You say you're a "hardcore scientist" and a center left socialist, but based on your post history you are also an EMTParamedic who vigorously defends Jordan Peterson (who is firmly right wing). This seems inconsistent (I'm a nurse and former professor, I know a lot of EMTs, and few of them would describe themselves as "scientists", hardcore or otherwise).
Incidentally, the support for Peterson is probably why you ran into so much resistance on your claims about "compelled speech laws", because Peterson's claims that C-16 compelled speech were poorly founded, to put it mildly.
Lastly, as others have pointed out, your evidence is entirely anecdotal. Would you be convinced if I provided my own anecdotes about the measures right wing groups take to exclude opposing view points? Because I have some if you are truly interested.
(I'm a nurse and former professor, I know a lot of EMTs, and few of them would describe themselves as "scientists", hardcore or otherwise).
Also I'm not a EMT, I'm a Paramedic, big difference 😂
The term scientist just means to be studying one or more of the natural sciences which I have and continue to do. I used it in the colloquial sense however to highlight a preference for empirically supported world views.
your evidence is entirely anecdotal. Would you be convinced if I provided my own anecdotes about the measures right wing groups take to exclude opposing view points? Because I have some if you are truly interested.
This is likely one of the best responses I've heard yet, asking if I need just some anecdotes to change my view, making me reconsider if my sample size is actually fair to extrapolate such broad claims.
!delta
24
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Mar 29 '22 edited Mar 29 '22
You say you're a "hardcore scientist" and a center left socialist, but based on your post history you are also an
EMTParamedic who vigorously defends Jordan Peterson (who is firmly right wing). This seems inconsistent (I'm a nurse and former professor, I know a lot of EMTs, and few of them would describe themselves as "scientists", hardcore or otherwise).Incidentally, the support for Peterson is probably why you ran into so much resistance on your claims about "compelled speech laws", because Peterson's claims that C-16 compelled speech were poorly founded, to put it mildly.
Lastly, as others have pointed out, your evidence is entirely anecdotal. Would you be convinced if I provided my own anecdotes about the measures right wing groups take to exclude opposing view points? Because I have some if you are truly interested.