Well here goes . I ' m late to the party but maybe something I say will be insightful . Probably not , but here goes anyway . I appreciate Noel Plum and even though I sometimes disagree with him , I always find him to be pretty level headed and charitable in how he analyzes things . He certainly isn ' t a flyoffthehandle kind of guy and I believe that even when he takes positions that I don ' t agree with they ' re still reasonable disagreements . So I do agree with a bunch of what he says but I ' ll focus on the things I don ' t so as to save time . If I didn ' t mention something take it as something I agreed with him on or something I found not too terribly important . 1 Noel Plum is actually right that the main issue that Peterson is going on about is the HRTs and not the letter of the law . That ' s actually a really important distinction because the law itself isn ' t a problem , which is a pretty high bar to pass . Peterson ' s argument hinges on the application of the law through a quasijudicial court . That ' s a legitimate concern in my estimation , but one somewhat unrelated to federal law in Canada . HRTs are under provincial , not federal jurisdiction . The law at the federal level has a very high bar , at the provincial level not so much . In other words , there wouldn ' t be any problem whatsoever with universities complying with the federal law and keeping academic freedom intact , but the way that the HRTs are set up allows for greater latitude in legal interpretation . In other words , this is , at least in my humble opinion , a systemic problem rather than a theoretical one . The debate ought to be centered on the blend of federal and provincial law than it is on the actual content of bill C 16 itself . 2 Noel Plum is essentially making a slippery slope argument in the middle of his argument . To be clear , a slippery slope argument isn ' t necessarily fallacious , so it ' s not automatically wrong . Slippery slopes do exist and we ought to be cognizant of them . Where both Noel Plum and Peterson fail is in creating the necessary links where humanity does descend into an authoritarian regime . He never actually makes that step effectively . Instead he just kind of plays off the fears that people have of authoritarianism . As a guy who ' s actually studied authoritarianism and various other political systems I have to say that Peterson is straying into the realm that conspiracy theorists usually tread into . Namely you ' ll concoct any nefarious scenario and believe it if you think the other side is capable of absolutely anything . I won ' t doubt that sometimes that comes true , but it ' s the connecting of the dots that I tend to dismiss . 3 A somewhat small point , but exceptionally large at the same time . We don ' t elect professors to debate the finer points of law , that ' s what the legislative branch of government is for . I have nothing against Peterson voicing his objection to law C 16 , but at the end of the day he ' s not an elected representative . I don ' t think he should shut up , but saying we need to be able to debate completely bypasses the institutions we have in place which both write the legislation and debate it . We live , for good or for bad , in a representative democracy where you elect officials to debate these things . Professors voicing their displeasure is important , but making this out to be an affront to free speech and debate is almost being willfully ignorant to the system we have in place which does this . Peterson ' s side lost at least on this issue and if he thinks he has a charter challenge he can actually challenge it in court . That ' s how the system works . It ' s not perfect , but no system is . 4 I actually have no problem with Crossman saying she wished she weren ' t having this debate . I think the argument against that is kind of childish to be honest . I ' m sure Peterson wished he weren ' t having this debate either . People not wanting to debate to certain social issues isn ' t important , people actually debating them are . She ' s there . She ' s debating even though she doesn ' t want to have to debate it . She ' s partaking in the process and voicing her displeasure that this topic even needs to be debated . A hyperbolic example , but we ' d think it archaic to be arguing over something like informed consent , but those debates did happen at some time and I ' m sure at some point some advocate said I can ' t believe we ' re still arguing about this shit . Don ' t look at that as an authoritarian statement but one of frustration , whether right or wrong . I ' ve only made it through half the video as it stands so I ' ll just leave off here because I ' ve been typing furiously .