I personally like Prof. Peterson, but not without my fair share of criticism on some of his points. That said, I agree that this cult of personality revolving around him, or any other famous individual for that matter, has gotten a way too far.
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.
After several minutes petting her dozens of cats, taking a drag from last night's cigarrete amidst the rainbow of unlabeled pills laying on the table, she realized that...
Funny how the GOP is supposedly for "smaller government", state rights and free market fundamentalism, but are premeptively prohibiting States and localities from implementing their own rules or building their own networks. Hypocrisy at it's finest! The GOP has proven to have no principles and only money drives their concerns.
So in the end, the self-proclaimed party of state rights is working hard to undermine them when it conflicts with corporations' profits. Shocking!
This narrative raises some interesting questions 1) If Russian ads have this much influence.. who doesn't anyone else's? 2) If Russians have this capability.. who else does? 3) What's the Russians's goal.. why would they be mustache twirling evil dicks when they could just license the technology to ad agencies and make TRILLIONS? ..oh, and 4) If Russian are these mysterious masters of mass manipulation.. why did the Soviet Union collapse? Why did they have to send troops to Ukraine, when a Tweet would have been enough?
If they could flip an election with a few hundred thousand dollars while DNC lost after spending more than a billion, why aren't other countries learning the art of advertisements from them? We can can save billions every year and also cut down on the number of commercials everybody have to endure.
"Good grief. In the world "According to Techdirt", there should be absolutely no copyright, where everyone can steal an idea from what someone else has created."
Ideas are non material "objects" that do not get destroyed when consumed (as opposed to any material object) and whose production does not require direct consumption of material inputs, as what economists call services do.
The economic concept of trade on which all arguments about the efficiency of markets based on well defined property rights, simply cannot be meaningfully applied to ideas, it makes no sense to "steal" an idea.
"Copyright does not stifle innovation and change, it stimulates innovation and change. If we didn't have copyright, nobody would create anything because of the fear that someone might steal their idea or creation."
Sure, because without copyright, all the ancient literature and music that were created without needing it wouldn't exist even if the Statute of Anne was created until 1710.
"Must be nice to be thieves of copyright content, huh?"
How infringement is stealing again? If I steal something, the owner no longer has the object I stolen, whereas infringment can entail copying it, no material object is lost.
One of my closest friends, who is a parent of two, now told me once that the best way to monitor kids without becoming an helicopter parent was to actually show interest on what they are doing on the internet.
Like, whenever his son is surfing the web or immersed on his smartphone, he (or his wife) just walks in and casually asks his kid what is he doing and starting a conversation with him, showing him that there is a genuine interest on his part to be included in his kid's life without being perceived as invasive. So his son shares his interests with him and tells him what kind of stuff is he browsing, who's talking to, if it is a school friend and whatnot, making the exchange to flow naturally and building mutual trust.
So, leaving that personal anecdote aside, I think the question isn't even about how could ever this stop a parent from buying a smartphone for their kids outside the state, but rather how lazy and unattached some parents seem to be if they want a law that in the end will make them believe it will be easier to keep their children from engaging in harmful attitudes, most of which come from the lack of actual parental supervision and being involved in their children's lives.
Instead, they invent this new boogey man just like Cartoons, Comic Books, Heavy Metal, Videogames, etc., were labeled as back when I was a kid, while preaching vapid sanctimony to bamboozle people and make them believe that anything that catches children's attention is inherently harmful.
"Expect that if the gag order is lifted on the school we find out that he was getting smacked around by a few bullies on a daily basis and "built" this to "scare" them."
Bullshit, if that was the case, we would now by now from external sources (classmates, parents, etc.), unless you alredy know that he is "invisible" to the rest of the school because he has no friends and no one has ever interacted with him, at all.
It sounds crazy but hear me out. What about trying to act like parents and spend time with the kids as a way to see and understand what are they up to. It sounds crazy, I know!
Compare "Licenses and patents" to the "Indulgences" sold by the catholic church and then compare the right of gatekeeping/distribution with the monopoly to read and interpret scripture for the other half.
Finally, in order to even understand copyright you first need to blatantly ignore common sense, empirical evidence and the physical world.
And of course, the IP maximalists like religious enforcers/zealots operating under the same tribalistic mindset where you are either for or against, no middle ground, no nuances, nothing in between, etc., and of course trying to cause moral panic over thought or imaginary crimes and portraying any kind of dissent or critical view as immoral.
Well, I must admit that, assuming he's not a troll, at least he's honest about the current IP maximalist mindset and how obscene and dangerous it is.
So, if people in developing countries can't afford medicines and other basic needs, then it's their fault, no one told them to be poor to begin with, so they better be healthy or learn to do without.
It's "the end justifies the means" mentality we are dealing with.
"I was thinking that part of the logic here is that the only side of the story they are hearing is what comes from leaks, fear mongering blogs, and others who have a vested interest in shooting down TTP. If all you hear is horror stories and rumors, do you honestly think they would have a good opinion?"
Then, why are they being so secretive? If defenders of such trade agreements assert that benefits outweight the adverse consequences, secrecy would not be the norm and the rest of the people would not need to depend on leaks to know whats going on.
"Also, there will always be some who see advantage, and some who see disadvantage. Some companies work well within regulatory frameworks, others are more freewheeling and think they can benefit by less regulation. There will never be 100% agreement, no matter how you slice it."
Irrelevant, this isn't about companies benefiting from more or less regulation, is about presenting actual trade agreements, laws, regulations that could possibly benefit all, not a minority composed by certain corporate interests who are unable to compete due to their outdated business models who seek more and stronger industrial protectionism regulations.
"The concerns in the area of public domains works are valid. However, as is often the case, those who seek to destroy copyright overall are using these valid concerns as a way to try to tear down copyright completely."
We don't need to destroy copyright, copyright cartels are doing that by themselves by showing how abusive they are and losing the respect of the younger generations, buying and paying for laws that allows them to mantain the game rigged to the advantage of the thieving middlemen and unnecesary gatekeeprs, all that while they try to cause moral panic by saying that people who criticize any aspect of copyrights, including the unfairness of the current system perpetuated by those dinosaurs and their cronies in the halls of power, are immoral thieves, freetrds, freeloaders, grifters, etc.
"I feel sorry for those who are being used to support a cause they don't truly believe in."
I would say the same for the bought and paid shills from those corporate interests, but recent history tell me that they are being willfuly dishonest, so no, I dont feel sorry for you and your ilk.
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.
Re: Re: Surprising?
He'll do neither.
Re: We should write a book.
(untitled comment)
So in the end, the self-proclaimed party of state rights is working hard to undermine them when it conflicts with corporations' profits. Shocking!
(untitled comment)
1) If Russian ads have this much influence.. who doesn't anyone else's?
2) If Russians have this capability.. who else does?
3) What's the Russians's goal.. why would they be mustache twirling evil dicks when they could just license the technology to ad agencies and make TRILLIONS?
..oh, and 4) If Russian are these mysterious masters of mass manipulation.. why did the Soviet Union collapse? Why did they have to send troops to Ukraine, when a Tweet would have been enough?
If they could flip an election with a few hundred thousand dollars while DNC lost after spending more than a billion, why aren't other countries learning the art of advertisements from them? We can can save billions every year and also cut down on the number of commercials everybody have to endure.
Re:
Ideas are non material "objects" that do not get destroyed when consumed (as opposed to any material object) and whose production does not require direct consumption of material inputs, as what economists call services do.
The economic concept of trade on which all arguments about the efficiency of markets based on well defined property rights, simply cannot be meaningfully applied to ideas, it makes no sense to "steal" an idea.
"Copyright does not stifle innovation and change, it stimulates innovation and change. If we didn't have copyright, nobody would create anything because of the fear that someone might steal their idea or creation."
Sure, because without copyright, all the ancient literature and music that were created without needing it wouldn't exist even if the Statute of Anne was created until 1710.
"Must be nice to be thieves of copyright content, huh?"
How infringement is stealing again? If I steal something, the owner no longer has the object I stolen, whereas infringment can entail copying it, no material object is lost.
(untitled comment)
Everyone has a price. Someone simply managed to meet his price for making him stand against what he was supposed to stand for.
Re:
No government regulation; the ISPs will "self regulate" (hint, they won't), and we know how that will turn out for the consumer.
Personal anecdote.
Like, whenever his son is surfing the web or immersed on his smartphone, he (or his wife) just walks in and casually asks his kid what is he doing and starting a conversation with him, showing him that there is a genuine interest on his part to be included in his kid's life without being perceived as invasive. So his son shares his interests with him and tells him what kind of stuff is he browsing, who's talking to, if it is a school friend and whatnot, making the exchange to flow naturally and building mutual trust.
So, leaving that personal anecdote aside, I think the question isn't even about how could ever this stop a parent from buying a smartphone for their kids outside the state, but rather how lazy and unattached some parents seem to be if they want a law that in the end will make them believe it will be easier to keep their children from engaging in harmful attitudes, most of which come from the lack of actual parental supervision and being involved in their children's lives.
Instead, they invent this new boogey man just like Cartoons, Comic Books, Heavy Metal, Videogames, etc., were labeled as back when I was a kid, while preaching vapid sanctimony to bamboozle people and make them believe that anything that catches children's attention is inherently harmful.
Re: Re: Re: The school was right
What year you live in? Are you seriously telling me that this wouldn't be known already in any social media?
I guess we can wait a week or two to realize nobody around him has access to any freaking social media platform so your BS theory can be true.
Re: Re: The school was right
Re: The school was right
Bullshit, if that was the case, we would now by now from external sources (classmates, parents, etc.), unless you alredy know that he is "invisible" to the rest of the school because he has no friends and no one has ever interacted with him, at all.
tl;dr
"Authority is NEVER WRONG" /s
Re: Re: Re: Check again
Re: Re: Check again
I have a crazy idea.
Re:
Compare "Licenses and patents" to the "Indulgences" sold by the catholic church and then compare the right of gatekeeping/distribution with the monopoly to read and interpret scripture for the other half.
Finally, in order to even understand copyright you first need to blatantly ignore common sense, empirical evidence and the physical world.
And of course, the IP maximalists like religious enforcers/zealots operating under the same tribalistic mindset where you are either for or against, no middle ground, no nuances, nothing in between, etc., and of course trying to cause moral panic over thought or imaginary crimes and portraying any kind of dissent or critical view as immoral.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re:
So, if people in developing countries can't afford medicines and other basic needs, then it's their fault, no one told them to be poor to begin with, so they better be healthy or learn to do without.
It's "the end justifies the means" mentality we are dealing with.
Disgusting
Re:
If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to prove either.
Re: perhaps
Then, why are they being so secretive? If defenders of such trade agreements assert that benefits outweight the adverse consequences, secrecy would not be the norm and the rest of the people would not need to depend on leaks to know whats going on.
"Also, there will always be some who see advantage, and some who see disadvantage. Some companies work well within regulatory frameworks, others are more freewheeling and think they can benefit by less regulation. There will never be 100% agreement, no matter how you slice it."
Irrelevant, this isn't about companies benefiting from more or less regulation, is about presenting actual trade agreements, laws, regulations that could possibly benefit all, not a minority composed by certain corporate interests who are unable to compete due to their outdated business models who seek more and stronger industrial protectionism regulations.
"The concerns in the area of public domains works are valid. However, as is often the case, those who seek to destroy copyright overall are using these valid concerns as a way to try to tear down copyright completely."
We don't need to destroy copyright, copyright cartels are doing that by themselves by showing how abusive they are and losing the respect of the younger generations, buying and paying for laws that allows them to mantain the game rigged to the advantage of the thieving middlemen and unnecesary gatekeeprs, all that while they try to cause moral panic by saying that people who criticize any aspect of copyrights, including the unfairness of the current system perpetuated by those dinosaurs and their cronies in the halls of power, are immoral thieves, freetrds, freeloaders, grifters, etc.
"I feel sorry for those who are being used to support a cause they don't truly believe in."
I would say the same for the bought and paid shills from those corporate interests, but recent history tell me that they are being willfuly dishonest, so no, I dont feel sorry for you and your ilk.
More comments from PopeyeLePoteaux >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by PopeyeLePoteaux.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt