Has the Left Flip Flopped on Free Speech?
DaveSchmidt said:
RealityForAll said:I’m aware of the incident. Are you aware of the epilogue, which has included apologies from the supervisor and the university president?
Are you aware of the Wilfrid Laurier University ("WLU") incident with teaching assistant ("TA") Lindsay Shepherd. Where Shepherd was accused of violating C16 for replaying a DJP clip originating from a public television program. Clearly, the effect of C16 is contrary to the assertions made in the CBA letter (especially page 3 entitled as paragraphs: i.) "Will Not Impede Freedom of Expression"; and ii.) Hate Crimes and Freedom of Expression).
Interestingly, another part of the epilogue was that Lindsey went on to reject the left which she identified herself with up to the point of the incident.
But it's all good. They clearly harassed her and made her a pariah at her school. But they apologized! Nothing to see here!
Nice
terp said:But it's all good. She was clearly harassed and they apologized. Nothing to see here!
Nice
A wrong was done. It’s been seen.
LOST said:
Can we please have a separate Category for "Canada Specific"?
I have absolutely no idea why this discussion is here.
Maybe we could move it to that discussion thread the Australians have.
terp said:
I will respond to some of the attacks on Jordan Peterson's character below. This by no means should be taken as an indication that I feel it necessary. I find it truly frightening the level of knowledge(or lack thereof) that people find necessary to tear down another person's character.
nohero said:
To supplement my prior response - in a March 2018 interview of Professor Peterson, the reporter noted as follows: "Two years ago, almost nobody had heard of University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson. Now his new book 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos is one of the bestselling books on Amazon, his YouTube lectures have garnered millions of views, and he has become one of the most loathed and loved academics on the Internet. He spoke with TIME about his rise, his supporters and the news." The reporter then asked Professor Peterson, "How did it all start?" This is his own description:
"I put three videos [on YouTube]. One objecting to new legislation in Canada that required a form of compelled speech under the guise of compassion for the downtrodden that I thought was a terrible, terrible mistake. Another objecting to the University of Toronto’s requirement that its Human Resources staff undergo unconscious bias training, which I regard as scientifically suspect. And another detailing out the structure of what I regarded as the politically correct game. Those caused a tremendous amount of trouble."
What he did in challenging these policies put his job in serious jeopardy. He had some real skin in the game on this. Make no mistake about that.
Regarding Bill C 16: I'm no expert on Canadian law. However, I do believe they have a Human Rights Tribunal. If they direct you to make changes to behavior and you fail to comply you may be brought in contempt. I believe this has been done and usually to cretins.
But, as we will see, the measuring stick is not necessarily static. Let's take the Rebecca Tuvel article that h4daniel was nice enough to share. Specifically, let's look at part of the compliant letter that had the peer reviewed article pulled down:
(1) Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. She uses the term “transgenderism.”They are accusing this person of "enacting violence" by writing an academic article. That seems like one slippery slope right there.
bub said:I'm just some dumb guy, so I may mess this up. But I'll take a crack at this. Much of Peterson's early research work was inspired by the cold war. He was interested in how we man could risk total annihilation based on what he saw were philosophical differences. He then explored how humans could inflict such evil on other humans(Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Khmer Rouge, etc). Being a Psychologist he was interested in the thought processes of people.
If this is the first thing to know about the guy, I'm not sure I want to know the second thing:
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
What's up with this guy, Terp?
More recently, he has focused on school shootings. His thinking is that people who perpetuate violence of this kind go to such a dark place due to alienation, lack of success, rejection, etc that they not only don't want to exist but resent existence itself. Thus, they lash out at the most innocent of victims.
Enforced Monogamy does not mean what you think it means. I'm sure the author of the article knows what it means, but she's just being a tad coy. It is an anthropological term, Jordan Peterson explains it himself here.
thank you
DaveSchmidt said:
terp said:A wrong was done. It’s been seen.
But it's all good. She was clearly harassed and they apologized. Nothing to see here!
Nice
Bogus apologies and no reprimand of professors who initiated this spurious discipline hearing. When you have three adults (two professors and the gender violence liaison) in positions of authority, who think this hearing was appropriate then you can be sure you have serious systemic issues.
terp said:
Enforced Monogamy does not mean what you think it means. I'm sure the author of the article knows what it means, but she's just being a tad coy. It is an anthropological term, Jordan Peterson explains it himself here.
Based on this premise, as someone who has studied a little anthropology (though I've really studied anthropologists more than their findings), in what context does his explanation of enforced monogamy - a system in which we currently exist - cause one say this?
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
If enforced monogamy is "socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy" as opposed to monogamy at the end of a gun, then exactly what part of Toronto society did the murderer live in where this didn't exist? Socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy is the norm in Western society. We exist surrounded by its social promotion. In fact, it is more likely that the intense social promotion of monogamy was more likely to flick a switch in someone who cannot fit into a society of enforced monogamy, leading him to find sympathy and reassurance from others who cannot fit into it, and whose pent-up frustrations at constantly being bounced from the door of enforced monogamy turn to violence.
No?
terp said:
I will respond to some of the attacks on Jordan Peterson's character below. This by no means should be taken as an indication that I feel it necessary. I find it truly frightening the level of knowledge(or lack thereof) that people find necessary to tear down another person's character.
nohero said:
To supplement my prior response - in a March 2018 interview of Professor Peterson, the reporter noted as follows: "Two years ago, almost nobody had heard of University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson. Now his new book 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos is one of the bestselling books on Amazon, his YouTube lectures have garnered millions of views, and he has become one of the most loathed and loved academics on the Internet. He spoke with TIME about his rise, his supporters and the news." The reporter then asked Professor Peterson, "How did it all start?" This is his own description:
"I put three videos [on YouTube]. One objecting to new legislation in Canada that required a form of compelled speech under the guise of compassion for the downtrodden that I thought was a terrible, terrible mistake. Another objecting to the University of Toronto’s requirement that its Human Resources staff undergo unconscious bias training, which I regard as scientifically suspect. And another detailing out the structure of what I regarded as the politically correct game. Those caused a tremendous amount of trouble."
What he did in challenging these policies put his job in serious jeopardy. He had some real skin in the game on this. Make no mistake about that.
My quoted post can't be characterized as an "attack on Jordan Peterson's character".
My level of knowledge is just fine, thank you. Please don't confuse "reaching a different conclusion" with "lack of knowledge".
Yes, before this started he was a professor at the University of Toronto. Now he is celebrated, making money from his writing and appearances, is now known by supporters who didn't know about him before, and is a professor at the University of Toronto. He does say, "Those caused a tremendous amount of trouble", but in this case "tremendous amount of trouble" is a synonym for "tremendous amount of income and fame".
[Edited to highlight some phrases addressed in my response]
Canada's constitution and its laws surrounding free speech are significantly different than those of the U.S. So there are laws on limits of free speech in Canada that would never be deemed constitutional in the U.S. Whether some of those laws go too far is a matter for Canadians to decide, although Americans can certainly make their opinions known for what it's worth.
But it seems to me that there are people in this country with an ax to grind on this issue and they look to countries like Canada and the UK for cautionary anecdotes, without pointing out that neither country has the same free speech rights as our country. One would think if there was an actual free speech crisis in the United States, there would be so many examples that people wouldn't need to look to other English-speaking countries for such stories.
We've been through this, and a couple of us have linked to studies of the issue, and to no avail. There are people who will never be persuaded by studies and data when there are a few contrary anecdotes they can point to. No one is disputing that it's important to be vigilant and do what needs to be done to preserve freedom of expression. But as we've pointed out before, there are something like 1.7 million U.S. college and university faculty members. A dozen or so incidents of curtailment of someone's views hardly makes for a crisis. But it makes for great fodder for people who want to cast general aspersions on academia.
We live in a very violent, enforced-monogamy culture. Prior to the loosening of sexual mores in the 60s, true monogamy was much more common. Coincidentally or not, violence against women was pervasive but not talked about. Hitting or threatening to hit your wife was not the social taboo it is today.
RealityForAll said:
Bogus apologies and no reprimand of professors who initiated this spurious discipline hearing. When you have three adults (two professors and the gender violence liaison) in positions of authority, who think this hearing was appropriate then you can be sure you have serious systemic issues.
I don’t know about the liaison, but I got the impression that the other two adults realized the meeting was, in the university president’s word, “shameful.” (My impression may have also been shaped in part by the section of the Heterodox Academy comments you posted that noted the “positive turn” the incident took.)
ridski said:
terp said:Based on this premise, as someone who has studied a little anthropology (though I've really studied anthropologists more than their findings), in what context does his explanation of enforced monogamy - a system in which we currently exist - cause one say this?
Enforced Monogamy does not mean what you think it means. I'm sure the author of the article knows what it means, but she's just being a tad coy. It is an anthropological term, Jordan Peterson explains it himself here.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
If enforced monogamy is "socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy" as opposed to monogamy at the end of a gun, then exactly what part of Toronto society did the murderer live in where this didn't exist? Socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy is the norm in Western society. We exist surrounded by its social promotion. In fact, it is more likely that the intense social promotion of monogamy was more likely to flick a switch in someone who cannot fit into a society of enforced monogamy, leading him to find sympathy and reassurance from others who cannot fit into it, and whose pent-up frustrations at constantly being bounced from the door of enforced monogamy turn to violence.
No?
Your study of anthropology seems awfully meta.
Regarding your question, remember that article stemmed from the author spending 2 days with Peterson in his home and during a lecture. I'm sure there were a lot of conversations. She doesn't provide a lot of context and seems to be intent on putting words in his mouth. This is a recurring theme what with the previously mentioned Forward hit piece, the edited vice interview, the Cathy Newman interview where she spent an hour trying to put words in his mouth, etc. Funny thing is that he mentioned that he quite liked her while she was with him, and was surprised by the end product.
Again, I'm just some dumb guy and I shouldn't speak for him so you can take this with a grain of salt. But here goes nothing: Peterson talks a lot about the underpinnings of our culture. These are the values expressed through archetypes and stories like the bible, etc. He see's an environment where much of these values are under attack under the name of social justice. He always warns that if you tear that down, you don't really know what will replace it and there could be a lot of tumult. I have not seen this from him before in this context. It is usually when the left attacks hierarchies as being only about power...but he thinks they are also about competence.
That being said, I do think that the trend is away from socially-promoted monogamy. People get married later, and less often. This is a trend that has been going on since 1960 or so.
I think that you can agree with his line of thinking or not. Personally I find it a welcome break from "BAN ALL GUNS" vs "ARM THE TEACHERS". However, I do think it is being disingenuous to say that he is for some kind of coerced monogamy like is done with our voluntary tax system(sorry, I couldn't help myself ;-))
ml1 said:
Canada's constitution and its laws surrounding free speech are significantly different than those of the U.S. So there are laws on limits of free speech in Canada that would never be deemed constitutional in the U.S. Whether some of those laws go too far is a matter for Canadians to decide, although Americans can certainly make their opinions known for what it's worth.
But it seems to me that there are people in this country with an ax to grind on this issue and they look to countries like Canada and the UK for cautionary anecdotes, without pointing out that neither country has the same free speech rights as our country. One would think if there was an actual free speech crisis in the United States, there would be so many examples that people wouldn't need to look to other English-speaking countries for such stories.
We've been through this, and a couple of us have linked to studies of the issue, and to no avail. There are people who will never be persuaded by studies and data when there are a few contrary anecdotes they can point to. No one is disputing that it's important to be vigilant and do what needs to be done to preserve freedom of expression. But as we've pointed out before, there are something like 1.7 million U.S. college and university faculty members. A dozen or so incidents of curtailment of someone's views hardly makes for a crisis. But it makes for great fodder for people who want to cast general aspersions on academia.
What is this in response to?
RealityForAll said:
PS Because CANADA does not have as strong speech protections as the US, CANADA acts as a canary in a coal mine with respect to improper limits on speech that we may confront here in the US in the future.
I am vaguely familiar with and accept the notion that us wolves are tamed, somewhat, by being tied to women and child rearing (if only it was more than "somewhat," as our dreary history bears out). I'm very skeptical about his application of the concept to the mass shooter. Although sexual mores have loosened a good deal, we do live in a monogamous culture. Marriage is put off but the gap is filled, significantly, by people living together out of wedlock. Also, there are millions of guys who struggle to find women. The vast majority of them don't go out and kill a bunch of women.
bub said:
I am vaguely familiar with and accept the notion that us wolves are tamed, somewhat, by being tied to women and child rearing (if only it was more than "somewhat," as our dreary history bears out). I'm very skeptical about his application of the concept to the mass shooter. Although sexual mores have loosened a good deal, we do live in a monogamous culture. Marriage is put off but the gap is filled, significantly, by people living together out of wedlock. Also, there are millions of guys who struggle to find women. The vast majority of them don't go out and kill a bunch of women.
For the record, I'm not sure if I completely buy into that theory. Although, we've had guns for a long time and this seems like a relatively recent phenomenon, so there does seem to be more there than just guns.
That being said, perhaps the author of the article could have taken issue with his position rather than mis-characterizing it. That is really the point of the last day or so of this thread.
RealityForAll said:
LOST said:Jordan Peterson's rise to fame has caused us to examine issues related to DJP including: i.) Bill C16;
Can we please have a separate Category for "Canada Specific"?
I have absolutely no idea why this discussion is here.
ii.) WLU incident with Lindsay Shepherd; iii.) CBA letter regarding C16; and iv.) Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
The issues surrounding DJP being discussed here are relevant to what is happening here in the US especially on college campuses. I think bifurcating these issues by geography will hamper the discussion. IMHO, so long as we focus on campus free speech issues, and compelled speech issues (whether in the US or Canada), I think the discussion can be productive. NO vote for separate CANADA discussion.
PS Because CANADA does not have as strong speech protections as the US, CANADA acts as a canary in a coal mine with respect to improper limits on speech that we may confront here in the US in the future.
I have never heard of Mr. Peterson before this thread. I read the newspapers and watch TV. I don't think he is very famous.
Sometimes I am very slow with abbreviations. What id "DJP".
Why is Canada a "canary in a coal mine" any more than Great Britain or any democratic nation?
With a POTUS who openly admires authoritarian rulers and calls for criminal investigations of his political opponents why do we need a canary?
terp said:
ridski said:Your study of anthropology seems awfully meta.
terp said:Based on this premise, as someone who has studied a little anthropology (though I've really studied anthropologists more than their findings), in what context does his explanation of enforced monogamy - a system in which we currently exist - cause one say this?
Enforced Monogamy does not mean what you think it means. I'm sure the author of the article knows what it means, but she's just being a tad coy. It is an anthropological term, Jordan Peterson explains it himself here.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
If enforced monogamy is "socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy" as opposed to monogamy at the end of a gun, then exactly what part of Toronto society did the murderer live in where this didn't exist? Socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy is the norm in Western society. We exist surrounded by its social promotion. In fact, it is more likely that the intense social promotion of monogamy was more likely to flick a switch in someone who cannot fit into a society of enforced monogamy, leading him to find sympathy and reassurance from others who cannot fit into it, and whose pent-up frustrations at constantly being bounced from the door of enforced monogamy turn to violence.
No?
Regarding your question, remember that article stemmed from the author spending 2 days with Peterson in his home and during a lecture. I'm sure there were a lot of conversations. She doesn't provide a lot of context and seems to be intent on putting words in his mouth. This is a recurring theme what with the previously mentioned Forward hit piece, the edited vice interview, the Cathy Newman interview where she spent an hour trying to put words in his mouth, etc. Funny thing is that he mentioned that he quite liked her while she was with him, and was surprised by the end product.
Again, I'm just some dumb guy and I shouldn't speak for him so you can take this with a grain of salt. But here goes nothing: Peterson talks a lot about the underpinnings of our culture. These are the values expressed through archetypes and stories like the bible, etc. He see's an environment where much of these values are under attack under the name of social justice. He always warns that if you tear that down, you don't really know what will replace it and there could be a lot of tumult. I have not seen this from him before in this context. It is usually when the left attacks hierarchies as being only about power...but he thinks they are also about competence.
That being said, I do think that the trend is away from socially-promoted monogamy. People get married later, and less often. This is a trend that has been going on since 1960 or so.
I think that you can agree with his line of thinking or not. Personally I find it a welcome break from "BAN ALL GUNS" vs "ARM THE TEACHERS". However, I do think it is being disingenuous to say that he is for some kind of coerced monogamy like is done with our voluntary tax system(sorry, I couldn't help myself ;-))
Firstly, I studied semiotics, which is a side-note of anthropology, but I read more than the required amount from them as I was interested in back then and liked presenting a different angle than my fellow Communications students. But I digress.
The trend is that people getting married later, but marriage is not monogamy. The trend has also been that marriage in many western cultures including our own is more open to the inclusion of gay monogamous couples than before. Pederson’s description from the link you gave of enforced monogamy certainly doesn’t preclude non-heterosexual monogamy or an enforced cultural monogamy for the purpose of procreation, and monogamy in all its forms has never precluded annulment or break-ups. Any long term relationship without external dalliance from either party is a monogamous relationship.
That defined, taking into account all the evidence presented by Peterson that men are less violent in long-term monogamous relationships, we have a crime and Peterson’s so-called “cure.” He sets up a scenario, that the murderer can’t find love, and then posits that he wouldn’t be a murderer if society somehow pushed him more into a long term relationship with someone. Anyone, apparently. Or, perhaps he’s not saying that the man wouldn’t have murdered if he had a relationship, maybe he’s saying that the reason why he’s a murderer is because society didn’t push someone else into wanting to have a relationship with him.
Because no matter what cultural shifts you may have noticed, if you aren’t single right now (and you aren’t thanking your lucky stars you’re not dating in this world) you probably don’t know how much societal pressure there is on people to get together in monogamous relationships of all kinds, and while there are many who are perfectly comfortable being single, there are many who aren’t and don’t seem to be able to anything about it. And the thought that if only we arranged marriages at 19 for everyone or sent people to the matchmaker or whatever... Well, I know which direction I’d rather society was going.
But that’s why I was wondering about the context of that quote, because the first part completely contradicts the second.
ridski said:
terp said:Firstly, I studied semiotics, which is a side-note of anthropology, but I read more than the required amount from them as I was interested in back then and liked presenting a different angle than my fellow Communications students. But I digress.
ridski said:Your study of anthropology seems awfully meta.
terp said:Based on this premise, as someone who has studied a little anthropology (though I've really studied anthropologists more than their findings), in what context does his explanation of enforced monogamy - a system in which we currently exist - cause one say this?
Enforced Monogamy does not mean what you think it means. I'm sure the author of the article knows what it means, but she's just being a tad coy. It is an anthropological term, Jordan Peterson explains it himself here.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
If enforced monogamy is "socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy" as opposed to monogamy at the end of a gun, then exactly what part of Toronto society did the murderer live in where this didn't exist? Socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy is the norm in Western society. We exist surrounded by its social promotion. In fact, it is more likely that the intense social promotion of monogamy was more likely to flick a switch in someone who cannot fit into a society of enforced monogamy, leading him to find sympathy and reassurance from others who cannot fit into it, and whose pent-up frustrations at constantly being bounced from the door of enforced monogamy turn to violence.
No?
Regarding your question, remember that article stemmed from the author spending 2 days with Peterson in his home and during a lecture. I'm sure there were a lot of conversations. She doesn't provide a lot of context and seems to be intent on putting words in his mouth. This is a recurring theme what with the previously mentioned Forward hit piece, the edited vice interview, the Cathy Newman interview where she spent an hour trying to put words in his mouth, etc. Funny thing is that he mentioned that he quite liked her while she was with him, and was surprised by the end product.
Again, I'm just some dumb guy and I shouldn't speak for him so you can take this with a grain of salt. But here goes nothing: Peterson talks a lot about the underpinnings of our culture. These are the values expressed through archetypes and stories like the bible, etc. He see's an environment where much of these values are under attack under the name of social justice. He always warns that if you tear that down, you don't really know what will replace it and there could be a lot of tumult. I have not seen this from him before in this context. It is usually when the left attacks hierarchies as being only about power...but he thinks they are also about competence.
That being said, I do think that the trend is away from socially-promoted monogamy. People get married later, and less often. This is a trend that has been going on since 1960 or so.
I think that you can agree with his line of thinking or not. Personally I find it a welcome break from "BAN ALL GUNS" vs "ARM THE TEACHERS". However, I do think it is being disingenuous to say that he is for some kind of coerced monogamy like is done with our voluntary tax system(sorry, I couldn't help myself ;-))
The trend is that people getting married later, but marriage is not monogamy. The trend has also been that marriage in many western cultures including our own is more open to the inclusion of gay monogamous couples than before. Pederson’s description from the link you gave of enforced monogamy certainly doesn’t preclude non-heterosexual monogamy or an enforced cultural monogamy for the purpose of procreation, and monogamy in all its forms has never precluded annulment or break-ups. Any long term relationship without external dalliance from either party is a monogamous relationship.
That defined, taking into account all the evidence presented by Peterson that men are less violent in long-term monogamous relationships, we have a crime and Peterson’s so-called “cure.” He sets up a scenario, that the murderer can’t find love, and then posits that he wouldn’t be a murderer if society somehow pushed him more into a long term relationship with someone. Anyone, apparently. Or, perhaps he’s not saying that the man wouldn’t have murdered if he had a relationship, maybe he’s saying that the reason why he’s a murderer is because society didn’t push someone else into wanting to have a relationship with him.
Because no matter what cultural shifts you may have noticed, if you aren’t single right now (and you aren’t thanking your lucky stars you’re not dating in this world) you probably don’t know how much societal pressure there is on people to get together in monogamous relationships of all kinds, and while there are many who are perfectly comfortable being single, there are many who aren’t and don’t seem to be able to anything about it. And the thought that if only we arranged marriages at 19 for everyone or sent people to the matchmaker or whatever... Well, I know which direction I’d rather society was going.
But that’s why I was wondering about the context of that quote, because the first part completely contradicts the second.
Again, I don't think either of us know the full context of that conversation. I doubt that if you were to ask Peterson if that was the end all cure for this affliction he'd say "Yes". He was probably trying to make a point. And it could have started by some unrelated point.
I'm sure he thinks there is a link, but I assume he see's the issue more as an erosion of traditional monogamous values(rightly or wrongly) and worries about the Pareto distribution of potential mates could leave many people out. I also think its likely that this was a side bar of a wider conversation and may not be as central a point as portrayed. Obviously, I can't know this for sure, but it is a pattern that I have noticed.
as an aside, I'd just like to respectfully request for those of us reading on phones -- please don't quote each other in full. These posts are crazy long on a phone screen.
Does the Pareto distribution of potential mates involve the internet? Where there are all kinds of people and groups who are into things you are? Do we know Minassian’s Tinder history? Seriously, after a while someone has to just figure out that the reason you can’t get a date is because you’re a person no one wants to live with. This can be fixed, either by friends, or by 5 gay guys and a TV film crew, but you have to be open to changing yourself, and if you’re Alex Minassian, being fed horseshit by MRA Incel types, you’re not going find a way to fix yourself, you’re only going to find scapegoats for your own social inabilities. And you’re choosing to hang with these people.
Here’s what I’m getting at, outside of the other side of this conversation. I know nothing of this Peterson guy other than a single NY Times quote, which I have questioned, and his own post regarding the use of a term he is quoted as using. I admit that. But the quote makes no sense. His blog post makes worse sense. And in the end, I have to dismiss any thought that being spurned by women diminishes Minassian or anyone else’s responsibility for a pre-meditated murder spree as utter nonsense.
Sorry.
ml1 said:
as an aside, I'd just like to respectfully request for those of us reading on phones -- please don't quote each other in full. These posts are crazy long on a phone screen.
Yeah, forgot about that. Sorry.
ridski said:
Does the Pareto distribution of potential mates involve the internet? Where there are all kinds of people and groups who are into things you are? Do we know Minassian’s Tinder history? Seriously, after a while someone has to just figure out that the reason you can’t get a date is because you’re a person no one wants to live with. This can be fixed, either by friends, or by 5 gay guys and a TV film crew, but you have to be open to changing yourself, and if you’re Alex Minassian, being fed horseshit by MRA Incel types, you’re not going find a way to fix yourself, you’re only going to find scapegoats for your own social inabilities. And you’re choosing to hang with these people.
Here’s what I’m getting at, outside of the other side of this conversation. I know nothing of this Peterson guy other than a single NY Times quote, which I have questioned, and his own post regarding the use of a term he is quoted as using. I admit that. But the quote makes no sense. His blog post makes worse sense. And in the end, I have to dismiss any thought that being spurned by women diminishes Minassian or anyone else’s responsibility for a pre-meditated murder spree as utter nonsense.
Sorry.
Apologies for the full quote...but I did want to bold part of your post. I highly doubt Peterson was making that comment to excuse Minassian's responsibility in any way. Peterson makes the exact same point you make in bold repeatedly. He has a chapter devoted to this point in the book(IIRC this is what Stand up Straight with your Shoulders Back focuses on).
I will say that the quote comes across as very odd. Again though, we really don't know the context or if those are complete thoughts. Vice did this to him with video where they spliced his responses and removed context. These quotes are taken after spending days with him. Personally, I'd take it with a grain of salt. The blog post just explains the use of the term, but doesn't really go into the quote very much.
ridski said:
Here’s what I’m getting at, outside of the other side of this conversation. I know nothing of this Peterson guy other than a single NY Times quote, which I have questioned, and his own post regarding the use of a term he is quoted as using. I admit that. But the quote makes no sense.
The way I took it: Not that enforced monogamy is the cure for the likes of Alek Minassian, but that it’s been the cure for Homo sapiens. Violence was an existential threat to the species. Something had to change. “That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Reading Peterson’s blog post, I wished he hadn’t mistaken an excerpt from a Daily Wire article, which a Reddit user named antiquark2 pasted with a link to the article, for something that antiquark2 had written theirself. It only fed my bias against big thinkers who don’t get little things right.
I feel similarly about journalists and outlets that don't get basic facts right.
nohero said:My quoted post can't be characterized as an "attack on Jordan Peterson's character".
My level of knowledge is just fine, thank you. Please don't confuse "reaching a different conclusion" with "lack of knowledge".
Yes, before this started he was a professor at the University of Toronto. Now he is celebrated, making money from his writing and appearances, is now known by supporters who didn't know about him before, and is a professor at the University of Toronto. He does say, "Those caused a tremendous amount of trouble", but in this case "tremendous amount of trouble" is a synonym for "tremendous amount of income and fame".
[Edited to highlight some phrases addressed in my response]
"DJP" is an acronym for Dr. Jordan Peterson.
Agreed, the UK is also a "canary in a coal mine" with respect to free speech issues on campus. Similarly, other common-law countries (such as Australia, New Zealand, provide similar warnings with respect to free speech issues. However, other democratic nations, not so much because they are civil law countries. Thus, the right to free expression is not easily comparable to free speech in common law countries.
For example, the right to free expression in France is set forth in following portion of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order [emphasis added].” Thus, the emphasized limitation on expression is so large it is hard to perform a comparison of France's free expression to the US< UK or Canada.
It appears that you are claiming DJP's message is not genuine or reliable because DJP has become famous and wealthy disseminating his message. Would you apply the same standard to HRC, BHO, or Noam Chomsky? See https://www.hoover.org/research/noam-chomsky-closet-capitalist
RFA,
Your last post seems to be a response to me. Thanks.
However the last paragraph is a response to someone else. I didn't express any opinion as to Dr. Petersen because I know nothing about him or his opinions.
LOST said:
RFA,
Your last post seems to be a response to me. Thanks.
However the last paragraph is a response to someone else. I didn't express any opinion as to Dr. Petersen because I know nothing about him or his opinions.
Thanks, LOST. I think I got two different posts mixed together in my response. I will try to clean it up a little later.
RealityForAll said:It appears that you are claiming DJP's message is not genuine or reliable because DJP has become famous and wealthy disseminating his message. Would you apply the same standard to HRC, BHO, or Noam Chomsky. See https://www.hoover.org/research/noam-chomsky-closet-capitalist
It appears you deliberately omitted the part of my post showing what I was commenting on (that's what the words "Edited to highlight some phrases addressed in my response" were about.)
It appears that my response does not say what you claim.
That's really a dishonest way to engage in this discussion. And here's the irony: in a recent piece in the Atlantic Magazine entitled "Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson is Saying", the author claims that Peterson is a victim of an interviewing technique described as follows: "First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd."
I don't agree with the premise, since the article is describing an interview where the responses are fully provided, and the interviewer is just doing what interviewers do, probing and prompting responses. I recommend reading the article for the extensive quotes from Professor Peterson himself.
But it is obvious that your defense of Peterson includes a clumsy attempt to use that technique.
nohero said:
RealityForAll said:It appears that you are claiming DJP's message is not genuine or reliable because DJP has become famous and wealthy disseminating his message. Would you apply the same standard to HRC, BHO, or Noam Chomsky. See https://www.hoover.org/research/noam-chomsky-closet-capitalistIt appears you deliberately omitted the part of my post showing what I was commenting on (that's what the words "Edited to highlight some phrases addressed in my response" were about.)
It appears that my response does not say what you claim.
That's really a dishonest way to engage in this discussion. And here's the irony: in a recent piece in the Atlantic Magazine entitled "Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson is Saying", the author claims that Peterson is a victim of an interviewing technique described as follows: "First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd."
I don't agree with the premise, since the article is describing an interview where the responses are fully provided, and the interviewer is just doing what interviewers do, probing and prompting responses. I recommend reading the article for the extensive quotes from Professor Peterson himself.
But it is obvious that your defense of Peterson includes a clumsy attempt to use that technique.
no hero, did you read my prior posting to Lost where admitted that I got two responses mixed together (one response was for your posting and one was a response to Lost's posting). I was having problems this morning with my computer going to the prior without me clicking on the mouse. I will clean up this mix-up later today when I have some time. Thanks for bringing this to my attention but it was not intentional.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
House Contents Sale - Rain or Shine Sale Date: May 18, 2024
More info
That is exactly why they are phrased that way. That book is essentially Maps of Meaning for dummies as far as I can tell.