Yes, and curing some skins to wear prevents people from dying for not growing enough fur, as they rightly should, y'know? Farming has stopped us from selecting only for the best gatherers and letting the rest starve. And don't get me started on how nine out of ten babies are SUPPOSED to die of childhood illnesses, but those damn liberals are like "oh boo-hoo no! we want fewer dead babies, let's eradicate measles". Snowflakes.
All of civilization was a mistake! You've really taken Peterson's lobster philosophy to the extreme.
For example, people that believe in "evolution" but also "universal healthcare". If evolution is true then we must allow the weak to die so that evolution can continue to allow humans to evolve. Interfering with that mechanism will result in an increase in the pollution of the gene pool.
Bwahahaha oh man please tell me you are just a troll, and that Petersonianism doesn't actually make people this stupid.
(Of course none of that changes the question of hypocrisy. Just because Peterson could conceivably win the lawsuit doesn't change how hypocritical it is. He's even, I believe, commented himself that he admires and respects America's strong first amendment compared to Canada's much weaker charter free speech right. And more generally, his non-legal comments about the principles of free speech and free thought and their psychological importance and blah blah blah are all in direct opposition to suing someone over a statement like that.)
I think the UK beats out Canada on plaintiff-friendly defamation, but yes it is true that nowhere has as strong protections as the US.
However, I still find it extremely unlikely that a Canadian court would see Manne's article as defamation. We don't have as many incredibly strict protections codified in law, and the procedural differences that put more onus on the speaker would mean the legal battle might take a little longer or be a little more involved for Manne, but at the end of the day we do have a constitutional right to free speech and a judiciary that takes it seriously, and (like the US) a long history of court rulings upholding the idea that we need to foster vibrant dialogue and protect free speech.
Believe me, much nastier things than Manne's interview get published in Canada every day, and it's not like it's a libel-lawsuit-circus or anything.
If you read the statement in full context, it becomes very clear. Remember that for something to be libel you have to be stating it as fact - or as an opinion in a way that implies you are basing it on facts that you know but aren't disclosing. With that in mind, here's what Kate Manne wrote (regarding a story Peterson told in nhis book about a patient of his):
I’d raise an alternative explanation: Maybe she was raped — five times, as she stated — and then was effectively undermined or even gaslit by her therapist. To be clear, I’m not saying that that is what happened. I can’t possibly know, on the basis of what Peterson writes here. But I’d certainly like to know more, and I’m surprised Peterson has not yet been asked about these and similar passages, in which he comes across as highly contemptuous of female clients.
You should consider reading the Popehat post discussing the phrase in more detail.
The point is that even if it's taken at its most limited meaning which you describe, it still **adds nothing** to a debate about free speech. It **says nothing** about limitations on *other* forms of speech. And invoking it to support calls for other limitations on speech is sloppy and dangerous - as evidenced by its original usage, which was to put someone in jail for distributing pamphlets that opposed the mandatory military draft. Yes, that's the original "yelling fire" - writing a pamphlet that criticizes the government.
How many of the 2-billion Facebook users and the 1.8-billion YouTube users stated in that article overlap? And how many also use one or more of Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Snapchat, or Pinterest on a regular basis? I would estimate that only a very small minority are exclusively Facebook users. So how is that a monopoly?
You don't become a monopoly by being big, or by serving a majority of the market. You become a monopoly by being the only provider in the market.
Facebook is not the only provider - not even close. People have LOTS of options for everything Facebook does - a few very big ones, dozens of medium-sized ones, and countless small ones. Hell, it seems that today's young people don't even care about Facebook anymore - we're all just a bunch of old folks moaning about a social network that's already out of fashion and stands a good chance of falling from grace within a generation.
Remember when MySpace was the undisputed king of social media? Remember when Digg seemed to rule the internet? Where are they now?
anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, and various other nutjobs
Anti-vaxxers may be idiots and clearly incorrect, but I'm not so sure setting a precedent of "ban people who question the pharmaceutical industry" is a great idea either. If you're banning flat-earthers, are you also banning fundamentalist Christians who believe the earth is 6,000 years old? I mean, that's equally factually incorrect, but I suspect you might get some backlash on that one.
And, in general, precisely how many scientists in how many fields is Facebook supposed to employ in order to make these determinations as new claims emerge in the future?
let's listen to both sides in Holocaust denial
Saying "attempting to ban all holocaust deniers may not be the best solution for various reasons" is not the same thing as saying they deserve your attention or "let's listen to both sides".
let's all talk about how Newton was completely wrong about gravity
As I suspect you've noticed, the vast majority of comments on this post have not been flagged - and a significant portion of them are from anonymous commenters. We like our open comments. Lots of great discussion takes place in them. It has nothing to do with "appearing open" - this is our community and we like it, including the feature that allows for the flagging of posts from rambling, disingenuous trolls.
(And by the way, when you have to repeatedly state that your question is sincere, it's a rather good tipoff that you know it's not.)
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And on top of all that she's actually entertaining and clever and funny and not a bore to watch. God bless ContraPoints.
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahh...
I don't agree
That means I can sue you now, right?
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahh...
Yes, and curing some skins to wear prevents people from dying for not growing enough fur, as they rightly should, y'know? Farming has stopped us from selecting only for the best gatherers and letting the rest starve. And don't get me started on how nine out of ten babies are SUPPOSED to die of childhood illnesses, but those damn liberals are like "oh boo-hoo no! we want fewer dead babies, let's eradicate measles". Snowflakes.
All of civilization was a mistake! You've really taken Peterson's lobster philosophy to the extreme.
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahh...
10:57am - a hypocrite is not required to KNOW/ANKNOWLEDGE they are being hypocritical.
11:01am - You don't have agree with this reasons, but they are sufficient enough to recuse him of hypocrisy.
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Ahh...
For example, people that believe in "evolution" but also "universal healthcare". If evolution is true then we must allow the weak to die so that evolution can continue to allow humans to evolve. Interfering with that mechanism will result in an increase in the pollution of the gene pool.
Bwahahaha oh man please tell me you are just a troll, and that Petersonianism doesn't actually make people this stupid.
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re:
(Of course none of that changes the question of hypocrisy. Just because Peterson could conceivably win the lawsuit doesn't change how hypocritical it is. He's even, I believe, commented himself that he admires and respects America's strong first amendment compared to Canada's much weaker charter free speech right. And more generally, his non-legal comments about the principles of free speech and free thought and their psychological importance and blah blah blah are all in direct opposition to suing someone over a statement like that.)
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re:
I think the UK beats out Canada on plaintiff-friendly defamation, but yes it is true that nowhere has as strong protections as the US.
However, I still find it extremely unlikely that a Canadian court would see Manne's article as defamation. We don't have as many incredibly strict protections codified in law, and the procedural differences that put more onus on the speaker would mean the legal battle might take a little longer or be a little more involved for Manne, but at the end of the day we do have a constitutional right to free speech and a judiciary that takes it seriously, and (like the US) a long history of court rulings upholding the idea that we need to foster vibrant dialogue and protect free speech.
Believe me, much nastier things than Manne's interview get published in Canada every day, and it's not like it's a libel-lawsuit-circus or anything.
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Ahh...
Oh, I see the issue. You think he was trying to force someone to "recant disprovable lies".
In fact, he was trying to force someone to recant some opinions that hurt his feelings.
Hypocrite.
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re:
If you read the statement in full context, it becomes very clear. Remember that for something to be libel you have to be stating it as fact - or as an opinion in a way that implies you are basing it on facts that you know but aren't disclosing. With that in mind, here's what Kate Manne wrote (regarding a story Peterson told in nhis book about a patient of his):
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Ahh...
Peterson is on record as stating that he is against "compelled speech"
And here he is trying to compel speech. His letter directly demands a compelled apology. That's hypocritical, buddy, sorry - there's no way out of it.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: GDPR Being Used To Try To Disappear Public US Court Docket
On the post: Free Speech Pro-Tip: You Can Yell Fire In A Crowded Theatre
Re:
The point is that even if it's taken at its most limited meaning which you describe, it still **adds nothing** to a debate about free speech. It **says nothing** about limitations on *other* forms of speech. And invoking it to support calls for other limitations on speech is sloppy and dangerous - as evidenced by its original usage, which was to put someone in jail for distributing pamphlets that opposed the mandatory military draft. Yes, that's the original "yelling fire" - writing a pamphlet that criticizes the government.
On the post: In Defense Of Slow News
Re:
Of all the places that incredibly generic phrase shows up, you chose to reference the Mooninites. Hats off to you, sir :)
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Small Matter of Control
Or look at it this way:
How many of the 2-billion Facebook users and the 1.8-billion YouTube users stated in that article overlap? And how many also use one or more of Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Snapchat, or Pinterest on a regular basis? I would estimate that only a very small minority are exclusively Facebook users. So how is that a monopoly?
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Small Matter of Control
You don't become a monopoly by being big, or by serving a majority of the market. You become a monopoly by being the only provider in the market.
Facebook is not the only provider - not even close. People have LOTS of options for everything Facebook does - a few very big ones, dozens of medium-sized ones, and countless small ones. Hell, it seems that today's young people don't even care about Facebook anymore - we're all just a bunch of old folks moaning about a social network that's already out of fashion and stands a good chance of falling from grace within a generation.
Remember when MySpace was the undisputed king of social media? Remember when Digg seemed to rule the internet? Where are they now?
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
Re: Re: Re: A Small Matter of Control
Haven't you people seen The Simpsons? "Mono means one"!
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next time you should actually read what I wrote instead of foaming at the mouth about random nonsense.
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
Re: Re:
anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, and various other nutjobs
Anti-vaxxers may be idiots and clearly incorrect, but I'm not so sure setting a precedent of "ban people who question the pharmaceutical industry" is a great idea either. If you're banning flat-earthers, are you also banning fundamentalist Christians who believe the earth is 6,000 years old? I mean, that's equally factually incorrect, but I suspect you might get some backlash on that one.
And, in general, precisely how many scientists in how many fields is Facebook supposed to employ in order to make these determinations as new claims emerge in the future?
let's listen to both sides in Holocaust denial
Saying "attempting to ban all holocaust deniers may not be the best solution for various reasons" is not the same thing as saying they deserve your attention or "let's listen to both sides".
let's all talk about how Newton was completely wrong about gravity
I mean... he sorta was.
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
Re: This is a sincere (without wax) question
(And by the way, when you have to repeatedly state that your question is sincere, it's a rather good tipoff that you know it's not.)
Next >>