. I’d mentioned that Jordan Peterson had illustrated why the philosophy of the left inevitably lead to the kind of violence the OP posted about, and a commenter started going on “enough about Peterson”, “He’s a troll”, “he never read the law”, “it doesn’t mean what he says it means,” and so forth.

While I allowed myself to get sucked into the tangent argument, compleat with the bullshit line that just because supporters misinterpret the law doesn’t mean the law will be enforced like that, I figured he was lying. Even simply based on his later, shorter statements, having looked at the bill C-16 myself, and the law it modified, it was obvious he was spot on.

Having only seen Peterson’s later, shorter, statements, I simply had no idea how completely this person had lied, though.

Here’s the video that got Peterson in trouble. There’s one immediately following it chronologically that goes into the re-education camp, er, “sensitivity training” that part of the campus administration was being mandated to take, as well, that I’m skipping over.

You have to wait a bit before he gets started, but he reads through and parses not only the law in detail, but then applies it to the existing law it modifies and reads that, and then applies it in accordance to how similar laws have already been applied. He spends nearly an hour going over the law and it’s impact bit by little bit.

The social justice contingent among the students reply accordingly.

And then, as predicted, the University responds:

He has read the law despite blatant lies that he “obviously has done no such thing”, and parsed it in detail.

He applied the law in accordance with current cultural trends, and predicted the reply he actually got. It’s worth noting that, as even Peterson remarks, the reaction by the university and students is possibly the strongest affirmation of how utterly correct he was that you could get.

The reply he got wasn’t simply by some “ignorant supporters” but by the college administration, almost assuredly after consulting with their legal department.

The proof is there for anyone to see, but they won’t see it, and if they can see it, they will not admit it.

In the end, here was his reply.