Has the Left Flip Flopped on Free Speech?

dave23 said: And you humor card has been suspended.

 What does that mean?

This wasn’t the most specific rebuke (ETA: or addressed to me), but you’ve had your moments.

lord_pabulum said:

Thanks. It's difficult for me to understand middle school composition sometimes. But I know you will keep trying.

In any case, I didn’t say I supported the vote. I’m saying that a vote was taken.

DaveSchmidt said:
This wasn’t the most specific rebuke (ETA: or addressed to me), but you’ve had your moments.

lord_pabulum said:

Thanks. It's difficult for me to understand middle school composition sometimes. But I know you will keep trying.

In any case, I didn’t say I supported the vote. I’m saying that a vote was taken.

There is a difference between composition and grammar.  How does one get the privilege to vote?

ETA: Yes, you set me up with that one -

terp said:

ml1 said:

ridski said:

The workplace itself is a new concept. Most people used to work from their homes, or in communal areas near their homes. While tasks themselves may have been previously divided by sexes, a whole family or group of families worked the land or processed food or made clothes and shelter, they typically did not travel somewhere to do it. This concept of a workplace was born in the early 1800s, it's not much more than 8 generations old. The "complex problems" we have created around ourselves are easily fixed.

 Anyone who thinks this is complicated is not trying very hard to figure it out, or is perhaps kind of dim, or being disingenuous. It's not difficult stuff. 

 It seems pretty safe to assume that neither of you have ever been responsible for a sizable number of people in the workplace.

 You must not be familiar with the work of the philosopher Unger.

terp said:
Lot's of issues are created by people that are arrogant enough to think that they can reliably regulate things as complex as human interaction with a few rules and a handbook. 

 Are you also unfamiliar with Moses?

Of he was probably quite arrogant.

lord_pabulum said:

DaveSchmidt said:

In any case, I didn’t say I supported the vote. I’m saying that a vote was taken.

There is a difference between composition and grammar.  How does one get the privilege to vote?

By being White, of course.

terp said:
I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't have a respectful workplace.  Obviously, we should.  The question was how simple a task that is.

 Simple enough for a 5 year old to understand.

“These are the things I learned (in Kindergarten):

1. Share everything.
2. Play fair.
3. Don't hit people.
4. Put things back where you found them.
5. CLEAN UP YOUR OWN MESS.
6. Don't take things that aren't yours.
7. Say you're SORRY when you HURT somebody.
8. Wash your hands before you eat.
9. Flush.
10. Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
11. Live a balanced life - learn some and drink some and draw some and paint some and sing and dance and play and work everyday some.
12. Take a nap every afternoon.
13. When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together.
14. Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Stryrofoam cup: The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
15. Goldfish and hamster and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
16. And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first workd you learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.” 
― Robert Fulghum, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten

9a - wash your hands again.

The "Current Affairs" article was fascinating. I read every word (except for the parts the author excused me from due to fatigue). 

I see this guy as just another in a long, long line of purveyors of self-help mumbo-jumbo, ambiguous floppy paragraphs wherein one can find whatever one seeks. 

XM Radio has been broadcasting a bunch of spots advertising a Joel Osteen channel. "There is a power in you that is greater than any power that comes against you." Except for leopards. Or another one which tells you something like "nothing can keep you from your destiny." Is there a more useless sentence in the English language?

I have no doubt that Deepak Chopra (“Western science is still frozen in an obsolete, Newtonian worldview that is based literally on superstition — and we can call it the superstition of materialism — which says you and I are physical entities of the physical universe”) or any televangelist could come close.

In another era these guys would be selling patent medicines. 

DaveSchmidt said:
Very long, but by far the best thing I have read on the current topic so far (present commenters excluded):

The Intellectual We Deserve (Current Affairs)

 I just read it. Very enjoyable.

However this thread morphs or ends, I’d just like to mention that everyone involved in it really needs to see Hannah Gadsby: Nanette, either before it ends in New York, or on Netflix when it comes out next month. It touches on many of the subjects mentioned in this thread and others and just generally should be seen by everyone.

Another piece on Peterson, this time by someone who's known him for 20 years and now feels the need to sound an alarm.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

A review of Professor Peterson's "12 Rules".

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/jordan-peterson-12-rules-kate-manne-review/

Peterson’s advice is primarily directed towards, and has resonated with, a very particular audience: those predominantly white, straight, cis, and otherwise privileged men who fear being surpassed by their historical subordinates – people of colour and white women, among others – and losing their loyal service. Greater equality of opportunity is of course a necessary condition and symptom of social progress. (Although it is very far from sufficient when it comes to social justice – and such progress is often concentrated in the upper echelons of society.) But new opportunities and better odds for at least some members of historically subordinate social groups cannot be expected to come as good news to all of history’s traditional winners. It may result not only in disappointment and shame among some of them, but also resentment and violent outbursts among others. Peterson recognizes the existence of these corrosive reactions, but not their social locus. When it comes to diagnosing and treating these ills, he misses the mark spectacularly.

terp appears to have given up trying to defend this clown, but that's understandable, since he's indefensible.

I thought the point was that even clowns have a right to free speech 

ml1 said:
I thought the point was that even clowns have a right to free speech 

Your statement is correct.  But on this thread, we've been told that they also have the right not to have other people actually refer to them as "clowns".

nohero said:

ml1 said:
I thought the point was that even clowns have a right to free speech 

Your statement is correct.  But on this thread, we've been told that they also have the right not to have other people actually refer to them as "clowns".

 those are the breaks. If you speak out, there is the possibility that you'll be ridiculed. Especially if you are ridiculous 

If I may, I'd like to review Act II of this thread.   This started when drummerboy hit pay dirt.  He found a hit piece on a member of the Intellectual Dark Web.  This piece would apparently give one the idea that Jordan Peterson believes in such things as witches or some such. 

Drummerboy, not knowing anything about Peterson, was all to glad to pass of this information as truth.  As a take down as it were. In this way, he passed on information about someone he knew nothing about.  No matter where this thread goes, I think that is really a regretful instinct to have.   Even if Peterson is a cretin as is claimed. 

And here's the thing.  This thread has all been about finding information to support the prejudices we came here with.  I apologize for singling someone out here, its just the most notable example. DaveSchmidt will give Wilfred Laurier University the benefit of the doubt since they apologized but will take Peterson quotes out of context from a video illustrating how a news outlet was doing this exact same thing to misrepresent his views.  

So, a claim is made.  It is challenged, and everyone goes looking for hit pieces.  Of which, there are many.  

And these hit pieces are not even consistent.  The Current Affairs piece calls him an intellectual lightweight literally calling his reading comprehension into question( it also uses amazon review comments as a source, posts a transcript of a section of a lecture rather than show the lecture, and presents various quotes from a 600 page book without any context), but the Star piece says "He has one of the most agile and creative minds I’ve ever known. He is a powerful orator. He is smart, passionate, engaging and compelling and can be thoughtful and kind."  This guy goes on to say that "Marxism is a a respectable political and philosophical tradition", but where it has been tried(yet apparently always perverted) people died and lived under severe tyranny.  So, I'm not too sure about this guy.  

I'm left wondering which one it is.  Both of these are presented as true representations of the man.  Feeble minded people like me wonder how all this can be simultaneously true.   Anyhoo, why split hairs when tearing someone apart? 

The 12 rules really is telling people to be responsible for themselves.  The fact that these are stated as platitudes is because the content of the chapters points to how eternal these messages are.  He's telling people to get their **** together. That happiness is fleeting and the lasting meaning in life comes through taking responsibility.   Those are the messages I took away. 

Peterson also thinks we need the left and the right.  He doesn't think either side works without the other.   It worries him how tribal we have become with different camps having their own version of events and seeing the other side as close to enemies.  And I do think that sometimes this board is a reflection of that.   BTW:  Dan Carlin released a good Common Sense on this very topic, which I think is pretty insightful:  From Who the Bell Trolls.

Ridski may like this video. He was on Russel Brand's podcast.  It's a good conversation.  It seems like Brand likes him, but does challenge him on some things quite fairly and earnestly IMO. 

drummerboy said:
my son (who turns out know a lot about Peterson and has suffered through many videos) and I had a grand time trying to interpret the diagrams from his book.

 That diagram shows how one orients themselves in life.  They have a working model(what is, and what should be).  They spend their mental trying to get from what is to what should be.   When an experience or new data comes into their consciousness that model no longer works.  That is when you enter chaos(as in you don't know what to do).  When you re-orient yourself, you build a new new model for what is and what should be taking that new information into account. 

So when Harvey Weinstein threatens (new data) to end the career (what is and what should be) that you've been developing for 15 years unless you agree to blow him (chaos), what part of the PowerPoint slide should we refer to (assuming Harvey's hotel suite has good WiFi)?

terp said:

drummerboy said:
my son (who turns out know a lot about Peterson and has suffered through many videos) and I had a grand time trying to interpret the diagrams from his book.

 That diagram shows how one orients themselves in life.  They have a working model(what is, and what should be).  They spend their mental trying to get from what is to what should be.   When an experience or new data comes into their consciousness that model no longer works.  That is when you enter chaos(as in you don't know what to do).  When you re-orient yourself, you build a new new model for what is and what should be taking that new information into account. 

 lol!!

that diagram is ridiculous! It may be trying to show us what you said, but it fails spectacularly. Regardless of the validity of it's message, you can't just invent your own visual vocabularly, unless you really know what the hell you're doing. He doesn't, clearly.

Also, as to what you just described, I think it can be summarized as "learning from your experience". Yes?

By the way, the "witches" quote, which you are hanging on to for dear life as a cudgel, was not meant to say he actually believed witches existed, but was meant as an example of overly complicated thinking which makes his message very easy to misinterpret - which, coincidentally, seems to be a major means of defending him - i.e. us critics just don't get what he's trying to say. Well, how convenient for him. You'd think that in response to those criticisms he'd try to be clearer.

You don't know anything about him that hasn't been mediated by someone else.

I will admit I don't know much about Peterson. But I know a lot about using graphics to present information. That chart is abysmal. 

ml1 said:
I will admit I don't know much about Peterson. But I know a lot about using graphics to present information. That chart is abysmal. 

Muddled design suggests muddled thinking.

terp said:

I apologize for singling someone out here, its just the most notable example. DaveSchmidt will give Wilfred Laurier University the benefit of the doubt since they apologized but will take Peterson quotes out of context from a video illustrating how a news outlet was doing this exact same thing to misrepresent his views.

This is the thanks I get for following all those links you leave us.

Not being sure whether everyone shares my diligence in that regard, I figured I’d note for those who passed over it that Vice showed a rebuttal from Peterson (“Now I’m not saying people shouldn’t use sexual displays in the workplace”) that was similar to the one that was left on the cutting room floor (“I’m not saying women shouldn’t wear makeup in the workplace”). 

I prefaced it by saying, “In the edited follow-up.” That was intended to be at least a smidgen of context. (I wasn’t going to give it all away. Let the lazy laggards here see for themselves if they’re so interested.)

As for the benefit of the doubt, I don’t recall giving it. At least, not for an apology.

DaveSchmidt said:

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.

 ETA: Thank you for following all of my links.  I only used you as an example of bias that we all have.  Of course, I see it here more readily than I see it when discussing with those who are likeminded(more bias).   Yours were the ones that were notable, perhaps because you are thorough and take pride in it.   I did not mean that as a personal attack in any way. My Apologies if it came across that way.  

terp said:

DaveSchmidt said:

A wrong was done. It’s been seen.

ETA: Thank you for following all of my links.  I only used you as an example of bias that we all have.  Of course, I see it here more readily than I see it when discussing with those who are likeminded(more bias).   Yours were the ones that were notable, perhaps because you are thorough and take pride in it.   I did not mean that as a personal attack in any way. My Apologies if it came across that way.  

Passive voice foils me every time. 

It didn’t come across as a personal attack. 

terp,

I've tried to listen to some of Peterson's videos.

I'm sorry, but they're kinda awful.

But if you think that diagram was meaningful, we clearly hear different stuff coming from this man's mouth.

Consequently, one of us has an error in thinking. He's either completely FOS, or he's not.

Could be me, but I doubt it. Let's see where he is in a few years.

p.s. Is it all suspicious that his biggest fan base seems to be young white males of a particular political persuasion? 

What's really suspicious is that you made your mind up without knowing a thing

Here's something that happened to be trending on my newsfeed during my morning commute.  The Shocking Truth About Jordan Peterson.  The writer articulates the situation quite well IMO.  Here are some highlights: 

It is easy to make anyone look moronic or sinister when you control the means of their representation. It is trivially easy to hang someone by their own words when you control where the sentences begin and end. You decide whether to seek clarification if someone speaks in an ambiguous or ungainly manner. You decide whether to print or broadcast the clarification. You place the words into a sequence that confers meaning onto them, or strips them of their intended meanings. You can use free indirect discourse to inject your own construction of your subject’s ideas in a way that preserves or alters their meaning.

The Times profile was widely construed on social media to expose Peterson as a word-salad-generating pseudomystical obscurantist who “believes in witches” and also as a cartoon misogynist who supported the government-mandated assignment of wives to appease the murderous rage of the male supremacist subculture known as incels—Deepak Chopra meets The Handmaid’s Tale. How could such a depraved figure, attacking “mainstream and liberal attempts to promote equality,” have ever become famous in the first place? That Peterson doesn’t actually hold the opinions ascribed to him doesn’t matter at all to the keepers of the social media consensus. They’ll just keep repeating false claims, based mainly on cherry-picked quote fragments and evidence-free assertions, until they harden into social fact, immune from correction or clarification.

The Times piece brought to its conclusion a dialectic that has increasingly consumed the news media in the age of Twitter. A narrative generated on social media is fed back into the “mainstream” press, and then in turn fed back into Twitter in the form of reporting that appears to confirm the pre-existing narrative. It acquires along the way the force of sanction, rewarding those who participate in the dissemination of the narrative, and punishing those who dissent from it in the form of mob-style attacks and ostracism. This machinery for the spontaneous coordination of orthodoxy exploits vulnerabilities in our evolved psychology. “Confirmation bias” is the tendency to lower our threshold of proof for claims that conform to what we are already primed by habit, familiarity, and the desire to believe. “The availability heuristic” is the tendency to mistake the vividness of an occurrence for its frequency. Use these quirks of the mind to feed the bias held by partisans that the only people that could possibly oppose them are knaves and fools, and you can gaslight even otherwise bright and skeptical people into accepting and repeating blatant falsehoods.

To give a sense of the texture of Peterson’s actual thinking on race, for instance, you could listen to his reply to a student at Lafayette College, who asked him for his view of structural racism.

“It’s a multivariate problem,” Peterson begins:

No society is without its biases and prejudices, and some of them get built into the systems themselves. And so, when you look at unequal outcomes, and you’re trying to discover why those unequal outcomes exist, if you have any sense, you do a multivariate analysis, and you put in prejudice and discrimination as one of the factors. One of the factors. One of many, many factors.

The problem with the radical leftists is they take the fact that our structures are tyrannical to some degree and arbitrary—which of course they are, because they’re imperfect—and then they obliterate the rest of the complexity with that claim. So, there’s lots of reasons for inequality. Systemic bias is one of them. It’s an open question to what degree systemic bias plays in the inequality problem. But it’s something we could hypothetically address with some degree of detachment and intelligence. No system is perfect. And certainly not ours.

You’ll notice here what is both present and missing from Peterson’s reply. He doesn’t say, for instance, that inequality is something that the white race should seek to compound for its own benefit in order to stanch the rise of minorities in a zero-sum game of interracial competition that whites should or must win. He says racial inequality is a problem that emerges in part from the tyrannical and arbitrary structure of our society. He doesn’t say that systemic racism is a propagandistic left-wing invention intended to preserve into perpetuity the leverage of those seeking to rent-seek off of racial grievance. That would not be overtly racist, but it would be indicative of a dogmatic resistance to claims of structural disadvantage that amounted to willful blindness. He instead says systemic racism is built into the structures of our institutions, and it is a problem that we should try to diagnose and solve—ideally with “some degree of detachment and intelligence.”