Supposed 'Free Speech' Warrior Jordan Peterson Sues University Because Silly Professor Said Some Mean Things About Him
from the the-intellectual-derp-web dept
I have to admit that until earlier this year, I'd never heard of Jordan Peterson. I first heard about him when he was on Russ Robert's Econtalk podcast, and it was sort of a weird discussion to go into blind, without any knowledge of Peterson. That's because throughout the podcast I found him to be extremely defensive, as if he was constantly under attack and had to parry away an onslaught of criticism. Other than that, I thought he had a few interesting ideas, mixed in with some nutty ideas. Soon after, I suddenly seemed to be hearing about him everywhere. In the last two months, the NY Times did a giant profile on him (in which he does not come off very well). He then played a major role in another bizarre and silly profile of what has been dubbed the "Intellectual Dark Web" -- a network of hilariously self-important people who seem to think they're oppressed for having thoughts out of the mainstream... even though the NY Times article goes on to describe how they all (with Peterson leading the pack) have massive followings, pack stadiums, sell insane numbers of books, and make crazy amounts of money from crowdfunding.
A core piece of that NY Times editor Bari Weiss article was the ill-supported claim that "free speech is under siege" and that these members of the "Intellectual Dark Web" were the renegades being shunned for speaking the truth that no one wanted to hear. To me, it seemed more like they were a bunch of self-important semi-hucksters who lots and lots of people were listening to, but who some people have criticized -- and they take that to mean that free speech is under attack. The more I read and watched about Peterson in particular, the more frustrating everything around him became. He certainly spews a lot of pseudo-intellectual nonsense, but so do many of the people who are angry at him. Many of the critiques of Peterson are, at best, sloppy and inaccurate. And Peterson has perfected playing the obtuse victim.
He's obviously very intelligent and is able to key in on the inaccurate representations of him, and uses that as a wedge to try to discredit those who are criticizing him. But the debates always seem to be more about misunderstanding both sides, and Peterson often appears to embrace the idea that he's a victim in all of this because people do such a poor job attacking his ideas (even if they're nutty and borderline nonsensical). This now famous interview between Peterson and Channel 4's Cathy Newman is a good example of this -- as is the also famous video of Peterson debating some angry students. In both cases, the criticisms that people are making of Peterson's ideology and viewpoints are a caricature -- and Peterson seizes on the misrepresentations, but does so in a fascinating way. Rather than trying to increase understanding and agreement, both sides just dig in and speak entirely at cross purposes. It's entertaining for people who support Peterson, who get to mock the silly misrepresentations of his critics, as well as for those who dislike Peterson, who get to mock his appearance of evading and sidestepping direct questions. It's all theater, and no one comes out of these any wiser. No one is trying to move towards more understanding. They all seem to embrace the misunderstanding as evidence of just how wrong the other side is.
Of course, part of the irony is that as he's perfected playing victim to what he (perhaps reasonably) considers to be unfair criticism, he seems to be adapting the very same stance that he accuses "the radical left" and "snowflakes" of embracing: he becomes quite intolerant of his critics. And now it's reached a new level of ridiculousness (again on all sides) with Peterson suing Wilfrid Laurier University for defamation. It's not often you see people who claim to be free speech warriors suing people for defamation, and especially not just because they said some not nice stuff about him. But, it appears that Peterson is really trying to come out as both a free speech defender... and a victim of free speech at the same time.
And, to be clear, the actions of Wilfrid Laurier University are completely preposterous and deserve to be mocked widely as they have been. It involved a teaching assistant at the school, Lindsay Shepherd, who had showed a clip of Peterson discussing gender pronouns (a topic that Peterson has strong feelings about) in a class. Shepherd does not appear supportive of Peterson's position, but was clearly using the clip to inspire a conversation. That seems laudable. What seems preposterous is what happened next: Shepherd was pulled into a disciplinary hearing and basically told that merely playing video of a public debate of Peterson potentially violated the human rights of students and was the equivalent of playing a clip of Hitler. Shepherd recorded the meeting and it's incredibly stupid. Shepherd, quite reasonably points out what she was trying to do, and the administrators come off as a caricature of the overly politically correct morons that some people (incorrectly) assume run every campus these days. Listening to the whole thing, is painful. Shepherd comes out looking reasonable. The school looks ridiculous. Indeed, the school apologized last fall soon after the audio of her meeting went viral.
Last week Shepherd sued the University herself, with claims of harassment, intentional infliction of nervous shock, negligence and constructive dismissal. It's interesting to note that within the filing, Shepherd's suit directly claims that the professors and administrators in the meeting with her defamed Peterson with their inaccurate portrayals of Peterson. Her own lawsuit, though, does not have any defamation claims.
And, then, this week, Peterson filed his suit -- employing the same lawyer as Shephard. In a statement, Peterson claims that he decided to do so after seeing Shepherd's lawsuit and speaking with her lawyer. Again, irony abounds, as his statement sounds quite a bit like those he was criticizing -- stating that he hopes this makes them think twice before saying mean things about him. He first says he decided to file the lawsuit because he felt that the university "had learned very little from its public embarrassment," and therefore apparently needed the power of the state to fine them for their own speech? That seems... very unlike a "free speech warrior." And then there's this:
I thought that two lawsuits might make the point, better than one. I'm hoping that the combination of two lawsuits might be enough to convince careless university professors and administrators blinded by their own ideology, to be much more circumspect in their actions and their words.
That... does not seem like someone who is a free speech warrior. That... does not seem like someone who believes in open debate. Even as ridiculous and silly as the University's actions were -- and they deserve tremendous mockery for their hysterical and bizarre response to Shepherd's lesson -- responding by suing for defamation is crazy. Canada, unfortunately, has defamation laws that strongly favor the plaintiff making the claims -- unlike in the US where we have a strong First Amendment -- but already experts seem to be suggesting his case is unlikely to succeed. If it were filed in the US, based on what I listened to of the meeting between Shepherd and the professors/administrators at the university, the lawsuit would be laughed out of court, and would be blasted as a censorial attempt to silence someone for protected speech, even if that speech is nonsense. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to read the full complaint by Peterson as it does not appear to be readily available, so at this point I am only going off of the source material of the recording that Shepherd made, along with the claims that it is the content of that recording that is the basis of Peterson's defamation claims. If there is something more in the actual complaint, I would be happy to revise my opinion of the situation.
The whole thing seems ridiculous, frankly, as with so many of the debates around Peterson. Lots of people are making silly arguments and talking at cross purposes. Almost everyone comes off looking silly. However, just because debates get silly and heated, or just because some professors or teachers make silly claims, the idea of running to the courts and crying defamation, while directly claiming you hope the lawsuit will silence other professors at other universities certainly suggests that Peterson is no friend to free speech.
And this brings us back around to the whole "Intellectual Dark Web" thing. This case suggests the same ridiculous pattern. This is not deep thinkers being oppressed for their heretical great ideas. These are insecure, thin-skinned people with silly ideas, playing victim when other silly people make silly statements about them. Everyone gets to play victim. No one seeks to actually build up more understanding or reasoned debate. Instead, everyone just gets to dig in on their own silly positions. It's not the Intellectual Dark Web. It's the Intellectual Derp Web. And now it's attacking free speech, while pretending to be staunch defenders of free speech. Derp.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arguments, canadan, criticism, defamation, free speech, intellectual dark web, intellectual derp web, jordan peterson, lindsay shepherd, nuance
Companies: wilfrid laurier university
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Here's what really bugs me about the lobsters, and it's the one line he brings up every time: "Their brains run on serotonin, just like ours."
Now, that's true, but it's some deeply dishonest rhetoric. Because it's true about virtually every single organism with a nervous system that exists or ever has existed. He says it to suggest some special reason that we are talking about lobsters, because they have so much in common with us.
It's very much like the briefly-infamous Simon Sinek, and many other pop anti-tech people, who point out that "checking Facebook gives you a hit of dopamine - just like gambling, or drinking, or smoking" without bothering to mention that, indeed, just about every positive feeling in your life has involved dopamine, and you could compare it just as easily to "seeing a friend" or "hugging a loved one".
And so that becomes my question about Peterson's lobsters: why are we talking about lobsters, and what really is his point? Why not talk about, for example, primates - who are much more similar to us in every way (and, yes, whose brains also "run on serotonin")? Well, he does occasionally - though, as far as I can tell, only about the common chimpanzee, our second-closest relative and the one whose behaviour best fits his overall thesis (inasmuch as such a thing can be discerned).
What he doesn't address is that the primate world is actually full of a HUGE variety of social orders, sexual norms, behavioural patterns, etc. ranging from the hierarchical and tribal to the freewheeling and anarchical. That becomes even more true when you talk about the entire kingdom of animals with serotonin in their brains.
So he uses lobsters to make some point about hierarchies existing in nature. He uses primates to make points about violence and tribalism. He's even invoked the herd-camouflage of zebras to explain why, in his view, academics are scared to speak out about anything. (That was in his conversation with Camille Paglia. It could be argued he intended only as an analogy - but as usual, it's very, very difficult to pin down what he actually means by these things when he invokes them).
And that, really, is the problem with biological determinism (which certainly seems to be a persistent theme, at least, in his ideas) in general. You can find an example in nature of just about any human behaviour you can name. You can find lots of complex and varied behaviours in our own evolutionary history. There is significant and ongoing study into how various instincts and drives evolved, and into the balance of the roles of biology and language and culture in developing them.
It has never felt to me that Peterson is honestly grappling with those ideas. Rather, it has always felt like he is cherrypicking examples that support his worldview, and not even acknowledging the existence of counterexamples.
And, to me, "their brains run on serotonin, just like ours" is exemplary of that problem. Anyone engaged in honest inquiry, or anyone trying to honestly and fairly educate someone in the subject, would not say that without also talking about the near-universality of serotonin and acknowledging that it is also present in many animals with behaviours that are completely alien to us, and many animals that do not have hierarchical social structures.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wilfrid Laurier
When it comes to freedom of speech though, I do think he has some very valid points, especially when it comes to education. We've all seen the different dramas play out at the schools, with teachers being harassed and fired under pressure of snowflake students, and school boards actually going along with this insanity. The controversies surrounding professor Weinstein and Joshua Sutcliffe are rather fresh on my mind, and they are just two of the many.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wilfrid Laurier
I think the main reason for this lawsuit is that in spite of the promises made by Wilfrid Laurier to prevent this problem from happening in the future, nothing effective has really been done to solve this issue.
That does not mean you sue for defamation. And define "nothing effective."
In stead, Lindsay Shepherd has been harassed to the point where she has now decided to sue.
As I made clear, what happened to Shepherd is a travesty. That does not explain why Peterson sued.
From what I've seen of professor Peterson, his lawsuit is more meant to support hers, and to get Wilfrid Laurier to actually start doing something about the problem
That is a horrible reason to sue for defamation and, again, only reinforces the idea that it is about silencing critical speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is the Lobster Guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why did you feel before the specifics of the suit were available? Sounds like an agenda to me.
We have the underlying recording. There is nothing in there that comes anywhere close to amounting to defamation under US law. But the large point remains: suing for defamation is suing to silence someone. It's an odd look for someone who claims to be a free speech warrior and upset about "snowflakes" who can't take criticism or tough statements.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why did you feel the need to write this article before the details of the suit were available?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
See. This is exactly the kind of stupid, time-wasting debate that seems to crop a lot these days, and which Peterson is a fine example of (as described in my post). Gary summarizes Peterson as "the Lobster guy" and glibly extrapolates Peterson's argument as "keeping women subservient." Pieter responds with the challenge of "where has ever said that..."
This does not drive towards understanding. It drives towards yelling at one another. Gary can parse out Peterson's statements to say "here's where this is implied" and Pieter can respond "but he didn't actually say that!" and this can go back and forth all day long and no one is any wiser, and everyone is more annoyed.
It's trolling by obtuseness.
It's not necessary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, many people defame Peterson on a regular basis (yet it doesn't seem to really affect his profitability, if 12 Rules For Life is any indication). I'd get sick of being called alt-right or compared to Hitler almost every single day if I were him. However, I don't think that ideas said in a private meeting, no matter how incorrect, would constitute defamation (though, I'm not quite familiar on Canada's defamation laws, so I can't say). Based on his claims, it sounds like his case is built upon the youtube video posted by Shepherd (I'm not sure of any others in which the faculty make those statements).
Were there legitimate cases of defamation against Peterson wrt this lawsuit, I don't think it would make Peterson a hypocrite. Supporting free speech doesn't mean you have to accept people making blatantly false statements against you, especially if those statements are harmful to you (and, in Peterson's case, there have been events he attended in which riots broke out, because people called him a Nazi).
I think the big issue is: there's a loud group of people in academia trying to stifle the free exchange of ideas, and people like Peterson (and the other IDWs) are combating that using reason and debate, granted, affixed to their respective realms of expertise (and in Peterson's case, that's clinical psychology and Jungian lobsters).
Ultimately, I think his lawsuit is misguided in this case, and possibly abusive of the legal system (I'm not entirely sure to what extent I mean by that). It makes more sense as a support mechanism as Pieter said above.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
I'm certainly not a Peterson fanboy, even though I feel what he says makes a lot of sense more often than not. His views are often based on statistics, and it's hard to argue with those, even though we can disagree about the solutions to the perceived problems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've heard of him since many years ago; he's a good friend of my brother's. (Not the guy you're talking about in this article, but my brother does have a good friend by that name...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I had never watched any of his YouTube videos, but I heard good things about it and got my mother to buy it for me for my birthday. Having read it and being on my second reading of it right now, I think that if you read it, you'd have a better perspective of where he's coming from, in a lot of ways.
He's really passionate about wanting humanity to pull itself up by its bootstraps. In my opinion, and probably his as well, there is a big problem with academic institutions not having the sense of personal responsibility to future generations that they really, really should. I can completely understand why he'd initiate this lawsuit. He's being... oh, what's a good word for it... "parental" with them, so that they can do the best for the students under their care.
WLU is one of the worst universities in Canada in terms of spreading victimhood and Marxism. I'm Canadian, just for full disclosure, but also to let you know that I have more of a vested interest in keeping my finger on this pulse. UofT isn't much better (I live in Toronto, I see Antifa posters all over the place promoting violence and tribalism,) but WLU is cray-cray even by our standards.
I don't believe Peterson is in the wrong, here. I think he's trying to exercise his legal rights in order to kick people not upside the head, but towards the right way to behave with society. Politically speaking, I seriously can't place the guy. I don't think that he's left or right or anything, the only thing he seems to be opposed to is hypocrisy and lies.
If you haven't read his latest book, I implore you to do so in your own time. I'm a person who has struggled a lot in my own life and continues to do so, but of all the self-help bullshit I've heard and read and seen, his model and his perspective really does make sense. Not gonna lie, it's hard. Damn hard. It'll make you think in ways that HURT. But that's the point.
I understand your position, as a journalist, and that Peterson makes a very easy target for ridicule and contempt, but I think that for that very reason it would do you well to understand more about the person you are writing about. Peterson himself suffers from lifelong depression and has fought hard to even be in the position he's in among society, and (semi-spoiler alert) he's witnessed a lot of suffering in his own family -- real, physical suffering -- so he knows what it's like to feel pain and to contemplate dark thoughts and to have to wrestle with the unfairness of life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
I'm wondering if the legal strategy involves Howard Levitt's bank account.
(Just kidding, Howard! That's a joke, and not meant as a defamatory statement!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I really need to get an account here. I admit it, I have registration fatigue. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Though I can just ruin it for you right now. Stand up straight, with your shoulders back. Magic occurs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
US Law wouldn't apply, Mike, check out Canadian laws. We're a bit more on the "hatespeechy" and "discriminationy" stuff, a bit like Europe or the UK
Yes, as noted in the post. I'm just pointing out that under US law this case would clearly go nowhere. Hence me saying "under US law" in the comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That may be the case, but it happened in Canada, and the lawsuit is in Canada - so American law really doesn't matter, does it?
Do you honestly believe that? I believe in free speech, but how is that belief in conflict with me not wanting you to (possibly) ruin my reputation or my livelihood because you decided to publish articles saying that I enjoyed drowning kitten, drop-kicked puppies for enjoyment, and had a penchant for making stir-fried unicorn?
Now for the record - I think the lawsuit is baseless, stupid beyond belief and does nothing but give his opponents ammunition. But I seriously think you've gone overboard and lost it a bit with this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
The whole lobster thing is a way of referring to hierarchies in humanity. Lobsters have complex hierarchies that have evolved over millions of years, even longer than humanity has been doing the same. It's to demonstrate the unavoidable nature of hierarchies here on Earth in general, because we evolved in a similar way.
Doesn't mean we're absolutely helpless to every hierarchy there is, but it's difficult for me to deny its consistent influence on human beings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
The response cancels out the anti-wiseness of the original post. It's useful to know that someone didn't say what people are claiming they said. Of course we'd be better off had a false claim not been made at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Or just type something into the name field?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crime and sin are what people you don't like do.
When the other guys have a grievance, they're whining snowflakes. When our guys have a grievance, it's legit.
And when our guys do something disgraceful, they get a mulligan.
So essentially all the principles we hold as sacrosanct in our religions and ideologies are for shit until we hold everyone accountable always.
And given ours is a society of prosecutorial discretion ethics and ideals in our society are all bullshit. Even first-degree murder on Fifth Avenue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Masnick, who admittedly knows little of Peterson, should have stayed out of this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Crime and sin are what people you don't like do.
You may also notice that professor Peterson has never filed suit against the any of the protestors that come to his speeches, and try to drown him out using megaphones and other equipment. He's apparently drawn the line at professors who deliberately make false statements about him in order to punish a teaching assistant on bogus charges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
But I have heard from some of my biologist friends that his view on lobsters didn't accurately represent the species. The lobsters seem to be more of a parable than an actual example. Hence "Lobster Buy" being about the first and only thing I knew about him before today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Hey Mike, just wondering -- and I admit I'm completely biased here -- but have you read 12 Rules for Life?
Yes. I picked up a copy after hearing him on the Econtalk podcast. Personally, I think it's got a mix of interesting ideas, mixed with pseudo-intellectual claptrap. I'm happy for people if it helps them straighten out their own lives, but I was not impressed.
He's really passionate about wanting humanity to pull itself up by its bootstraps. In my opinion, and probably his as well, there is a big problem with academic institutions not having the sense of personal responsibility to future generations that they really, really should. I can completely understand why he'd initiate this lawsuit. He's being... oh, what's a good word for it... "parental" with them, so that they can do the best for the students under their care.
Yes. I understand where he's coming from -- and in some areas I agree (especially with how WLU handled all of this). But he (and many others) are also guilty of exaggerating just how much political correctness there really is on campus -- and seems to resort to the same sort of response that his critics resort to towards him. i.e., they don't want him to speak, and he's trying to get them not to speak. It's nonsense against nonsense.
Lots of people have dumb ideas. Silencing the dumb ideas isn't a solution.
I don't believe Peterson is in the wrong, here. I think he's trying to exercise his legal rights in order to kick people not upside the head, but towards the right way to behave with society.
Ends justify the means, eh? Sorry, but suing over defamation -- literally suing them over their speech -- to push "towards the right way to behave in society" is authoritarian nonsense. It's an argument that can be used for any sort of abuse of legal process. If the "Marxists" you so dislike sue Peterson for defamation over his mean words about them, they, too could claim that they are pushing people "towards the right way to behave in society."
It's all nonsense and tribalism.
If you haven't read his latest book, I implore you to do so in your own time. I'm a person who has struggled a lot in my own life and continues to do so, but of all the self-help bullshit I've heard and read and seen, his model and his perspective really does make sense. Not gonna lie, it's hard. Damn hard. It'll make you think in ways that HURT. But that's the point.
As I said, I'm happy for what helps people. And if the book helps you, that's great. I won't take away from that. To me, the book was a mix of a few good points, a few dumb points, and a lot of hokum. But I don't begrudge anyone whatever works for their own lives.
But that's got nothing to do with the lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Would it make a difference....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
He's actually a pretty decent guy trying to bring some down to earth common sense to a mass of people who are constantly on the outrage train
And yet, he and his followers are also "constantly on the outrage train." Including here in this lawsuit. That's the point I'm making.
Peterson has some good points and some nutty points. His critics have some good points and some nutty points. People acting all aggrieved about the whole thing are silly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Would it make a difference....
if the supposed offending language was part of the classroom environment as opposed to an administrative (disciplinary) meeting between some of the staff? Just a thought.
Nah. The "offending language" is just some people saying some (mostly ill-informed) mean stuff about Peterson. It may not be accurate, but it's hardly defamatory. It certainly hasn't harmed Peterson in any way. As Popehat is fond of saying, this is a "butthurt in the nth degree" kind of claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Here's what really bugs me about the lobsters, and it's the one line he brings up every time: "Their brains run on serotonin, just like ours."
Now, that's true, but it's some deeply dishonest rhetoric. Because it's true about virtually every single organism with a nervous system that exists or ever has existed. He says it to suggest some special reason that we are talking about lobsters, because they have so much in common with us.
It's very much like the briefly-infamous Simon Sinek, and many other pop anti-tech people, who point out that "checking Facebook gives you a hit of dopamine - just like gambling, or drinking, or smoking" without bothering to mention that, indeed, just about every positive feeling in your life has involved dopamine, and you could compare it just as easily to "seeing a friend" or "hugging a loved one".
And so that becomes my question about Peterson's lobsters: why are we talking about lobsters, and what really is his point? Why not talk about, for example, primates - who are much more similar to us in every way (and, yes, whose brains also "run on serotonin")? Well, he does occasionally - though, as far as I can tell, only about the common chimpanzee, our second-closest relative and the one whose behaviour best fits his overall thesis (inasmuch as such a thing can be discerned).
What he doesn't address is that the primate world is actually full of a HUGE variety of social orders, sexual norms, behavioural patterns, etc. ranging from the hierarchical and tribal to the freewheeling and anarchical. That becomes even more true when you talk about the entire kingdom of animals with serotonin in their brains.
So he uses lobsters to make some point about hierarchies existing in nature. He uses primates to make points about violence and tribalism. He's even invoked the herd-camouflage of zebras to explain why, in his view, academics are scared to speak out about anything. (That was in his conversation with Camille Paglia. It could be argued he intended only as an analogy - but as usual, it's very, very difficult to pin down what he actually means by these things when he invokes them).
And that, really, is the problem with biological determinism (which certainly seems to be a persistent theme, at least, in his ideas) in general. You can find an example in nature of just about any human behaviour you can name. You can find lots of complex and varied behaviours in our own evolutionary history. There is significant and ongoing study into how various instincts and drives evolved, and into the balance of the roles of biology and language and culture in developing them.
It has never felt to me that Peterson is honestly grappling with those ideas. Rather, it has always felt like he is cherrypicking examples that support his worldview, and not even acknowledging the existence of counterexamples.
And, to me, "their brains run on serotonin, just like ours" is exemplary of that problem. Anyone engaged in honest inquiry, or anyone trying to honestly and fairly educate someone in the subject, would not say that without also talking about the near-universality of serotonin and acknowledging that it is also present in many animals with behaviours that are completely alien to us, and many animals that do not have hierarchical social structures.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I think the big issue is: there's a loud group of people in academia trying to stifle the free exchange of ideas, and people like Peterson (and the other IDWs) are combating that using reason and debate
I don't know that I'm prepared to give him that credit. Because here's the thing: the most robust, most solid, most well-reasoned opposition to his ideas come from the fields he has categorically dismissed as a postmodern quasi-conspiracy, and an "indoctrination cult". The very people he should be engaged with in reason and debate - people with expertise in the very real, not-frivolous social sciences like critical race and gender theory - are the one group he prefers to simply delegitimize.
Proposing a website listing humanities professors that he feels are part of a postmodern indoctrination cult, and expressing the hope that they will be abandoned and defunded, and even explicitly saying he believes a significant number of the modern humanities and social sciences should be eliminated from universities - while simultaneously complaining that HE is a victim of intolerance for certain ideas, and claiming that his failure to attain funding for a research project was a political attack on his free speech - does not strike me as reason and debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I don't know whether his fears are true in a way that should concern us all, but the man has studied the results of these kinds of ideas for decades, so I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've also seen where these ideas are leading at the moment, and if this is just the start then we are indeed heading for some very unpleasant things in the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
hierarchical structures in society are solely caused by patriarchal oppression as some people claim
Right... so that's the other thing I really struggle with. Who actually claims that? I've heard Peterson say "Marxists believe hierarchies are unnatural and artificial" but like... I've never read a Marxist who denies that hierarchies exist in nature. I think maybe Engels soooorta flirted with the idea and invoked Rousseau? As far as I know, though, there is no unifying biological theory in Marxism, and quite a lot of debate on that front.
I don't doubt you could find some modern thinkers espousing a view of artificial hierarchies that could be discredited by talking about biology, but I think you'll find that for the most part it's a lot more sophisticated - and requires a more sophisticated rebuttal - than that.
I mean, come on: if someone's theory can really be knocked down by the mere existence of hierarchies in nature, well, then it was a facile theory. It is common knowledge that lots of animals have hierarchies. It seems the height of arrogance and condescension on Peterson's part to assume that simply pointing out the existence of lobster hierarchies will make leftists' heads explode all across the land.
Talking about social and cultural oppression such as patriarchy and class divisions is not equivalent to claiming all hierarchy is purely an artificial human construct. It is, rather, looking at the (to me obvious) fact that, beyond biology, our language and culture and means of organizing society also exhibits a huge and arguably much larger influence on what hierarchies we have and how they are structured, and questioning whether our most oppressive such hierarchies are inevitable and natural or are, in fact, also the result of a long history of social choices both intentional and coincidental/arbitrary, in which case we have the power to change them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Crime and sin are what people you don't like do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
As for the ends justifying the means, I still don't see how a defamation lawsuit equates to suppressing another person's speech. I see it as more of putting a firm hand mouth over the hands of a liar screaming "FIRE! FIRE!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!" in the halls of his workplace.
Seriously, the people who have been defaming him ARE liars. He has been called a Nazi hundreds of times. One of my local papers called him "The Crown Prince of the Alt-Right". Jordan Peterson absolutely DESPISES Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and anyone of any side, left or right, who takes things too far and too extreme to the point where mass suffering is a result of their actions and policies. As far as I'm concerned, WLU is just one item on a huge checklist of people he's entitled to sue for defamation. People from all across the media are professionally and secretly colluding to ruin him simply because he goes against the agenda of their sponsors who rely on conflict, strife, anger, resentment and chaos in order to gather views (and therefore, money.)
This sort of defamation DOES have a financial impact on a person whose career involves interacting with other people and building a trust relationship with them. It's no different than if you were to use legal means to defend yourself against a false rape accusation from a critic who wanted to #metoo you and your entire life's work into oblivion. You rely on your readers trust in order to maintain a business. Imagine if everyone from Slashdot to The Register to WIRED was trying to bring you down with false allegations of things you never, ever did or supported. Step back and put yourself in his shoes for a second.
As for the right way for a society to behave, lying is already illegal in a lot of situations. If you lie to a cop, that's impeding an investigation. If you lie to a judge, that's perjury. Likewise, if you lie to your fellow man, according to Jordan Peterson, that's a violation of Rule 8, and as such, a violation of your obligation to making the world a better place. These people are LYING. They are lying for personal gain and to make the world more scared and angry. You're complaining that someone might have to pay a financial penalty for this? Personally I wish he could charge them criminally, but I'm a misanthropic despot in my worst of moods. That's why I bought his book. I'm trying to do better. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
In a recent debate, professor Peterson asked a, in my opinion, very relevant question: at what point does the left go too far? As a society, we have set relatively clear boundaries on when the right goes too far, but we seem hardly able to do the same on the left. Professor Peterson draws the line at identity politics, and ideas like pushing for equity. As a left voting Dutch person (a country where Democrats are considered right wing (somewhere between D66 and VVD)), I think he has a valid point here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
*smacks head*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If saying someone is a member of the alt-right based on your interpretation of their views even though they don't identify themselves that way is defamation, then so too is Peterson's practice of saying someone is a "postmodern neo-marxist" or a member of the "radical left" when they don't identify themselves that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I think one thing you missed about Peterson's character -- something I was hoping you'd glean by reading the book -- is that Peterson is not a free speech warrior. He never once took an American hardliner stance on free speech.
He believes in speaking TRUTHFULLY. Not freely, but TRUTHFULLY.
Yes, a lot of his fans identify as free speech warriors, but his fans opinions and stances do not reflect his own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Crime and sin are what people you don't like do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Without free speech there is no true thought." - Peterson in the Munk Debate
"Free speech is not a value, like mercy or justice: it's the fundamental problem-solving mechanism of humanity." - Peterson on Twitter
"we have to be unbelievably careful about infringing upon [free speech]" - Peterson on Twitter again
""I regard free speech as a prerequisite to a civilized society" - Peterson in Maps Of Meaning
...and so on. I guess we can debate the "warrior" part, but he has made his views on the subject quite clear - and they certainly do appear to be in conflict with this lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
s/over the hands/over the mouth/
Proofread, proofread, proofread...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
You're that guy who doesn't know what "postmodern" means!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In Canadian law, you cannot use falsehoods to ruin another person's career. That is illegal. If you do not like this, please obtain Canadian citizenship, become a legislator and convince Parliament to adopt your way of thinking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
In a recent debate, professor Peterson asked a, in my opinion, very relevant question: at what point does the left go too far? As a society, we have set relatively clear boundaries on when the right goes too far, but we seem hardly able to do the same on the left.
That's a very weird statement to me. Take the US, for example: the left-wing presence of Bernie Sanders was ultimately defeated, and many fairly mild socialist ideas are consistently criticized and rejected by other Democrats. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is president and pressing into highly distressing extremes of right-wing policy, but continues to enjoy massive popular support from Republican voters and growing but still minimal and largely-symbolic resistance from within the party.
To me that doesn't line up with your characterization of society reining in the right but letting the left run free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Taking a hard line on free speech is lazy. You need to consider all of the possibilities. The entire universe is built on these principles. One man's tool is another man's murder weapon. We need rules to help enforce civil application of every tool we have -- including speech. This is the lesson to be learned from observing the shortsightedness of the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: left vs. right
I mean hell, since Canada is part of the conversation here, as a dual-citizen living in Canada it's always so baffling to me that the single-payer option is talked about by establishment Democrats in the U.S. like it's a pie-in-the-sky impossibility, as if it doesn't exist on the northern side of the border. And any Democrat speaking vocally about single-payer is liable to be ostracized by the DCCC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Free speech is not a static or a binary concept. It's a spectrum. Americans and Canadians disagree on what this concept should and should not include.
I agree.
Your position is no superior than ours, we are simply different.
I am Canadian.
In Canadian law, you cannot use falsehoods to ruin another person's career.
That is also not a static or binary or simple concept. America has defamation law too, by the way. In both countries, there is a significant body of law and jurisprudence involved in truly understanding where that line is drawn. Canada's law does indeed favour the plaintiff in some ways both substantively and procedurally, but it still provides many significant and broadly-construed exceptions and defenses to a charge of defamation. Which is why it is very, very unlikely that this lawsuit will succeed.
Incidentally, do you know what else is illegal in Canada, under this country's understanding of free speech? Advocating genocide or engaging in persistent harassment of protected groups. And it was the expansion of that law to a new protected group that Peterson aggressively protested - while frequently invoking his freedom of speech and characterizing the law as an attack on it. More broadly, he has been highly critical of these protections in the Human Rights Code in general, and also frequently spoken about his fears specifically for academic freedom and the ability of professors to speak up about their beliefs and opinions even if they are controversial.
Given that, can't you see why this lawsuit appears to be rather hypocritical?
Or let me put it this way: if, say, a gender studies professor sued Peterson for defamation because he said they lead an "indoctrination cult", on the basis that this is materially speaking a lie, would you be supporting them? Or defending Peterson?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Would it make a difference....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Would it make a difference....
I would not be surprised if he's saved some angry letters from patients and students who ditched his sessions and classes based on what the media was saying about him
Given the number of times he has very clearly and explicitly stated his desire to see that exact thing happen to other professors and indeed entire disciplines, and has proposed various means of trying to urge it along by spreading his opinion that their classes are dangerous indoctrination cults, I must say I will laugh very hard if he attempts to make this argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're talking about the expansion to our Charter, Peterson disagreed with having to refer to everyone he meets by some made-up stupid set of "personal pronouns" that keeps being expanded every single week. He disagreed with violating the very rules of the English and French languages themselves (which without we would have NO SPEECH WHATSOEVER) in order to preserve the delicate feelings of people who consider it a hate crime to not call them "xe" and "xir". Those are NOT part of our languages and they NEVER will be. Yes, English and French are very flexible languages with lots of room for expansion, but please first consider the concept of "closed class" words before suggesting that pronouns can be expanded upon. They can't. Sorry, but they just can't, for the same reason that prepositions can't be invented out of thin air.
A simple analysis of those laws reveals how vague and abusable they are, when you consider that "gender expression" is a part of it. I'm what you would consider part of the queer community, but I'm also a critic of a lot of its politics and think we could do a lot better by lightening the fuck up and recognizing that we've won a lot of those battles our ancestors struggled with. A lot of people in my community are just looking for any excuse to fight. This "personal pronoun" crap is part of it. I know people whose gender expression changes with their wardrobe. I know people who have had three different aliases in the course of a year. A lot of them who are my friends are pretty cool, down to earth people who just laugh it off if someone "misgenders" them, because 99.9% of the time it is an honest mistake or a cultural misunderstanding. Giving them the power to sue people over making a mistake doesn't empower them, it weakens them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I have never been able to follow his line of reasoning from modern critical sociology to the gulag. To me his arguments are like a chain of shiny and exquisitely forged links that, upon closer inspection, are not in fact connected to each other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
He quotes the Bible all the time in 12 Rules, but he leaves a lot of the bad shit out, too. He's very careful to avoid a lot of the indefensible parts of Leviticus or the letters of Paul, because he'd be teaching a completely different set of principles if he did that. He also doesn't say much about the Song of Solomon because that's basically porn and wouldn't be very relevant to the book. :D
I'm very much the same way. Hell, I've got a quotes.txt file filled with quotes from figures throughout history who downright terrify me, but sometimes they say some profound and insightful things which at least help you understand the human condition from a perspective you may have never considered.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Peterson disagreed with having to refer to everyone he meets by some made-up stupid set of "personal pronouns" that keeps being expanded every single week
And that was a drastic exaggeration of the impact of the law. Firstly, the law itself made no mention of pronouns. The Human Rights Commission does include refusing to use someone's preferred pronoun in its list of possible forms of harassment - but that is subsidiary to its broad definition of all forms of harassment, which notes that for behaviour to be harassment it almost always must be repeated and extended over a period of time even in spite of someone's objections, or very extreme in nature.
Thus persistent, repeated and pointed refusal to use someone's preferred pronoun even after they have made you aware of it could be deemed harassment. Peterson himself has said that he would use a student's preferred pronoun if they asked him to! Probably because he does realize and agree that common civility says you should address someone as they wish unless you have a strong reason not to! So truly there was never any problem.
Those are NOT part of our languages and they NEVER will be. Yes, English and French are very flexible languages with lots of room for expansion, but please first consider the concept of "closed class" words before suggesting that pronouns can be expanded upon. They can't. Sorry, but they just can't, for the same reason that prepositions can't be invented out of thin air.
Closed-class words isn't like an immutable rule from god - it's an observation from linguists that certain classes of words don't expand much if at all anymore, not an assertion that they can't. That's just silly.
A simple analysis of those laws reveals how vague and abusable they are
So you agree, then, that just because an exception to free speech exists under Canadian law does not mean it is immune to criticism, or to detailed and critical discussion about its limitations, applications and potential for abuse? Such as, for example, defamation law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To me his arguments are like a chain of shiny and exquisitely forged links that, upon closer inspection, are not in fact connected to each other.
I feel this way about Ayn Rand. As you read it, you're like "oh yeah, that's fascinating!" Then when you finish, you start thinking through the ideas and applying them to reality and you're like, "oh, wait, that's nonsense."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
He quotes the Bible all the time in 12 Rules, but he leaves a lot of the bad shit out, too.
You have rather put your finger on one the problems with his ideas: it is very, very hard to tell whether Peterson is offering something as an analogy or as evidence
When Peterson quotes the bible, it is essentially clear that he is doing so illustratively and analogically. When he invokes biology, however, it seems to me (though again, it's hard to pin down) that he is offering actual evidence to disprove various ideas.
Cherrypicking analogies and illustrations is fine - that's just creative expression. Cherrypicking evidence is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, the people who have been defaming him ARE liars. He has been called a Nazi hundreds of times. One of my local papers called him "The Crown Prince of the Alt-Right". Jordan Peterson absolutely DESPISES Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and anyone of any side, left or right, who takes things too far and too extreme to the point where mass suffering is a result of their actions and policies
And yet, then Peterson takes things too far and too extreme and accuses plenty of others of absolutely false things -- like claiming people are "radical leftists" or "Marxists" when they are not.
My point is this: everything Peterson and his fans seem to whine about... they also seem to do. It's pretty fascinating. This is not to say his critics are right. As I point out repeatedly, they often seem just as nutty in an opposite direction.
But suing to silence schools is suing to silence speech. He's a hypocrite. And it's sad to see how many of his defenders come out of the woodwork to scream when if you reversed the people in the story they'd be on the other side. That's how you know people are cultists, rather than actually interested in ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Passive voice.
Split infinitive.
It's "without which".
Passive voice.
Passive voice.
Also, new prepositions can be added to the English language, because because.
Technically not passive voice, but part of the same pattern of obscuring the actual subject of the sentence. A simple analysis reveals? Come on. Whose analysis, and how does it reveal that?
So, two things.
One: Do you see how fucking annoying strict prescriptivism is?
Two: If you're going to insist on prescriptivism, at least be good at it. If you're going to launch into a two-paragraph rant about the rules of language, then follow them yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Also, I understand what you are saying, I believe you are taking his statements out of context. The lack of brevity and conciseness in your retort opens your audience up to believe whatever they want to believe which is likely what you are doing right now.
Your post should have been 3 sentences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Slander as a violation of free speech
One of the problems we have regarding a number of issues, speech being one of them (guns, religion and voting power being others) is that they presume that we are rational adults in a society of rational adults.
If, were you to declare me a rapist, the whole society would regard that new data critically, and those who knew better would immediately reply with their information, then we'd never reach a point where I couldn't show my face without risk of violence. The system would correct itself and the only damage you would cause is to your credibility.
The problem is, human beings do not exercise critical thought. They are not rational nor adultlike most of the time. And yet our whole society presumes (for the most part) that they will and are. Trump's presidency and the whole immigration issue are an indictment of the ability of human beings to behave consistently and in an adult-like manner.
But this leads to the notion that human beings cannot take care of ourselves. Human society requires as Madison contemplated, angels to govern men. Only there are no angels we can rely on. There are no higher powers on which we can depend, and so it's up to us to choose from among us the wisest of humans and have them administrate.
And as recent rulings from SCOTUS have commonly demonstrated, even through our most rigorous tests of wisdom we have failed to create such a council.
We are children who have to govern ourselves, pretending we are adults, sometimes aware that we are as children, but more often pretending everyone is capable of being adult-like all the time, and persecuting anyone who fails.
And that is why there are not just limits to free speech, but obtuse, malleable limits to free speech which are selectively enforced, given it's children (unadultlike authorities) who decide when to enforce what.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So long as people can say that a person is a harasser, alt-right, Nazi or whatever else and lose their job when none of it is true, Peterson may have a hill to proverbially "die" on for this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Crime and sin are what people you don't like do.
I'm gonna stop you right there and ask you to define "safe space" for me, because I don't think it means what you think it means, bucko.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Crime and sin are what people you don't like do.
While we're at it, it might be helpful if he also defined "real life". As far as I can tell, every single moment of every living person's existence from birth until death is real life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So much about "free speech" though Misnack sez corporations are
persons having 1st Amendment Right to control YOUR speech!
With the lofty discourse above some might not believe that Masnick has actually STATED that. So here's link to:
"And, I think it's fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content -free-speech.shtml
Masnick is not hedging "lawyers say and I don't entirely agree", or "that isn't what I call serving The Public", but STATES FLATLY that corporations have arbitrary control of MAJOR outlets for The Public! He claims that YOUR Constitutional First Amendment Right in Public Forums is over-arched by what MERE STATUTE lays out!
Do you see ANY wiggle room besides trying another site -- that's ALSO "liberal" and can refuse you? Or that you could still pay for your own web-site? None of which Google has to index (having scanned it with AI for acceptable), and doesn't even have to accept your advertising so in practice you'd never be discovered? -- Nope. He STATES flatly that YOU are subject to control by corporations!
And yet Corporatist Masnick STILL poses as champion of "free speech"! -- Frankly, I don't know how he gets away with it even here!
And again: "Masnick" in subject line gets the comment blocked! That's a tiny but pointed clue to Masnick's urge to control speech.
Just part of the hoots here on this entertainment site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blah blah blah...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: left vs. right
If, let's say, Olivia Chow was organizing meetings about controversial topics, but was often shouted down by young people who interrupted her with megaphones, had fire alarms pulled whenever she wanted to speak in a booked auditorium, and called a communist and Chairman Mao often when it's nowhere near true, I'd think that was just as deplorable.
I'm not a "free speech for me and none for thee" type.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: left vs. right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Even if he wasn't stating things comprehensively, and who can; we've only got so much life and so much brains and so much education. That book is Jordan Peterson's *subjective* truth with help from *objective* facts.
Sure you're not the one cherry-picking? It's a self-help book from a clinical psychologist, not a book of evolutionary habits of all the species of the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't impinge on their regular speech at all, it means: just don't tell this *one* lie because it screwed up someone's life in an important way. That's reasonable, if the lie caused suffering or unjustly ruined a reputation. No more harm done than with a restraining order for a stalker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However I believe that no one is or should be above criticism so long as the criticism is directed at the specific points rather than just go straight into character assassination.
I can see why some of his ideas can be considered "nutty", mostly from his religious undertone and the assertions that Christianity is the sole responsible for building western society and dismissing right out the bat the Enlightment ideals. While I consider it debatable at best, I wouldn't call it nutty either.
And that's where both rabid detractors and fanboys miss the point, the former just can't see pass the caricature of a bible thumper and/or alt-right (who by the way despises him as much as he does despises them) while the latter sees him as their champion of christian values where in fact he already said directly during his interview with Christie Blatchford that he isn't a christian nor does he really believes in god.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Looking at my own country, it is clear that extreme ideas, both on the left and on the right, are becoming more popular. After the last election we had a hell of a time forming a government without including parties from the end of the political spectrum. Professor Peterson is actually warning about that too: if you push extreme leftist ideas too far, people who are left out tend to be pushed farther to the right. I think his popularity has actually prevented many people, especially young men, from embracing far right-wing ideas.
As for Trump? I just hope people are starting to realize what he's doing to the world, the country and their lives. I think many people hoped for something different, since the same as before wouldn't have improved their lives either. I guess they can see now that different is not necessarily better...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally I think that his views on the movie Frozen are wrong; I truly enjoy that movie, as does the rest of my family, and I seriously doubt the Disney creators had a political agenda in mind when they came up with the deviation of the standard solution to the princess' problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Crime and sin are what people you don't like do.
Bonus point for using a Princess Bride quote on me though. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Crime and sin are what people you don't like do.
https://youtu.be/fHMoDt3nSHs?t=3m22s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If professor Peterson was indeed leading an "indoctrination cult" I would be supporting them.
I think you misread my question. I didn't say Peterson is leading an indoctrination cult - I said that's what he frequently accuses humanities professors of doing. "Indoctrination cult" is precisely the words he used when proposing his website cataloguing the university courses he hates, with the stated goal of hopefully reducing their enrolment and funding.
So, if a social studies professor sued Peterson for saying they are leading an "indoctrination cult" would you support him against them? That language is just as hyperbolic and not-literally-true as calling Peterson a nazi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also:
I think there is inherent conflict in claiming you don't want people to use your views as gospel, while also titling your book "12 Rules For Life".
As for Rule 9, it's one I don't see much evidence of Peterson himself following.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crime and sin are what people you don't like do.
A stand-up comic's over-the-top impersonation of the vaguely-defined "I'm offended" crowd for the purposes of comedic mockery is not exactly a good way to try to explain what you are talking about. Rather, it suggests that you are building up an exaggerated, amalgamated image in your head to oppose, rather than listening clearly to the views of real people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know that "identity politics" has become this scary term with lots of baggage, but I think at this point you need to unpack what you mean by it.
Meanwhile, I think it's pretty absurd to say that social studies like critical race and gender theory are advocating totalitarianism - a.ka. "a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state"
Again, saying that is just like saying Peterson is a Nazi. It really seems like you are completely fine with hyperbole and opinionated characterizations like that on one side, while labeling them defamation on the other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Can you give some specific examples of extreme left-wing ideas that are being taught as doctrine in schools?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If someone sued professor Peterson for knowingly making false statements and he had actually done so, I would support such a lawsuit. IMHO there is a difference between freedom of speech regarding opinion and knowingly making false statements to defame someone. From what I've seen though, he generally considers his words very carefully before uttering them, so I doubt he would knowingly make false statements to defame someone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crime and sin are what people you don't like do.
Perhaps this article is more to your liking: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-11/spigelman-free-speech-hate-speech-balance/4420410
Some people appear to be pushing very hard to make offending someone illegal by law. Doing so would have a profound impact on freedom of speech. You may also have read recent articles regarding the dismissal of teachers for offending students, often even without intending to do so. Such changes in society worry me. Professor Peterson claims that such views are often taught as doctrine in the humanities studies. From what I've read in the news over the past years, he may have a point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
meetProfessor F@ck your life Finklestein
When,in fact,he is under attack.
It really is simpler: white males with a single shred.of intellect are calculatedly marginalized and attacked innon-parichial education. Profesdors, andschool administrators, and evenpoluce.informants are used INCOLLEGES to probe students.ideologies
Itis a core feature of zionism, a core feature of western socialism,and a core feature of progessvism~Fabianism~Hegelian materialism.
And,without irony, many colegeprofessors descend from Marxist dialectical bases, andhave rootsin Brooklyns Jewish neighborhoods.
This has been the case since forever,and these men are stalked in absurd ways by groups like the ADL and company that actively seeks to defame and derail them.
BnaiBrith, the Jfeds~ all are radicaluzedto target any white male whochallenges their racist or ethnuc ideoligical andnarrative supremacy.
Black males as well,as we saw with Senator Keith Ellison, etc.
And, it starts in colleges when progressive and particularly Jewish prifessors start attacking students along the lines of identity politics.
But dont take myword for it-here, meet professor fuck yourlife Finklestein!
http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article209230459.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: meetProfessor F@ck your life Finklestein
Well, would'ya look at this comment. Here we see why, unfair though it ultimately may be as a personal accusation, some people call Peterson a Nazi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Divisive, Hegelian, binary quips have replaced meaningful discussion, and the (actually wonderful) pains of disagreement.
Do you think the fact that some 40% of onlinecommenters are paid Pentagon trolls, Israeliihasbara or crisis PR factories(same thing essentially), or JTRIG/FBI/CIA trolls?
Nahhh...that would be paranoid or delusional on my part, thinkung these agencies are"out to get" only me...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Please explain to me why it's not racist that in some schools, Asian students need 450 more points than Black students on their SATS in order to get admitted?
While I understand the wish for diversity by these schools, I can also see how these measures can cause enormous resentment in Asian students. I'm all for equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome can have some serious consequences for the future.
You see similar issues when it comes to gender equity or salary equity.
Professor Peterson is hardly the only one warning about the idea of equality of outcome (often called equity) as the only acceptable solution in many humanities studies. He just seems better than most at attracting people's attention to the matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Please explain to me why it's not racist that in some schools, Asian students need 450 more points than Black students on their SATS in order to get admitted?
You state that as though it is a policy. It is not. It is an attempt by some people studying racial bias in college admissions to quantify that in terms of the equivalent adjustment to an SAT score. The people studying that, by the way, were making the case that Asians are discriminated against, because of an apparent disparity in approved college applications - e.g. an inequality of outcome, precisely the thing you are claiming people shouldn't focus on.
It is also something that was only happening in a small handful of schools.
Discrimination is real, and drawing the line between equality of opportunity and of outcome is not always so easy. There's plenty of room for debate, including on things like affirmative action programs. But schools are not teaching the "extreme leftist" idea of total equality of outcome as "doctrine". Indeed the thing you are referring to is not even a matter of teaching at all - it's a matter of admission practices.
Try again, better example please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now, I will wait for the inevitable"antisemitismismisms!"
And mock you for your hypocrisy about Paedtinian SEMITES, or the native Jews whowereforced out of Palestine in the 1948 exodus,so that sociopathic zionists and bankster greed clouded their moral higher ground.
How do you thehink that batshit crazy tribal shit sounds to atheists, and secular who try but canot avoid being tarred by that crap?~which is EVERYWHERE~ in every discussion?
Hate sure is a profitable business model, for "people.like you"isnt it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People have been comparing each other to Hitler all the time ever since... Hitler. No need get all pearl-clutchy about it now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can speak freely. You can be wrong, mendacious, perverse, etc., etc. But what you can't do is misrepresent a person in such a way that it adversely affects them. NOT just "you ca't say bad things about someone".
I actually agree with you about this particular lawsuit's merits, but the existence of "defamation" and "slander" laws in no way goes against the existence of and support for, free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lying about someone is speech. A law against lying about someone is a limitation on the freedom of speech.
That doesn't mean it's a bad limitation. When very carefully and narrowly construed, it can be a good one. But it is a limitation.
Another limitation is laws against hate speech and harassment - the things Peterson opposes, because he does believe it is a bad limitation.
If one of those limitations is debatable, the other is. If one of those limitations can be abused, the other can.
To say it "in no way" goes against freedom of speech is ludicrous. What you are saying is that you think it is a good, reasonable limitation on speech - and that's fair enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Though for the record, I never said that those laws existing was "in conflict" with free speech (though on the most basic and fundamental level, they obviously are).
What I said was that Peterson filing this lawsuit is in conflict with claims of supporting freedom of speech. And it seems you agree, at least on the merits of the suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yeah, and ?
Reminder to self: stay out of hero worship and getting involved in people arguing left and right to no insight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Equity however is certainly a focus of many humanities studies, as can even be found in the title of said studies. Equity is not posed as one of many theories there, but as the only acceptable outcome. If you hold a different view, you'd better not mention it on your exam or you will fail.
I do not have sufficient information to claim that this is a wide spread practice, like professor Peterson claims, but that it's happening on multiple schools is certainly beyond debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
While I believe that on average, a member of one racial group may have an advantage over a member of another racial group, this says very little about a random member of these groups. As such, any group based policy to correct the average will likely result in the serious disadvantage of a random member of said groups, yet such policies are exactly what are being advocated in these classes.
(Note that I'm now posing my own thoughts on this matter rather than professor Peterson's thoughts)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well that’s just asinine, right there.
The French are a bit weird about their language, but English has no fixed rules and no authority by which rules could be imposed. And it changes radically, all the time, to the point where English writings of just a few centuries ago are difficult to understand, and nearly impossible beyond that without special training and dictionaries.
And in English, we have changed our pronouns. Look at the history of “thou,” “ye,” and “you.” In fact, we can change any damn thing about English that we like , it’s just a matter of consensus. So long as people can understand one another, it’s all good. Speaking English is all about being pragmatic and living in the moment rather than trying to be prescriptive.
Also what’s this stupid “no speech whatsoever” crap? The prominence of English and French in Canada is purely an accident of history. People living there spoke perfectly good languages before English and French even existed, and had history gone differently, other languages would be spoken there now. I vote for Old Norse, Cree, and Dene.
Likewise, the there are new prepositions, you idiot. In fact a new one is rapidly in the process of becoming common now, because Internet. It’s pretty flexible too, and appears to have gotten started well within living memory (though had you used it prior to it catching on, people might’ve thought it was odd, but, and here’s what’s crucial, they would’ve basically understood what you meant, and that’s all the foothold needed for new innovations in English).
If you’re indicative of the level of thought of what’s his face and his — I want to say ‘followers’ but I feel Twitter has made that not as pejorative as I’d like — then I predict the defamation suit won’t go far because it’s not defamation if it’s true and there really is a lot of idiocy going on with y’all. (A distinct second person plural — we’re bringing it back!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As professor Peterson has clearly stated: he does not care what people wish to call themselves, and if a specific person has good reasons for wanting to be called by certain names/words, then that's a negotiation between two people. Enforcing people by law or even by policy to use certain words however is an entirely different matter, and unheard of until recent times. Several teachers have already been disciplined or fired over things like using the wrong pronouns, which is absolutely ridiculous IMHO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you kidding? Try going into court and addressing the judge as virtually anything other than “Judge,” “Your Honor,” or “the Court” and see how far you get. You’ll find something similar applies in the military.
And that’s not recent. If anything, mandatory manners as it were have gotten quite lax in the 20th and 21st centuries. It used to be pretty strictly enforced by anyone who felt themselves to be one’s social or political better and who had the power to back it up. It even went further than mere terms of address, with things like sumptuary laws that regulated how nice your clothes were allowed to be based on your social standing. Once upon a time you could be summarily executed for not being sufficiently deferential to your betters.
Meanwhile what you’re complaining about is simply that organizations have decided to be polite to more people, partly because it’s genuinely good to do and partly for good PR; no one likes facing a boycott because the head of the company called a black man ‘boy’ for example. The thing is, if someone voluntarily joins the organization, there’s nothing wrong with having to conform to its reasonable standards for members’ behavior in official and public settings. Now if those standards are unreasonable, you’d have a point, but the decision as to what is and isn’t reasonable isn’t up to you; it’s up to society as a whole. And while it might be considered ok to pinch your secretary’s ass in the sixties, as social mores change, you’d damn well better change with them or you’re going to have trouble going forward.
If Mr. Petersen is such a delicate flower that he cannot stand his employer telling him that he has to be polite to people at work (which may well include addressing people by the addressee’s choice of pronouns) then it is incumbent on him to quit, for as a private citizen he is generally free to be as big of an uncouth asshole as he likes, and the rest of the world is free to judge him as such and call him out on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please remember that according to some there are over 100 different genders at the moment, some of which claim that they can switch their pronouns from one moment to the next. Now remember that pronouns are rarely used when you're speaking TO someone, but generally when you're speaking ABOUT someone.
Keeping that in mind, please try to have a conversation about one of your hundreds of students, knowing that misgendering them can cost you your job, and knowing that teachers have been fired for:
1. Choosing to use names in stead of pronouns.
2. Accidentally using the wrong pronoun.
Please, go ahead, and after you've lost your job you can tell me all about how this was about you having to be polite.
You see, a few years ago, when bill C-16 came about, professor Peterson's warnings were just considered him being paranoid by some. We've now arrived where the first people have actually been fired over legislation and policies like this, though it seems that within Canada things are relatively quiet so far. True, there haven't been many so far, but it doesn't bode well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just as expected.
People fromhegemonic, dynastic theocracies seldom know howto respond to my questions.
Mike?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Just keep talkin' buddy. I'm sure Peterson is grateful for how good you're making him look.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Funny how some very eloquent, persistent people come out of the woodwork whenever certain controversial figures are the topic of conversation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I really don't understand how all of you make the link of him suing a school to him trying to "silence" them.
Really?
I find it incredibly hard to believe that everyone here really thinks that this could possible have the effect of silencing an incredibly powerful institution.
Who has more power here? A small, relatively unknown university -- or the dude with millions of very vocal who will show up anywhere he is mentioned negatively and berate you for saying anything bad about dear leader?
Peterson isn't dumb, I also find it hard to believe that silencing them is his goal.
Then he shouldn't be suing them over their speech. He is.
They are comparing him to Hitler for gods sake- you telling me he's supposed to turn the other cheek??
Yes. He should turn the other cheek. Or he can use his own -- vastly powerful -- ability to speak out to counter the bullshit (as he did -- which is why so many people rightly found WLU's actions abhorrent). Do you forget that he won this fight? No one thinks Peterson is a Nazi because of what was said here. Almost everyone who heard the tape -- including me -- thinks it makes Peterson look quite sympathetic.
Besides, we live in a world where comparing someone to Hitler is so common there's a whole freaking term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
It is not defamatory in the slightest. And suing over it is policing speech that Peterson doesn't like. It's his version of being politically correct, claiming that it is unfair for someone to describe him as a Nazi. How is that different than trans people saying it's unfair for him to refer to them by a pronoun they are not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
It is clear to me, that his lawsuit is not about what happened to Lindsay with the original incident, but what *continued to happen long after the University apologized.*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster
look up the definition of "cultural marxism"
Okay. [checks definition]
Gotcha.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the
A social and political movement that promotes unreason and irrationality through the guise of various 'causes', often promoted by so-called 'social justice warriors'. These causes and their proponents are often contradictory and are almost never rooted in fact. Indeed, true argument or discussion with proponents of these causes is almost impossible, as most attempts at discourse descend quickly into shouting, name-calling and chanting of slogans.
Otherwise known as the 'regressive Left' - a play on their contradictory nature, specifically on how SJWs describe themselves as 'progressive' yet display strong authoritarian, 'regressive' tendencies. This term is even often used by members of the true Left who take reasonable stances based on logic and evidence, and are eager to distance themselves from the fanatics who have effectively hijacked their side of the political spectrum.
NOTE: Naturally, Cultural Marxism itself is described by SJWs as a 'conspiracy theory', in an attempt to delegitimise their critics.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cultural%20marxism
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the
How cute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8pPbrbJJQs&bpctr=1529810318
I think summarizes nicely what is generally meant by cultural marxism. And by the way, if you can put forward a cogent argument or explanation as to why Google is partially censoring that video, I'd like to hear it.
From what I've seen of Peterson's video's and interviews, many or most of what he focuses on or as asked to speak on is generally about topics on this subject.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Well said.
Divisive, Hegelian, binary quips have replaced meaningful discussion, and the (actually wonderful) pains of disagreement.
Do you think the fact that some 40% of online commenters are paid Pentagon trolls, Israelii hasbara or crisis PR factories(same thing essentially), or JTRIG/FBI/CIA trolls?
Nahhh...that would be paranoid or delusional on my part, thinking these agencies are"out to get" only me...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That isn't correct.
Just like inciting violence or threatening someone is not protected by free speech, justifiably so, the closed door session in which Lindsay had no representation, by the University President's statement, should never have occurred as there was no complaint and no wrongdoing by Ms. Shephard took place. Lindsay Shephard was the one who should have been protected by Free Speech laws, not the university professors who attacked her.
You do make a good point about Peterson sometimes missing the mark when communicating with some of his detractors but that is very hard to do when being attacked the way he sometimes is. Overall he does well more times than he messes up. If you read anything of his though you will find out that he believes that his own dark side is just as bad as anyone else's and admits to letting his temper get the better of him. Watch the Munk debate for an example of how well he does when being accused by someone who knows nothing about him or his background.
I think you are probably right about the case not being strong enough to have traction, which is partially why I think this is more about helping Ms. Shephard.
I am not someone who would have been a free speech champion a year ago though I did see the need to be able to talk freely. Dr. Peterson changed my mind on that and I have come to understand that free speech is most vital. It isn't just the ability to say what you want but is actually the only way society can improve itself. Think about it. If you and I disagree what choices do we have for coming to accord. We talk open and honestly, or one side tries to force the other and we fight.
I suspect that an editor of a blog has some pro-free speech sentiment. Am I right? Don't worry. Jordan Peterson is on your side!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Petersonscase reminds me of so many BnaiBrith /ADL/Jesuit type smear campaigns.
Professor Anthony Hall in Canada,and the famous Holocaust denialism lawsuits in EU,kicked off just after 1993 like David Irving v Deborah Lipstadt.
If the fine edge of open discourse is forever mediated by the religious doctrines of lashon hara~badwords, we are doomed as a democracy. And, if all media is situatedbto play the role of Queen Esther,we are doomed as pluralist nations.
And, Canadas libel/slander/defamation laws are directly related to what socioligist and criminoligist John Brodheur calls High Policing, aka political policing, which is directly relatedto the current push AGAINST free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now, I will wait for the inevitable"antisemitismismisms!"
And mock you for your hypocrisy about Paledtinian SEMITES, or the native Jews who were forced out of Palestine in the 1948 exodus,so that sociopathic zionists and bankster greed clouded their moral higher ground.
How do you the hink that batshit crazy tribal shit sounds to atheists, and secular who try but cannot avoid being tarred by that crap?~which is EVERYWHERE~ in every discussion?
Hate sure is a profitable business model, for "people.like you"isnt it?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Meet Professor F@CK YOUR LIFE Finklestein
It comes across as sort of disingenuous to say that the guy is"extremely defensive, as if he was constantly under attack. ...
When,in fact,he is under attack, bynameable groupsand individuals.
It really is simpler: white males with a single shred.of intellect are calculatedly marginalized and attacked innon-parichial education. Profesdors, andschool administrators, and evenpoluce.informants are used INCOLLEGES to probe students.ideologies
Itis a core feature of zionism, a core feature of western socialism,and a core feature of progessvism~Fabianism~Hegelian materialism.
And,without irony, many colegeprofessors descend from Marxist dialectical bases, andhave rootsin Brooklyns Jewish neighborhoods.
This has been the case since forever,and these men are stalked in absurd ways by groups like the ADL and company that actively seeks to defame and derail them.
BnaiBrith, the Jfeds~ all are radicaluzedto target any white male whochallenges their racist or ethnuc ideoligical andnarrative supremacy.
Black males as well,as we saw with Senator Keith Ellison, etc.
And, it starts in colleges when progressive and particularly Jewish prifessors start attacking students along the lines of identity politics.
But dont take myword for it-here, meet professor fuck yourlife Finklestein!
http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article209230459.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster
Paintings of Shakespear are taken down from the walls of english departments and replaced by some obscure black authors.
In one single school, in 2016, one single English Department voted to replace one single portrait of Shakespeare with a portrait of poet Audrey Lorde.
Meanwhile, Shakespeare continues to be the most famous playwright of all time, a mandatory part of most high school curricula, the centerpiece of English literature and drama courses in universities around the world. Virtually all of his plays are staged regularly in every city and town with a theater. I know of at least three different Shakespeare plays going up within 20 minutes of my house in the next month.
Your persecution complex is showing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: That isn't correct.
the closed door session in which Lindsay had no representation, by the University President's statement, should never have occurred as there was no complaint and no wrongdoing by Ms. Shephard took place
What does that have to do with a defamation lawsuit filed by Jordan Peterson?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All I need to do is ask.
I find these assertions unlikely. I'll need you to provide support for them -- and in the unlikely event that you do, you may as well also provide support straight away to rebut my suspicion that there were other factors at work as well, and that such behavior may have simply been the straw that broke the camel's back, rather than the sole misdeed of a person who is otherwise perfectly respectful and virtuous in every way.
I'm in the US, but what I've heard of C-16 leads me to think that he's not paranoid; he's just an asshole. But that also the bill poses no threat to people by and large unless they work at violating it. (In much the same way that down here, there could be legal trouble if someone started violating civil rights laws by putting up 'Whites Only' signs in their stores)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: That isn't correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Crime and sin are what people you don't like do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Meet Professor F@CK YOUR LIFE Finklestein
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: That isn't correct.
Filing a lawsuit that you don't expect to win in order to pressure someone into speaking differently in the future runs very much counter to the principles of free speech he espouses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the
2. The video is partially blocked because a bunch of people reported it after recognizing that it's bullshit propaganda for racist ideology. Obviously, me saying this will now let you label me as a member of the cultural marxist movement or whatever you call it.
So much idiotic tribalism and cultism. There is no such thing as cultural marxism. There are people of all kinds, many of whom have dumb ideas. Some of those dumb ideas you disagree with and some of them you agree with.
Most of the things you're "scared" of aren't happening. Yes, maybe you can dig up ONE or TWO examples of idiots being idiots, but they are not widespread. The world is not out to take away your culture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
It is clear to me, that his lawsuit is not about what happened to Lindsay with the original incident, but what continued to happen long after the University apologized.
Then... why is his lawsuit specifically about the things said in that meeting?
If his lawsuit is about what happened after the University apologized, why is he not suing over those things?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you could ask, and try to remember mine along with those of your other 200 students in class, if I was present. An additional problem is that I don't have to be present for you to misgender me, since, as I said, pronouns are rarely used when talking to someone, but generally when talking about someone.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/teacher-transgender-student-girl-accident-call -trans-wrong-gender-joshua-sutcliffe-a8054146.html
As for your qualification of professor Peterson; that's up to you. :) We don't all need to like the same people. I would like to point out however that legal scholars are not in agreement regarding bill C-16. At best it's too vaguely written, but several high standing legal minds have already said that professor Peterson's reading of the bill is correct. These kind of vague laws are very easy to abuse. https://www.culturewarresource.com/resign-or-be-fired-christian-teacher-forced-out-over-schoo ls-transgender-policy/
You may be right that there were additional reasons at play, but I haven't found any news article mentioning something that would strike me as valid. If you do, please let me know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm, something went wrong with that post, and my sentences were placed in the wrong order. My apologies for that.
Yes, you could ask, and try to remember mine along with those of your other 200 students in class, if I was present. An additional problem is that I don't have to be present for you to misgender me, since, as I said, pronouns are rarely used when talking to someone, but generally when talking about someone.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/teacher-transgender-student-girl-accident-call -trans-wrong-gender-joshua-sutcliffe-a8054146.html
https://www.culturewarresource.com/resign-or-be-f ired-christian-teacher-forced-out-over-schools-transgender-policy/
You may be right that there were additional reasons at play, but I haven't found any news article mentioning something that would strike me as valid. If you do, please let me know.
As for your qualification of professor Peterson; that's up to you. :) We don't all need to like the same people. I would like to point out however that legal scholars are not in agreement regarding bill C-16. At best it's too vaguely written, but several high standing legal minds have already said that professor Peterson's reading of the bill is correct. These kind of vague laws are very easy to abuse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're gonna use an absurdly biased, hateful, one-sided source, maybe don't pick one that is literally called "Culture War Resource".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thank god I have internet vigilantes to tell me what to think so I don't have to be preoccupied with having opinions of my own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.abc15.com/news/national/teacher-says-he-was-forced-to-resign-because-he-wouldn-t- call-trans-students-by-preferred-name
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That isn't correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Would you refer to me as she, if I asked you kindly?
2. Would you refer to me as xe, if I asked you kindly?
3. Would you refer to me as them, if I asked you kindly?
4. Would you refer to me as ghumsk, if I asked you kindly?
5. Would you refer to me as your majesty, if I asked you kindly?
If not, where do you draw the line, and why?
Would you still feel the same way if this was backed by law, and I could sue you for not delivering on my request? If so, you are certainly a kinder person than I am. Does that make me an asshole?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That, and so much more
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
I personally would not have chosen this course of action; I think him just supporting her lawsuit would have shown a kinder picture to the world. Perhaps this is what her lawyer recommended though; it's hard to say. As it is, we both question the wisdom behind this lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster
https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/yale-university-english-students-urge-departmen t-to-decolonise-white-male-reading-list-a7062031.html
In a petition launched by undergraduates at Yale University in Connecticut, the US, students have said they oppose the continued existence of a module known as ‘major English poets’ which they need in order to be able to study further.
According to the English department’s site, students are asked to spend two semesters “in the company of major English poets,” adding: “Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William Shakespeare, and John Donne in the fall; John Milton, Alexander Pope, William Wordsworth, and T. S. Eliot...in the spring.”
The students, though, have said it is “unacceptable” that a Yale student considering studying English literature “might read only white, male authors,” adding how a lack of works by women, people of colour, and “queer folk harms all students,” regardless of their identity.
The students further argue the module is “especially hostile to students of colour,” and say that, when they are “made to feel so alienated that they get up and leave the room, something is wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the
The video makes no pronouncements or statements that deride, criticize or make value judgements about race. You show a profound lack of understanding about the difference between making observations and drawing conclusions on current events and racism. The problem with the left is that they all too easily dismiss rational, logical arguments that counter their world view as racist, homophobic, zenophobic or misogynist.
Those of us that are older than, say, 40 or 45 have seen a profound change along these lines that younger people are being shielded from. The media and journalists in particular are holding up a mirror to society that reflects back a distorted, left-wing view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster
Students calling for a more diverse reading list.
OH THE HORROR! WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS COMING TO AN END! THE BARBARIANS ARE AT THE GATES!
Gimme a break, dude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Damn, that batshit website full of vile Christian bigotry was the first thing to pop up in your Google search?
That says a lot (and nothing good) about what kind of sites you like to visit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the
OK. Die angry, idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Large organizations are the puppets of their lawyers
Based on the book, I classify him as "mostly harmless" - lots of fairly obvious (but worthy) moralizing, with a few nutty (but harmless) ideas thrown in.
So I don't get it.
But - my experience is that large organizations, esp. those dependent on government funding or regulation, live in a constant terror of bad publicity and (God forbid) lawsuits, and as a result are spineless puppets of the most fearful and conservative of their attorneys.
I think this, rather than ideology, is what ultimately drives most of the campus political correctness idiocy. (Sure, ideology is the seed, but lawyers are the rich soil that allows the parasite to grow and prosper).
From this viewpoint, maybe some counter-suits in the opposite direction can help re-calibrate the fears of the lawyers, and restore some balance on campuses.
(Maybe. Or, could make things worse.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That isn't correct.
I think there's a difference between freedom to express your opinion, however impopular it may be, and freedom to discredit someone by making knowingly false claims.
And yet you will tie yourselves in knots explaining why it's acceptable for Peterson to call people "radical leftists" and "cultists".
BE HONEST: If this was a lawsuit targeting Peterson, filed by one of the people HE has described using extreme and hyperbolic terms, would you be expending so much effort finding ways to justify it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster
Your story is simply an n=1. J
ust because certain students at Yale are making a claim doesn't mean there's cultural marxism. If you want to argue that cultural marxism is taking over the US, you should be able to come up with DATA not some n=1 story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster
BTW, I assumed the first time was a typo and said nothing, but since you've now written "Shakespear" a second time:
I'd think someone who is so passionate about defending the greats of western culture from the onslaught of cultural marxists would, at least, learn how to spell Shakespeare
Is it possible that you... don't actually give a shit about the material you are defending? When was the last time you went to see some Shakespeare performed? For me it was last year - how about you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Boston Catholics.....and ADLification
These racist, religious whack-jobs are very well hidden likecancer all along the internet backbone, and especially, wage their speech suppression from South Africa, Israel, Toronto, etc.
So~ hang in theirENABLER.chick- Masnick himself is not a racist, ethno-tribal-religious whacko, he is an ethnic tribal-religious whacko ENABLER.
Anygoy, orany Jew.whochallenges these.typeswill be harassed..endlessly, hacked, slandered and defamed, etc. The hatevthat thede.people.promulgate is WHY actual anti-semitism exists.
And, if youlook around, youwill note a very well organized cyber-stalking and cry-bullying across media.
The Intercept, and The NYT,and even here, now~ the narrative.is being framed.byrabid zionist cunts.like Bari Weiss, and Sam Biddle.
And here, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about instead of composing long hypotheticals, you just go meet and interact with some trans people? You might just find out that they are not, in fact, working day and night to lay complex grammar obstacle courses for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
90% of all these cases are started by sociopathic, racist, zionist Jews and their many enablers in academia, institutions, and media.
Any non-Jewish male from common origins with any substantive input, or substantial resistance to this form of racism and supremacy, ir any followisng is attacked~not by rightists or leftists, but by very well hidden and cowardly Jewish RACISTS.
This is race supremacism at its bloodiest edge, and speech monitoring by the ugliest part of Jewish culture.
And speaking of cults: the tribal rules which govern free speech in public, aka LASHO HARA, not-ironically all require safe spaces and adherence to nmystical superstitions, bizarre rules, and secrecy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Well, said.
Divisive, Hegelian, binary quips have replaced meaningful discussion, and the (actually wonderful) pains of disagreement.
"Do you think the fact that some 40% of online commenters are paid Pentagon trolls, Israeli hasbara or crisis PR factories(same thing essentially) funded by banksters or Bnai Brith, AIPAC et al, or JTRIG/FBI/CIA trolls?"
Nahhh...that would be “paranoid or delusional" on my part, thinking these agencies, or any others are"out to get" only me...
As thecase of JordanPeterson demonstrates.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
quips have replaced meaningful discussion
Like, say, copy-pasting the same racist propaganda over and over, Mr. Internet Nazi?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
Ohnoooes! I said "tar"!
Truly painful to read, and makes your eyes goopy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What "link" are you looking for? There aren't news stories about the countless teachers, every single day, including right this very second, who are teaching classes that include transgender students and having no problem at all. Because, y'see, that's not news.
You, on the other hand, apparently frequent hateful and bigoted websites designed to cherrypick the tiny handful of incidents that fuel your outrage and confirm your biases - so much so that Google knows that's what you like, and serves you up an homophobic anti-abortion propaganda website for Christian "culture warriors" right at the top of your results.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That isn't correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That isn't correct.
I've already said several times that IMHO his lawsuit was not a good idea
Yes, you've said that over and over - while every single other word you've written has been dedicated to defending Peterson and this lawsuit.
So, you see, I don't believe you when you say you think the lawsuit is a bad idea, or that we're talking about his views not yours. I believe that's just your facile attempt to escape any personal responsibility for the ideas you are espousing here. Sorry buddy, not buying it (and I don't think anyone else reading your comments could possibly buy it either).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I know more than a few, but that's not really important here, now is it? In fact, they transitioned from male to female or vise versa, and wish to be called he or she depending on their new gender. They heavily dislike the 100s of genders we now have and the pronouns that come with it. Not only does it paint them in a bad light with the general population, but they get shunned by radical members of their own community for actually wanting be called male or female, man or woman.
I have every respect for transgender people, and I will stand by their side and fight for their equal rights, but if you choose to place yourself outside the male/female spectrum you can ask me kindly whether I will call you by a word you made up. If you try to force me via the law, you will not find me on your side.
So, now that I answered my own question: I draw the line at number 4 if you ask me nicely, and at number 1 if you do not, and will not accept a law that forces me to do so. Where do you stand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, they transitioned from male to female or vise versa, and wish to be called he or she depending on their new gender.
Okay, now here's what the teacher you linked to - John Kluge - said:
And here is what the other teacher - Joshua Sutcliffe - said:
Neither of the examples you've provided are related to new pronouns - both are about students who wanted to be called male or female.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I actually read a lot of stories from a lot of different sources, but if you must know: I voted Groen-Links in the last elections, one of the most left-wing parties we have in this left-leaning country of the Netherlands, am pro-abortion, and my brother-in-law, whom I adore, lives with his husband.
Please stop making bad assumptions based on which stories may or may not pop up in my Google searches; if I search for Jordan Peterson the top 10 stories are hit pieces on his character, so that says very very little.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That isn't correct.
If you wish to debate me on my views, just say so, and we'll start this discussion from the start, and I'll tell you where I personally stand. You can then compare that to professor Peterson's views to see if they match or not. People asked me why he might file this suit, and I've tried to come up with an explanation based on what I know about him. If they didn't want to know, they should not have asked. If you didn't want to know, you should not have read my answers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if I search for Jordan Peterson the top 10 stories are hit pieces on his character
Wait, really? When I Google "Jordan Peterson" right now, the top stories are all neutral reporting in major newspapers on the lawsuit and various reactions to it. After that, I see two opinion articles condemning him, two opinion articles defending him, and one link directly to his video explaining the lawsuit himself.
THAT's what a Google search looks like to a person who has trained Google to find them reliable sources and a variety of opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Large organizations are the puppets of their lawyers
Forced to choose between his"patriarchal" aka,non Jewish version of reality construction,versus Bnai Brits version of Abrahamic tribal supremacy?(ever noticehow the only patriarchy under attack is the lineage of non-Jewish white black and other men?)
The world is laughing at all of you....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Meet Professor F@CK YOUR LIFE Finklestein
Then, all of that as Bnai Brith and Abe Foxxmans ghost try to insert their hands in my ass via the FVEY Free Speech Distressor mechanism.
Dont Be A Puppet!
I mean~have some empathy, willya?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Your prize is all of the above.
Soorrythat it tastes like shit, bears ill, poisoned fruit, from poisoned trees,and will get you slandered for decades as yet unborn.
On the upside,the 1960s aredead, and WASPs are not your enemy.
Gogle JAPs instead.Extra points for princesses.....
(Waiting for butt hurt Asians to gang up on me now...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say I agreed with their points of view. I personally would have been willing to address students by their preferred name or even pronoun. These were examples asked for based on two points I made earlier.
One teacher was fired for accidentally saying "well done, girls" to a group of students, one of which whom identified as male now. The teacher immediately apologized, but the student's parents later filed a complaint, which ultimately led to his dismissal.
The second teacher felt that for religious reasons he did not agree with calling students by their new name rather than their birth name, and so, in agreement with the school, decided to call all students by their last name. The school later reversed its position, and told him to either adapt, resign or be fired.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you considered that primarily reading articles you disagree with could also give you a highly exaggerated view of how widespread and extreme some of the opinions you're worried about truly are?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ihave a massive yeasti nfection.
I am certain that I followed all thehe right laws and procedures of eating Levite bread(unlike that stupid tone deaf Faigy Mayer, who jumped off a building in NYC).
And, still, I have a massive yeast infection, far worse than having Bnai Briths dirty fingers in my ass.
Frankfurtly, I feel like a puppet,mouthing words from the now passe Obama era FBI..
Do I eat the wrong foods at bad times? Does my vibrator have a robotic mind of its own? (WHERE IS MY MOSSADI HANDLER WHEN I NEED HER?!?!)
That dirty bastard/BITCH/ GENDERED CIS~PRONOUN LOVER when I need Ich/Du?!
Regardless, my cunt/yoni/ISIS temple/ sacred peehole/ is on fire! And, what I do in the privacy of my own internet dialectic rape space is none of your business!
But for a dollar or two, I will opinionate and pontificate on.any sheubject you wish.
I call it"freeform zionist racist rambling," but the sheeple can decide for themselves ofcourse.
Of course!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At the same time however I've noticed how an increasingly large group of people are getting fed up with political correctness. Right wing political groups in the Netherlands that are pro Zwarte Piet, anti-immigration, anti changing greetings from "ladies and gentlemen" to "travelers", and anti changing street names (because our folk heroes lived in time of colonialism, and so were completely bad) are more popular than ever, and I agree with professor Peterson that this is in part due to the radical agenda pushing of extreme left-wing groups. As a left-wing voter, this truly worries me, since true matters of concern regarding LGBT and minority groups are ignored over idiotic requests for "politeness".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
It's like we regularly see with copyright and trademark law: just because you're legally in the right, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to file a lawsuit, especially from a public relations point of view. Again though: I don't know enough of the details of these cases nor the thoughts behind them to know for sure; I'm just making an educated guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ihave a massive yeasti nfection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No inherent contradiction in Peterson suing
I will say that when I heard about Peterson suing Wilfrid Laurier U., I thought it was very unwise to do so. I don't think he has a legal case, although I'm not a lawyer (Lindsay Shepherd may be a different case). But it isn't any inherent contradiction for Peterson as a free speech warrior' to sue anyone for defamation. It is a tiresome trope by now, the courts and the press have gone through this decades ago, there is no undermining of freedom of speech when someone sues another for clearly false and maliciously stated words. So no, you don't have awin' here, move on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
You can come out from under your bed now, grandma and grandpa made the monsters go away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
That is completely wrong.
If you derive sexual gratification from strangling poodles, and I have a video that shows you strangling a poodle, and I state, based on the video, that you appear to be deriving sexual gratification from strangling that poodle, and my statement harms your reputation, I haven't done anything illegal. I have stated an opinion based on disclosed facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For what it's worth, Steve Ditko (co-creator of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange and one of the major architects of the Marvel Universe back in the 1960s) is a huge Ayn Rand devotee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. His main point is that there are rules for language that must be followed. He did not follow them. Ergo, he undercut his main point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
And Stalin died in 1953. So I guess Peterson should shut up too right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No inherent contradiction in Peterson suing
there is no undermining of freedom of speech
Then how come every single defamation lawsuit includes a free speech analysis and many are dismissed on free speech grounds?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If your posts aren't showing up in the first place, that means they've been caught by the spam filter. That's often triggered by posts with multiple links in them, or posts that are identical to other posts. It can happen if you're on Tor or on a VPN or otherwise potentially sharing an IP with spammers.
If your posts get caught in the filter, the moderators will review them later. If they're not spam, they'll let them through.
If your posts are being flagged and hidden, that's not Mike or any of the other moderators doing that. It's other readers.
For the record, I flagged your post because whining about your posts being censored is something trolls do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I guess "Jordan Peterson" is one of those names that brings out a certain type of new commenter in droves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I mean, I guess it could have been a lot worse. Only one person actively warning about "cultural marxism" nonsense, and only one flagrant neo-nazi ranting about Jews and making racist jokes. That's pretty good for a Peterson Defense Force.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
Let me put it this way, you can swing your baseball bat around as much as you please, just as long as you do not hit me in the head while doing so
Ah, the simplistic analogy that lets you know you are talking to a skilled constitutional scholar. You can tell this guy just aced his "Fist/Bat Swinging And The Proximity Of Noses/Heads" course in law school.
I mean really, I've always wondered why the US and other countries even need these big long "constitutions" and all these trained judges and decades of legal reasoning and stuff. I mean, it's simple, right? "Bat swing good, head hit bad! Civilization solved!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No inherent contradiction in Peterson suing
Question: why don't you think he has a legal case?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I just piss people off when I know the debate is getting stale and falling into irrelevance. ^.-
On the other hand, all these posts are doing wonders for TechDirt's SEO. I didn't even specifically look up this case, was looking something else up about Peterson with his first and last name in DuckDuckGo and this page is prominently listed anyways, third or fifth result.
Well, controversy sells...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
*eyeroll*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"The Nazis were defeated in 1945."
No. Germany, the home of the German Nationalsozialismus Party was defeated in 1945. Neonazis have since laid low and spread world wide.
And white nationalism, a mutation of German Nazism, is prevailing in the US, given that it's propaganda machine is broadcast on FOX news and our dear president is entirely indoctrinated. The recent crisis on the US southern border is a mid-phase symptom.
So the monsters are very much still here. And they'll ultimately come for you, though after they come for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
By contrast, you'd be very hard pressed to find anyone who legitimately self-identifies as a Nazi who isn't just looking to troll people and get a laugh out of their reactions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
you'd be very hard pressed to find anyone who legitimately self-identifies as a Nazi who isn't just looking to troll people and get a laugh out of their reactions
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahaha ha.
Oh man, you are super fucking naive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
You know who neo-nazis get the BIGGEST laugh from? Idiots who go around witlessly defending them and denying they exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "The Nazis were defeated in 1945."
Do you have any examples of FOX News or Donald Trump expressing their support for white nationalism?
I see that the opposite is true -- that Trump and FOX have fans who call themselves white nationalists -- but I have not seen any evidence of Trump and FOX being fans of white nationalists. Lots of celebrities and organizations have to deal with the fact that some of their fans they'd never want to have as friends. That's just what happens when you're big and famous, you can't dictate and control who likes you.
Then again, I don't follow the news every goddamn day like some people, so maybe you'd know better! Considering FOX is a national news organization and Trump is addicted to Twitter, if any examples exist of either of them supporting "neo Nazis", I expect you to provide me with a decent amount of hyperlinks because the difficulty in doing so should be absolutely minimal if either of them have said such a thing.
Show me evidence that FOX and Trump are supporters of white nationalism or I will be forced to disregard your opinions as being part of a larger underlying mental health issue that you are suffering -- perhaps schizophrenia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "The Nazis were defeated in 1945."
Oh christ you're like a child.
As if you need it explained to you why the anti-immigration president who calls other racists vermin and animals shows clear white-nationalist tendencies.
You're either extremely blind and naive, or you are yourself a neo-nazi trying to put up a smokescreen. I'm genuinely not sure which.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Disingenuous bullshit.
No. No, they literally have not. You came in here explicitly to disagree with the article. People have been DISAGREEING with your analysis, but nobody ASKED you to share it in the first place. You chose to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "The Nazis were defeated in 1945."
calls other *races
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
12 Rules for Life is a book of advice, compiled from several subjective stories, experiences and resources. It's not a biological or medical journal.
Good for you, you have determined that this book doesn't contain material that it never claimed to contain in the first place. What's next, you're going to complain that it failed to help you fix your car?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "The Nazis were defeated in 1945."
Don't denigrate the work done by my ancestors
Oh please, spare me. Your ancestors would either be ashamed of you for tacitly defending the resurgence of Nazi ideologies, or else I'd call them fools just like you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Lobster Guy?
I am talking about his entire body of work - in which he brings up biological arguments frequently - not just his dumb book for babies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that's what a Google search looks like when you submit your soul to them.
Stop letting them track you or I'm taking your geek badge away. You're on Techdirt, give yourself a higher standard for living, damn it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop letting them track you or I'm taking your geek badge away
Cool, can I have a socialist/communist/anarchist badge instead? I believe those were the red triangles, if I recall correctly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, being more astute than you really didn't take that much work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"I don't follow the news revery day like some people"
You don't need to. You just need to be willing to Google shit and do some diligent research. We're in the age of fake news, and if you're not exercising due diligence and proper information hygiene then you're opting to enclose yourself into a bubble of what is comfortable (what reflects your own ideology) rather than routing out the facts, and coming to your own conclusions.
White nationalists in the United States aren't using their air force, though they are using drones. They already have a Schutzstaffel and they already have internment camps. If enough people sustain an attitude like yours, Dude then at the point some whistleblower successfully releases that they've started evacuating detained migrants because it's too expensive to intern them we'll also discover they've been doing it for years and have massacred millions.
Sure, be skeptical, but be responsibly skeptical. Do the research and you'll find history is rhyming a Hell of a lot.
And yeah, they'll come for me before they come for you. But eventually they will come for you, only we may not be able to rely on the Allies this time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
This is a deflection tactic - it is used to make incorrect or ridiculous opinions impossible to argue against because it lets you slide around disagreement instead of engaging with it, while presumably making your opponent look ridiculous for even arguing against what is "oooobviously" not REALLY your opinion.
Disingenuous. Bullshit. He came here to defend Peterson and his lawsuit, and trying to avoid the fallout of doing so is cowardly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
While I agree that my first comments may not have explicitly been asked for, people did ask me questions in response, and I answered those; some regarding how I think professor Peterson thinks about the matters, and some from my own point of view (which quite often matches that of professor Peterson, but also differs significantly at other times), depending on how the question was asked.
Actually, I haven't seen many people disagree with my analysis; merely with professor Peterson's or my own point of view. I can't know for sure what professor Peterson's views are on everything, but I've read and seen enough of the man to have gotten a pretty decent idea. That you (and others) may disagree with his (or my) point of view is a completely separate matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
I also happen to enjoy reading professor Peterson's work, so when I came across this article on one of my regular visits to this site I decided to join the discussion for a change. To be quite honest: I haven't had this much fun debating things in quite a while; it's so much more fun to debate with people you disagree with. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
Your analysis of Peterson's point of view feels pretty irrelevant to me. Of course his point of view tells him he's not being hypocritical. That's kind of the point of hypocrisy - hypocrites don't realize they are doing it.
As far as I can tell, your analysis is: Peterson truly believes that comparisons he makes to Stalin and the gulag are legitimate opinions, and also truly believes that the comparisons other people make to Hitler and the Nazis are intentional and legally defamatory lies designed solely to harm his career.
Well, sure. And thus: I call him a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure I would agree with your assessment regarding the reasonable school board. They are forcing new rules that run contrary to someone's religion upon that person, and while first accepting his compromise later double back, and give him very few viable options.
Also, while the intents behind these kinds of policies may be good, it's far from sure they're actually a good idea, even for transgenders themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are forcing new rules that run contrary to someone's religion upon that person
Because that person is a public employee paid by the government to teach children.
Are you sure you want to advocate for letting public schoolteachers decide how to treat students based on their own personal religious beliefs, rather than the school board's policies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Large organizations are the puppets of their lawyers
It just means we need better critical thinking skills to cope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
Of course, the other option is that you are just an idiot, repeatedly trying to assert an argument that is utterly irrelevant and does not advance or even engage with the actual subject of the article at all. Honestly, suggestig that you are part of the Peterson Defense Force is giving you the benefit of the doubt...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
He has however decided to file suit, probably in an attempt to force Wilfrid Laurier University to actually do something about the policies that caused this incident. I think he'd drop the lawsuit in a heartbeat if they disciplined the people involved, and changed their policy to protect the freedom of speech. That still doesn't make it right IMHO, even if it did prove to be effective. He might have a case under Canadian law, but it still feels wrong to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
You stated: Disingenuous. Bullshit. He came here to defend Peterson and his lawsuit, and trying to avoid the fallout of doing so is cowardly.
That part is non-sense. I came here to read Techdirt like I always do, and came across this article about a man I admire. At no point did I defend his lawsuit; I merely pointed out what I think his reasons are, and that I disagree with those reasons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
I think he'd drop the lawsuit in a heartbeat if they disciplined the people involved, and changed their policy to protect the freedom of speech. That still doesn't make it right IMHO, even if it did prove to be effective.
So wait... after ALL this... you're now AGREEING that he is being a hypocrite about freedom of speech, by abusing defamation law in a way that you agree isn't right?
Cool, then we're on the same page.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
In the mean time though, I haven't seen you raise a single valid argument with regards to the OP. All you've done is attack me on some points you think I made, but never made, and in stead of just admitting to your mistake of being unable to determine when I describe my insights on professor Peterson's intentions or when I describe my own views, you keep going back to name calling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
You have said over and over that you don't think it's a good idea, yes. You have also asserted that you don't believe it makes Peterson a hypocrite on free speech.
I don't know how to reconcile those two things you've said. They appear to me to be in direct contradiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
I'm not at all opposed to changing my mind if someone actually has some valid arguments to bring to the table. Ad hominem attacks generally don't qualify as such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
lol okay. So then wtf point have you even been trying to make this entire time? You literally came here to say nothing at all? Great job.
Since you won't even commit to any kind of stance or point on this issue at all, I think we're done talking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tl;dr
Do you really think it matters whether Richard Spencer calls himself a nazi or not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tl;dr
Well, the guy in charge of the Air Force did just call for deporting ethnic minorities without due process...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
I've also tried to explain some of his and my views regarding radical leftist ideas like diversity and equity, which I think are a serious cause for people moving towards extra right wing views. Professor Peterson qualifies as a classic liberal, but in the eyes of these people anyone who does not agree with them is a white supremacist, a biggot and/or a misogynist. There have been a lot of hit pieces written about him lately, and he does not deserve that. As such, I enjoy setting the record straight here and there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
radical leftist ideas like diversity and equity
Wait, now you're opposed to plain old diversity? You're labeling the mere concept of diversity a radical leftist idea?
And you're proposing that, in order to prevent driving people to the right, it is important that we stop promoting diversity?
Now, I don't believe in the slightest that you are a white supremacist, and I suspect you may have even somewhat misspoke in just saying "diversity" there - but that was a very, very good demonstration of how easy it is to start out with these vague anti-political-correctness ideas and very quickly find yourself sliding down the slope of dangerous racial supremacist ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
You are correct though: people promoting racial diversity cause some other people to embrace extreme right ideas like white nationalism - the direct opponent to adversity.
It kinda seems like you're saying "let those people win, forget the diversity, just go with the white nationalist thing"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
direct opponent to *diversity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I mean, I guess it could have been a lot worse. Only one person actively warning about "cultural marxism" nonsense, and only one flagrant neo-nazi ranting about Jews and making racist jokes. That's pretty good for a Peterson Defense Force.
To be fair the latter seems to be TD's most recent troll, who likely went on a ranting spree not in defense of Peteron but because that's just what they do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
Diversity, as traditionally defined, is a good thing, where conscious and unconscious bias against race, gender and sexual preference are to be eliminated. I'm all in favor of people getting equal opportunity at jobs and happiness.
Diversity as pushed by the radical left however, creates
- schools, where Asian students have to get much higher SAT scores than other students in order to be admitted
- jobs, where white men need not apply, because the company has a quota to fill
- aims to get 50% female employees while only 10% of the graduating students in that field are female
While the intent may be good, the result is resentment with a lot of people. You may have seen the recent lawsuit filed by Asian students over racial discrimination. That's the kind of diversity I'm against.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
Y'know, sorry, I'm done debating this with you. I will leave you with two final thoughts:
1) You really, really, really need to give some consideration to your definition of "radical"
2) You are being very helpful to white nationalists and people with extreme right-wing views. I believe that you don't realize it, and that you don't want to be, and that you probably won't believe me telling you this, but: you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Laz robert earl of Huntingtun
Ne’er arcir ver as hie sa geud
An pipl kauld im robin heud
Sick utlawz as he an iz men
Vil england nivr si agen
Obiit 24 kal: Dekembris, 1247."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous bullshit.
I'm afraid that in this you are incorrect. It's policies like this that push normal people to the (extreme) right, and how you end up with people like Trump in charge (and let's not even start on the political situation in Europe at the moment). Some of history's worst outcomes have come from policies with the best intentions, and they all seem to revolve around identity politics.
Do you deny that Asian students have filed a lawsuit against this very policy over racial discrimination? Would you say it's fair that they have to get much higher SAT scores than other students in order to be admitted? If so, can I be there when you explain that to them?
Exclusion breeds resentment, and if your problems are not being addressed by one end of the political spectrum, people tend to search for them on the other end. The extreme right is far better at identity politics than the left, so it's really not a game you want to play with them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you still feel the same way if this was backed by law, and I could sue you for not delivering on my request?
FWIW, if the law actually said what Peterson claimed -- that it would force him to speak in a certain way -- I'd actually agree with him. And when I first heard him speak about it, I did agree with him on that point. And then I read the actual law and realized that Peterson's interpretation of it is full of shit. That's part of the reason why I find Peterson so laughable. He's... so frequently full of shit.
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the
The video makes no pronouncements or statements that deride, criticize or make value judgements about race
What does that have to do with what I said? I said it was blocked because people reported it. If you have an issue with those people reporting it, so be it.
You show a profound lack of understanding about the difference between making observations and drawing conclusions on current events and racism.
Nah, but nice try.
The problem with the left is that they all too easily dismiss rational, logical arguments that counter their world view as racist, homophobic, zenophobic or misogynist.
My general rule of thumb is that any asshole who jumps in with "the left does this" or "the right says that" are full of shit morons stuck in a cult, with no sense of perspective. You are one more data point in support of that thesis.
Those of us that are older than, say, 40 or 45 have seen a profound change along these lines that younger people are being shielded from.
Old man yells at cloud.
Look, I'm older than 40 (almost 45 myself) and I know that every single generation freaks out about this shit when they reach middle age. And basically every single time they're wrong. But some of those people -- such as, apparently, yourself -- gets sucked in by a group of cynical corporations who are solely designed to feed you red meat for idiots. They profit greatly off of it. They tell you a few stories here or there, sometimes misleadingly presented, sometimes legitimately presented. And because pea brains can't tell a few stupid anecdotes from an actual trend, you think there's a big thing happening, when the truth is... otherwise.
There are some dumb things happening on college campuses, but the reality is that for the most part, they're pretty big supporters of free speech. The fear of "safe spaces" and whatnot is mostly exaggerated, misrepresented or made up. Fairy tales fed to you by your favorite news station.
And you fell for it.
The media and journalists in particular are holding up a mirror to society that reflects back a distorted, left-wing view.
Again, anyone who identifies strongly with a "wing" and makes accusations of "the other" tends to be a brainwashed cultist. The media is not great at a lot of things, but that's not the real problem here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Canadian legal experts are not in agreement on this, Mike. The law is (deliberately?) vague. Several experts like professor Bruce Pardy have come out in support of professor Peterson on this matter, and the lawyers of the University of Toronto warned professor Peterson that posting that video might be illegal. You above many would know how vague laws are bound to be abused by people.
In the article you link to, it also states: “If he was found guilty by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, he would have been doing something illegal but not criminal,” Cossman says. In other words, he wouldn’t go to jail. Jail is only a punishment for committing a criminal offence—a violation of the Criminal Code. That illegal act however can get you fined, and if you refuse to pay that fine then jail can certainly be a result.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the
Also, keep in mind that some people would say the same thing about our IP concerns: that they're anecdotal and completely overblown. We've however read the laws, and realise how they can be abused, and the number of situations in which they ARE abused are on the rise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd be curious to know how that latter teacher would react in the case of a student who legally changed his or her name (or whose parents had it changed), with no gender issues involved.
For that matter, I'd be curious to know how that teacher reacts in the case of students whose last names change, e.g. because of parental marriage or divorce. That happens often enough in the real world that I'd be mildly surprised if it's never happened with a student in his classroom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that in our current society we have to be very careful before we force someone to act against their religion based on policies we don't even know the value of yet. Even within the scientific realm of psychology and psychiatry, opinions differ greatly on whether it is wise to start transgender procedures for minors. While that is being sorted out, should we already force people to go against their religious beliefs or fire them from jobs they have held for many years? I honestly don't know the answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The truth is, that's not true but Our Kid carries on as if he's got the facts on his side, the misogynous git. However, even a stopped clock is right twice a day and I've found myself agreeing with the more sensible things he says from time to time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I found this article enlightening on this matter:
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/jordan-peterson-and-enforced-monogamy-heres-what-you-dont- understand/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My take: women don't "owe" men sex as a condition of their not being violent towards us.
It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression (so that everyone doesn’t die). *The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues, as most societies have come to realize (pair-bonded marriages constituting, as they do, a human universal (see the list of human universals here, derived from Donald Brown’s book by that name). - Jordan Peterson
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, social enforcement tends to result in more deaths and serious injuries in domestic violence cases because of a) lack of facilities to deal with the violence because it's not seen as a problem or taken seriously, and b) because of the stigma of being the woman who left her husband. It's even worse when the Pharisee faction tacks on to enforce the subjugation of the victim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My take: women don't "owe" men sex as a condition of their not being violent towards us.
That goes without saying. As said: there's never an excuse for such violence (nor for violence in the reverse direction for that matter; also not unimportant as the statistics you mentioned show).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Being in a socially pair-bonded marriage doesn't change a violent man into a sweet-natured, gentle man.
That is certainly true, but statistically speaking violence is lower in stable monogamic relationships, which implies that on average men will become (a little?) less violent. That will not bring a man from violent to sweet-natured of course, and it certainly does not imply that women should be forced into relationships in order to reduce violence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is hilarious.
"That's because throughout the podcast I found him to be extremely defensive, as if he was constantly under attack and had to parry away an onslaught of criticism."
yeah, not at all like #theresistance right? Why address concerns, when you are waging a cultural war.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or that on average violent men will be (a little?) less likely to attract a partner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tl;dr
And I've seen a strong rise in the number of anecdotal stories regarding the War on Christmas over the past 15 years or so.
"Increase in anecdotes" and "horseshit made up by cynical media personalities to manipulate a gullible audience" are not mutually exclusive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: tl;dr
With regards to that: I'm sure that we can all name multiple radical right wing ideas that are unacceptable, but can you tell me some radical left wing ideas that you find unacceptable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I wasn't strong enough to take that much, I couldn't multiplayer game where all the guys call themselves "faggot" and "limpdick" as-is. In a way, it's acceptance to get an insult thrown your way, or at least a test of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Radical left wing ideas
Anti-left propaganda usually points to the normalization of fringe groups (and typically the most hideous examples of those groups), so interracial marriages, gay weddings, transgenders in public bathrooms, first-generation immigrants in our recreational areas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Radical left wing ideas
Interesting; most of those ideas are even carried by right-wing parties here in the Netherlands. I wouldn't consider those radical left wing at all. You say "anti-left propaganda" though; what would you call examples of unacceptable left wing ideas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Never understood "make me a sandwich"
My experience with multiplayer games in which these were the norms of banter was that the competition was too toxic to engage, and players were kicked (rather than instructed) if they made too many newbish errors.
As such, those games became elites-only, with the learning curve too steep to allow for many recruits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
in our societies we still put a lot of value on freedom of religion
Yes. And we also put a lot of value on the separation of church and state. Indeed, these two things are inseparable - there can be no true freedom of religion if the government itself, or any component of it, adopts the tenets of a specific religion.
Speaking for myself, I believe that when someone becomes a public employee of any kind, their personal religious beliefs become secondary. That is a choice they make in choosing to work for a secular government. They are now a part of the very apparatus that must respect freedom of religion, by not having its own.
In other words, I see no reason for a public servant's personal religious beliefs to even be a factor here. You can still, of course, debate the value of the policy - but the fact that some schoolteachers may personally object to it on religious grounds is not and should not be relevant to that debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're behind the times, boy. It's not "tits or GTFO" anymore - now it's about policing Twitch to get rid of women you believe are unfairly profiting from being attractive. Turns out that all those times gamers were shouting "tits or GTFO", it was really just the GTFO part they cared about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: tl;dr
I'm going to propose something to everyone here:
Let's drop the term "radical" from this conversation, entirely, on all sides. It's a lazy way to label something you don't like as being extreme, foolish, beyond the pale... without actually making a case for why you believe that.
No more calling stuff "radical". Go ahead, unpack ideas, explain why you think things are unworkable or too far-reaching or extreme. Don't just rest on vague labels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That illegal act however can get you fined, and if you refuse to pay that fine then jail can certainly be a result.
Sure. And if that's the lens you want to use, then we live in a society where every law can send someone to jail. You can go to jail for a parking ticket, or for jaywalking, or for tossing a single chocolate bar wrapper on the ground.
You don't get to invoke the "if you don't pay the fine, you go to jail!" notion for just one law without applying it to all of them.
And if you think that is fundamentally morally wrong that you can be technically jailed for the most minor infraction, well, that's fair, and there's a solid argument for that, and a political movement ready and waiting for you! It's called "anarchism" - the true radical left :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this case I think it would also matter to me if the words were newly made up or not. I find myself to be a lot more understanding towards people who transition from one gender to the other (like several of my friends have) than towards people who get stuck in the middle or even place themselves completely outside the male/female spectrum. There are currently over 100 different genders, and the first transracials and transspecies have also started to ask for personal attention. Maybe it's my age, but my mind just doesn't move that fast anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nonsense. Their choice joining the school is not just to adhere to its current policies - but to adhere to its process for changing those policies and introducing new ones.
The professional opinion of teachers in their capacity as teachers absolutely should be - and is - solicited and considered as a part of that process. But their personal religious discomfort is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"A lot of value on the separation of church and state"
Today's SCOTUS rulings seem to belie the notion that the US cares about such separation.
• The President's travel ban -- often explicitly expressed to halt Muslims from entering the United States -- has been upheld.
• A law requiring Crisis Pregnancy Centers to express a true statement about the availability of abortion services has been stricken down, whereas in other states, laws that require abortion providers to tell lies to the public have been upheld.
It looks like we're decidedly a Christian-right nation for now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "A lot of value on the separation of church and state"
Indeed :( And that's what happens when you let religion control government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know of many countries where the majority of the population would disagree with you on this point.
You know of many countries where the majority of the population would argue that individual public servants' disparate personal religious beliefs should be a factor in determining public policy?
How many countries, and how do you know this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it does mean that you either force yourself to be extremely careful never to use the wrong pronoun or you may get fined
The guidelines from both the Canada and Ontario human rights commissions both state that refusing to use someone's chosen pronoun - not accidentally failing to - could qualify as harassment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IMHO, that's one of the main reasons why issues like abortion and gay marriage are so slow in becoming/remaining legal.
And that's a positive thing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not a lawyer, and not too well versed in Canadian law (which is quite different from USA and Dutch law), so I had to look this one up:
Discrimination law is based on a reconciliatory rationale, not on a punitive rationale, and for that reason, among others, it is established based on the effects (i.e., harm caused by discrimination) regardless of intent or motive or lack thereof by the accused.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
He has no standing to sue over what they've continued to do to Lindsay, but he can sue for what they said about him.
Had they actually changed their behavior towards Lindsay, I am certain he wouldn't be filing suit. I suspect that all he's interested in for a settlement, is genuine policy change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
He has no standing to sue over what they've continued to do to Lindsay, but he can sue for what they said about him.
When you have no standing to sue over something, and instead sue under an unrelated law to deal with unrelated harm without actually believing you were harmed in that way or truly seeking a resolution under that law, just for the sake of forcing someone to change their behaviour in an issue where you, again, have no standing - that's called abusing the law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hell no! I'm a left-wing voter in a country where even right wing political parties are in favor of abortion and gay marriage
So then WHY are you arguing that government should be "very careful" about offending the personal religious sensibilities of individual public employees?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I'm arguing is when a new policy is introduced, the value of that policy should be carefully weighed against the value of the effected people's personal values. If it's clear that a policy is overwhelmingly positive, then the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one). In some cases however, the value of a policy is still very much undecided or determine to be quite low, and in those cases I think one should be very careful about forcing said policy over the objection of other people's basic values, whether those are religious or otherwise determined.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
I still think it's a foolish lawsuit, but that at least is what I think professor Peterson's reasoning has been for filing suit now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is already a system for that: democracy. Public employees get to vote, call their representatives, call their local school boards and other institutions, just like every other citizen. They are able to express their values and opinion, and also express their role (as, for example, a teacher) and how a policy would personally impact them, they are able to form advocacy groups, launch petitions, etc. - all on equal footing with other citizens.
What you are saying is that they should get additional power as public employees. That by virtue of working for the government, their personal opinion (not just their professional one) about how a law will impact them personally should not just matter as a citizen participating in their democracy - it should also be taken into special additional consideration by the government.
I'm afraid I disagree, and think that's a very dangerous idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
Right. And that's called abusing the law by filing a lawsuit you don't actually believe in for a purpose for which that body of law was not intended.
WLU's failure to change policies has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Peterson was defamed by the comments they already made, and whether or not he was damaged by them and is owed recompense. But that's what a defamation lawsuit is about.
Why do you keep explaining his reasoning as if we don't get it? Yes, we agree - he is filing the lawsuit to punish and pressure WLU into changing its policies, not because he believes he was legally defamed and is owed damages. Well, that's a shitty, anti-free-speech, anti-academic-freedom, dare I say authoritarian, thing to do - it's a betrayal of many major things Peterson claims to stand for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
Which means that it isn't "abusing the law" as you claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
If he's suing them for something that is not illegal, in a case that he does not have any interest in winning and is simply using to apply pressure to get them to change their behavior in a separate matter, that's pretty much the textbook definition of abusing the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tl;dr
I think perhaps you mean evangelical Christianity.
A significant majority of Americans are Christian. But I think you mean that a certain minority strain of politically-conservative Christianity has an outsized influence on US politics, and that's an accurate statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: tl;dr
I don't know. Should you spend five days whining in a single Techdirt article's comments, across dozens of posts using two different names?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
Butthurt is not a tort.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: tl;dr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wilfrid Laurier
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Professor Peterson merely pointed out that IF the goal is to reduce violence from men that promoting polygamy and/or adultery are probably not very good ways to achieve that, as is very well known among anthropological studies. Nothing more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
men in a stable relationship are less violent
One tiger-repelling rock coming up...
Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true. In any case, the implication is that getting men into stable relationships would make them less prone to violence. Not true; if they're prone to violence being in a relationship won't stop that.
polygamy and/or adultery
Neither of those makes men any more or less violent. Just get the relationship angle out of it and focus on the causes of violence instead of cherry-picking statistics to support a narrative that promotes Western Patriarchal hierarchy as the arbiter of order.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "A lot of value on the separation of church and state"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.
True, but the results of anthropological studies have shown that it is. In "the puzzle of monogamous marriage" for instance, Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd,and Peter J. Richerson state: "In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses."
Once again though: this research supported conclusion places absolutely no obligation in any form on women (or men for that matter). It's merely a scientific observation that, cross culture, normative monogamy reduces violence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
**"In encouraging intrasexual competition and increasing the size of the pool of unmarried men, lack of normative monogamy increases crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as increasing personal abuses."**
To say, then, that this in no way places an obligation on women to get involved with men if they want to experience less violence is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst. It flat out blames us for it.
If you argue that it doesn't, then who is responsible, given that not being in a normative monogamous relationship is ostensibly the magic bullet for reducing violence by men?
Again, you're forgetting that men in monogamous relationships are often violent towards their partners so what are you calling "Normative?" As Thad pointed out, you may find that it's "Not being a violent git" that makes men attractive enough to be in a stable relationship in the first place, and that the relationsip itself is not implicated as a cause of their behaviour, good or bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even aside from this, it's clear that any kind of obligation towards normative monogamous relationships would not have a positive effect at all, since it carries a plethora of others consequences that would be very bad for society. Studies have also shown that biologically humans tend to lean towards polygamy (like most species). It's a near miracle that Western society leans towards monogamy (though I think religion may have played a role in it).
So no, the results of these anthropological studies in no way put an obligation on anyone. It's merely a scientific cross-culture observation. As far as I know, most Western countries already have a normative monogamous culture, and clearly it's not a silver bullet to violence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really are the king of refusing to commit to a point, you know that?
You spend days offering possible justifications for Peterson's lawsuit, over and over, but anytime anyone suggests you support it you throw your hands up and say "what? me? no! where did I say that?"
You argue at length about how society needs to base its rulemaking on the desires of religious government employees, but when asked if you actually think it would be a good thing to let religion dictate policy, you say "what? no! of course not! what gave you that idea?"
You are now going on and on about how statistics show that monogamy reduces violence in men, while simultaneously protesting "oh but I don't believe this means anyone has to do anything, I'm not advocating anything, I'm just pointing it out over and over again!"
Do you believe ANYTHING? Do you have any kind of point to actually make, any kind of action you are actually advocating? Or do you just plan to keep on making the arguments of hateful bigots for them, while insisting you aren't actually one of them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Religious politics in the US
There are a number of religious lobbyists, though the Religious Right (aka the Moral Majority) which was formed by Jerry Fallwell is one of the bigger ones. Allied to it is a number of evangelist lobbyists that have the ear of the current president, which is pretty much the sole reason that we chose to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocate our embassy there.
(That is to say, we did it not to cause unrest in the middle east but to -- according to those selfsame evangelical lobbyists -- move us one step closer to Armageddon and the second advent so that a lot of righteous people languishing in Hell can be rescued by Jesus. Christian myth is complex.)
And yes, this creates a concern that Trump might be influenced set other policy to further us towards an apocalypse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have not offered any justifications for professor Peterson's lawsuit (though others have). I've explained what I think his reasons are, and why I disagree with those reasons.
I've explained that I think it's a very bad idea for a government to be driven by religion, yet I think it wise for any government to weigh people's basis of value (religious or otherwise) against the enforcement of a policy of which the effective value is at best questionable, and possibly deplorable.
Wendy Cockcroft stated that professor Peterson was a 'misogynous git' for claiming that 'men in stable relationships are less likely to be violent', while that statement is a well known fact in the anthropology sciences. Stating such facts has nothing to do with misogyny. If professor Peterson had claimed, like Wendy did, that that must imply that women have an obligation to provide monogamous relationships to (all?) men to avoid being blamed for the violence against them, I would have called him a misogynist as well, but professor Peterson made no such claim.
In fact, if you actually listen to professor Peterson speak, he's always incredibly careful about what he says in order to be factually correct (or at least not lie). Life isn't black or white; there's a plethora of colors in between, but for some odd reason, to some, holding a moderate view is not allowed anymore these days. One must either be completely on board with the (extreme) left or be labelled a misogynist nazi biggot. I'm sorry, but I don't play those games, and neither does professor Peterson. You may not agree with him; heck, many times I don't agree with him either, but he does wish the best for all individuals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Religious politics in the US
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FFS...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FFS...
Bill C16 is an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is a federal statute that extends the law to ensure equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on a set of prohibited grounds such as sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, gender identity or expression, creed, age, colour, disability, political or religious belief.
As such, the quoted explanation of why intent doesn't matter in these cases is fully applicable. I may not be a lawyer, but I tend to listen to people that are when it comes to these matters, and that's where that quote came from.
As to your question: People argue with me because I do at least a tiny bit of research before I open my mouth. That doesn't mean I'm never wrong, but at least it diminishes the chances a little.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: FFS...
I'm afraid you've mixed things up a bit there. The fact that the Wikipedia page uses the term "discriminatory practices" does not, in this case, mean the entirety of what the Human Rights Act covers is "discrimination" under the law.
The HRA covers several areas of law, one of which is discrimination law - e.g. the unequal provision of services, discriminatory job hiring, etc. That is the body of law that is being described in your other quote about reconciliatory rationale.
Another area of law the HRA covers is harassment law. That is the portion that governs the free speech issues Peterson has been complaining about. That is the portion where pronouns enter into it. Though it does not specifically require "intent", the HRC's policies on the matter do require knowledge that the behaviour would cause offense or harm, and require that it be either repeated or severe.
As such, misgendering someone because you were unaware of their gender would not be harassment. Offhandedly misgendering someone by accident would not be harassment. Only repeatedly doing it despite their objections would be harassment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: FFS...
Look, you don't even need transgender pronouns to understand this.
Imagine a cisgendered male who happens to have long hair and a traditionally feminine body type. Their college professor, in interacting with a big class, refers to him as "her". He says "uh, I'm a guy" - red faces all around, everyone moves on. Harassment? Not a chance. Laughed out of court.
Now imagine instead, the professor says "yeah right you are" and proceeds to pointedly refer to him as "her/she" on every opportunity from then on, as a way of mocking his feminine appearance. Now, the student may well have a harassment case.
See? The law is not about just saying "misgendering someone is harassment" or "using the wrong pronoun is harassment". It's about recognizing that misgendering/pronoun use can be a vector for harassment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Blah blah blah blah blah.
You have nothing to say. Nothing at all. Your "moderate view" is what some like to call the "view from nowhere" - no point, no ideas, no inspiration, no philosophy, no ambition. And it makes you the perfect tool of the people whose opinions you claim not to agree with. You'll spend days defending them, then claim "I'm not defending them at all, this is just the neutral ground."
Go study astrophysics or something. Plenty of genuinely neutral data and facts for you to sink your teeth into, and less chance of you becoming a witless mouthpiece for vile ideologies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Description vs. Prescription
Pieter Hulshoff I think you're encountering one of the common problems that occurs in political parlance, that some of us are inclined towards description, that is, talking about how things are. But in the meantime many people talk about and expect to hear prescription, that is, how things should be.
And it doesn't help that many make the naturalist fallacy, that things are as they should be (as is the logic behind social Darwinism.)
Generally, people are less violent when their needs are met, id est when they're well fed, well laid, healthy, entertained and so on. But that doesn't lead to any given prescription for solving the problem when too many men are lonely.
In that regard, eyes should turn to China, where the one-child policy created a surfeit of marriage-and-breeding-age men in the tens of millions more than there are women.
It's cause to start a war.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: FFS...
From what I've read before tonight, Canadian legal experts do not entirely agree on this matter. I've read multiple statements from professors of law that say accidental usage of the wrong pronoun can be considered harassment, and multiple that say it cannot. So, as said: you may be correct here, but legal explanations so far conflict. I guess time will tell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: FFS...
As was pointed out to me: the HRA does make a distinction between discrimination and harassment. I've so far heard conflicting legal theories about this from multiple lawyers, but I must admit that it would reflect really bad on a judge if an accidental misgendering would be considered harassment.
I do worry about whether personal views will be taken into account here. Would someone who questions the validity of gender be fined sooner of an accidental misgender than someone who does not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and what vile ideologies would that be exactly?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: FFS...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: FFS...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
I think that's also what professor Peterson is encountering. As a clinical psychiatrist he generally uses description in these discussions. He's stating statistics, but is incredibly careful to draw solutions from that. He merely uses it to counter statements that aren't true. That's how you get miscommunication like the Cathy Newman interview, where she's drawing conclusions from what she hears him describing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Description vs. Prescription
----
I think that's an excellent explanation of what we're seeing here. Mark me down for an insightful point. :)
I think that's also what professor Peterson is encountering. As a clinical psychiatrist he generally uses description in these discussions. He's stating statistics, but is incredibly careful to draw solutions from that. He merely uses it to counter statements that aren't true. That's how you get miscommunication like the Cathy Newman interview, where she's drawing conclusions from what she hears him describing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: FFS...
For someone who doesn't want to listen to me, you spend an awful lot of time reading my posts, and reacting.
Why do I? Rule 9 by professor Peterson: Assume that the other person knows something you don't. I'm not afraid to have my views corrected by thoughtful counter arguments. Some people have provided some during these discussions, and I have somewhat adjusted my views accordingly. Unfortunately, you're not one of those people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
Yes, I do, and frankly it's a bad habit. I feel compelled to respond even when I believe it's utterly unhelpful.
I believe that you are arguing in bad faith. That's pretty much what it boils down to - I believe this whole "I don't believe him necessarily, but this is what I think he is doing" is meant to put these ideas into the discourse in a way that is unassailable, because as soon as anyone tries to actually engage with them, the response is deflective -oh, I don't -agree-, I am just saying.
Just saying what? Why are you postulating thigs you disagree with? Why are you trying to explain his actions even after being told that your explanation isn't an excuse for them? Because so long as the ideas are presented, they may sway some people, and preventing them from being effectively argued against prevents them from swaying people in the other direction.
This is also related to how you keep fishing for someone to ask you about your opinion - why wait? Why make someone ask? If you have something to contribute, why not contribute it? Because gettig someone to ask shifts the frame -it assumes that your ideas about why Peterson doing this, and thus the legitimacy of doing this, are correct, and moves the discussion to a poaition where you can start digging into "the radical left" (as you keep trying to derail the comment section into discussing).
It is possible but unlikely that you aren't doing this deliberately, that you are the archetypical "useful idiot" signal-boosting someone you don't actually agree with, but considerig how much effort has gone into this comment section -seriously, something like half the posts now are you "not defending" Peterson - I think it's much more likely that it is all very deliberate.
So, that's that. I believe that is my last contribution to this thread - because honestly,I know every reply is just givig you unwarranted legitimacy, and I should have stopped ages ago. Cold turkey is the only solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great way to counter my arguments.
What argument? Anytime anyone tries to pin down your argument, you get evasive and say "oh no, I'm not saying that, I'm not actually saying anything"
You have nothing to say - you haven't had anything to say this whole time. So I think it's time for this long and apparently utterly pointless comment thread to come to a close.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
You know, this is the first reaction where you've actually written some arguments rather than just ad hominem attacks. I guess you deserve some credit for that.
I think your preposition that I'm arguing in bad faith blinds you from actually seeing when I talk about how I think professor Peterson sees something, and when I talk about how I see something. Other people I've argued with here seem to have fewer problems with that. In the later parts of the discussions here I've spoken much more regarding my own views.
I think Uriel-238 described the problem very accurately when he said: "I think you're encountering one of the common problems that occurs in political parlance, that some of us are inclined towards description, that is, talking about how things are. But in the meantime many people talk about and expect to hear prescription, that is, how things should be."
I tend to argue descriptively, I (try to) state things the way they are, and how certain arguments may be invalid and how certain policies may be a bad idea based on statistical evidence on that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
Wendy Cockcroft stated that professor Peterson was a 'misogynous git' for claiming that 'men in stable relationships are less likely to be violent'.
I described why that argument is incorrect, since professor Peterson is merely stating a fact based on anthropoly research, and backed that with a reference to such research.
Wendy Cockcroft claimed that the implication of that fact would be that women have an obligation to act on this.
I deny that implication, since there are many more factors that come into play here. I merely refute that stating that fact is misogyny.
You claim that I have nothing to say, since I deny the implication.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
Will absolutely has your number, but in addition, it’s worth noting that Pieter employs several common, stupid, troll tactics — he clearly sides completely with Mr. What’s-His-Face, but disguises this as mere interest. He claims to want to know more, but clearly doesn’t; not all points of view are valid or illuminating, and so it is foolish to try to get a complete picture of every subject. Some things are self-evidently wrong or are so well-known to be wrong that there’s no good faith reason to examine them in that manner. Pieter refers to anonymous sources constantly (my favorite are the “legal experts in disagreement”, which I don’t believe for a second, and which appear to be other people commenting on stuff).
And he claims that Will’s willingness to engage constitutes an ad hominem attack. For future reference, nothing was an attack, but trolls love to claim ad hominem arguments are being made against them when they aren’t. The difference is that if I rightly say that Pieter is a troll, acts in bad faith, has stupid beliefs (to the extent he reveals them at all) and is this himself a jackass, that’s not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would be if I said that it is because he is a jackass that his beliefs are wrong. It’s all a matter of cause and effect.
Anyway, Pieter is clearly just here because he is a sheep of that dude — he showed up just for that and posted mightily from his mother’s basement just for this one thread. He’s a waste of everyone’s time, and we are all worse off for his presence here and possibly in this world.
I wont be looking for responses, so don’t bother making any, but to you, dear reader, remember, Pieter argues dishonestly so should he protest my post, be critical of it, or better yet, don’t bother reading further.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
I deny that implication, since there are many more factors that come into play here. I merely refute that stating that fact is misogyny.
And that's what happens when you ignore context. Let's set aside for a moment that anthropology is not a hard science like physics, and that there is significant debate and multiple competing theories. Let's assume Peterson is 100% correct about that fact. Now let's step back:
You are Jordan Peterson, a trained and knowledgeable psychologist. You are aware that a man in Toronto just murdered multiple people in the name of the "incel" movement. As a student of online identitarian movements, you are familiar with incels and their philosophy. You know that state-enforced monogamy is actual a real proposal among their ranks - or one that, for many, is slowly graduating from "trollish suggestion" to "real proposal". You also know that your work has some popularity in the incel movement, and that they are among your fan base.
You, as a psychologist, also know there are many factors contributing to violence. You know about environmental factors, socioeconomic factors, their impact on a person's psychology, etc. One of the things you know a lot about, because it's one of your central areas of interest right now, is how radicalization by identitarian movements can lead to violence - you talk about that a lot, in fact. And among the many things you know about violence, is that there is a strong anthropological argument for a link between non-monogamy and male violence.
Then, in an interview with a reporter from the New York Times, you are asked to comment on the Toronto attack. You have all that knowledge in your head. There are many, many things you can raise to explore what happened - the most obvious being online identitarian radicalization, since you consider yourself an expert in that and are well aware that the incel movement is a good example of it.
And you decide that, for you answer, from all those options, you will choose to go straight to the one anthropological fact that appears to legitimize the incel movement's beliefs and ideas and place causal responsibility at least partly on women.
That makes you look like a misogynist git. Or at best, it makes you look a meek fame-whore who feels trapped by a fanbase you don't actually like but is afraid to do anything other than throw them a bone.
And that, Pieter, is why trying to pull out individual statements and isolate them from all context and say "that's just a fact, a neutral fact, implies nothing, totally illegitimate to judge Peterson for sharing it" is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"a troll, acts in bad faith, has stupid beliefs"
cpt kangarooski You may not be arguing that Pieter is wrong because [list of indictments here] but you are arguing that he is malicious and therefore isn't to be trusted.
But that implies that someone who is honest, faithful and has beliefs (that you like) deserves less scrutiny.
Philosophy (since we're getting into the nitty of epistomology here) is about taking each statement, backed with the already-accepted pretenses, and seeing if it jives. If it does or doesn't really doesn't matter if the one who makes it is well-intentioned or not.
Since we're getting into legal matters as well as deep logic, if you find the line-item audit tedious, you may be in the wrong place. On the wrong forum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
You know? I'm actually sorry you truly feel this way (because I do believe you're being honest about your feelings here). I've been an avid Techdirt reader for about 18 years now, and I think this is the first time I've actually gone against the popular opinion here. Though it's been lots of fun, I can't say it has been easy. I realize that this was probably a very bad time to forget the password to my https://www.techdirt.com/user/phulshof account, which makes it seem like I only created an account here to partake in this discussion. I did mention that early in this discussion, but considering that I wrote about 25% of the posts in this discussion I can't really blame people for missing that one. Perhaps I was a bit too enthusiastic in my participation as well. I've spent many hours (re)reading articles and watching videos in order to get my answers correct (and certainly failed at times), so I'm sorry I couldn't find the time to find the name of every source I used.
I'll leave the decision of whether or not I'm a troll to the individual reader. I've tried to put forth several arguments, but either some people are so blinded by the fact that I support some of professor Peterson's arguments or I need to learn how to articulate my arguments in a prescriptive matter. Somehow even the name of Jordan Peterson seems to work like a red flag on a bull on some people.
I read this critique article on him today at https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-jordan-peterson-tour-comes-to-aspen/563813/ with a quote that struck me: "A critique I frequently hear from Peterson’s critics is that everything he says is either obvious or wrong. I think that critique fails insofar as I sometimes see some critics calling one of his statements obvious even as others insist it is obviously wrong." I've seen that same situation here. Apparently what's obvious to some is completely wrong to somebody else, which is probably one of the main reasons he's currently so loved and loathed at the same time.
For the most part, what professor Peterson says is indeed nothing special. He uses research results from various fields to prove that some ideas and arguments are invalid, but doesn't claim to hold all the answers either. His main focus is to help individuals find meaning in their lives, because to him having meaning is the base everyone needs. His popularity stems from him actually saying it (which is considered bigotry, misogyny, homophobic, racist, etc. to some to the extend that any attempt to even utter such things must be prevented even if it requires violence), and offering an alternative view of life. He's probably improved more people's lives than any of us here could ever hope for.
I don't always agree with professor Peterson. For starters, I'm certainly more left-wing in my political views than he is. I also feel that he's so worried about extreme left- and right=wing views that he even sees their hand in places they probably aren't, like e.g. the plot of the movie Frozen. While I think that the situation at US schools and certain companies is more dire than Mike believes, I don't think they're as dire as professor Peterson thinks they are. I do think things are getting worse based on the number of articles from many news sources (left as well as right) that are appearing lately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
According to the article, Nellie Bowles spent 2 days interviewing him, resulting in an article with relatively few quotes, and a lot of descriptive language and alternative view points. I truly wonder if that's all he said about the matter or if that's what she took home from it.
Again though: if that's truly all he said, then I completely agree with you that he could have done a LOT better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44VQuirxQ_I
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is free speech under attack?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: No inherent contradiction in Peterson suing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: No inherent contradiction in Peterson suing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: no contradiction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that Peterson has consistently imposed his “Canadian” view of government limits on speech on Americans participating in dialogue about American issues in the USA.
It’s actually pretty disconcerting to realize that this foreign actor has been able to inject himself into the US cultural and political debate, benefit from our open society and framework of radical free expression, yet use illiberal foreign laws and courts to prevent Americans from robustly engaging in our own political process.
You’re welcome to have illiberal and censorious views of free speech in your country. But when you’re a guest in ours, engaging in our political culture and society, you can take your foreign laws and foreign courts and... well... do something with them that doesn’t involve us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]