Intellectual Dark Web
Intellectual Dark Web
Out of context: Reply #37
- Started
- Last post
- 199 Responses
- Morning_star-6
"...There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him [Peterson] on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson."
- There's no reason to be drawn into and perpetuate the Peterson wars at all. It's so boring.Fax_Benson
- Sorry Fax, I find it fascinating. Not him particularly, but the polarised reaction he (and others) attract.Morning_star
- I'm not sure many sensible people on 'the left' pay him that much attention anymore do they? He's getting paid and that's all that matters to him.fadein11
- the fringes are always irrational and incoherent.Gnash
- I’m reading between the lines here Fadein11 but your comment seems to suggest he’s an irrational profiteer. Why?Morning_star
- lol at expecting any thoughtful insight form fadein. just look it up vox or guardian if you want his opinion.Gnash
- Write more books, less overpriced echochamber speaking tours, academics produce work don't they, when it becomes about the man not the ideas warningfadein11
- bells go off, no? I may be wrong of course. Off on a tangent but like Set said recently, why trust someone who you have never seen smilefadein11
- oh gnash, why are you so triggered by me lol, did I hit a nerve. Off to the transgender outrage thread with you lol!fadein11
- Morning_star you seem to be coming from the perspective that all this stuff is incredibly challenging and mind blowing for the "left" to absorb. When in fact...yuekit
- ^ played yourselfGnash
- just speaking for myself here...I find someone like Peterson to be really tedious and overrated. There are good and interesting conservative thinkers out there,yuekit
- but Peterson's not one of them IMO. Sure he's popular but there are lots of popular things and fads out there that are really mediocre.yuekit
- ^ agreed, yuekit.Gnash
- yuekit is often the voice of reason on herefadein11
- you're the conversational equivalent of a sand-flea.Gnash
- I don't disagree Yuekit but peppering yours and Fadeins responses are inaccuracies left over from the initial hullabaloo that brought him to prominence. He's...Morning_star
- ...not a conservative and he's only written two books. The things i like about him and the other IDW characters is that they are popularising long-form public..Morning_star
- ...discussion that challenges the lazy, soundbite, factless announcements that are the currency of the latest generation of communicators/influe...Morning_star
- ...influencers. I agree with some of his views, i disagree with others. Yet, the discussions with S Harris I thought were fantasitic. You just never see this...Morning_star
- ...type of public discussion/thinking. I think its healthy and should be encourages. Even Ted is limited to twenty minutes.Morning_star
- what was the initial hullabaloo that brought him to prominence out of interest?fadein11
- His opposition to the Canadian Bill C16.Morning_star
- Which if we look at it closely was misinterpreted nonsensical outrage no?fadein11
- Not sure I understand. Petersons opposition was valid. And the reaction from those he was criticising was one of nonsensical outrage. Is that what you meant?Morning_star
- No, I thought this was prett clear at the time, he had misinterpreted the law/bill (excuse my I am not a legal professional) as prosecution could only applyfadein11
- when in conjunction with a hate crime. This or similar is what I have read numerous times since. Excuse me if my terminology is wrong though, as I say I am notfadein11
- a legal professional. He sure rode the wave of it though, that I can agree on. Nothing like PC issues to stir the pot.fadein11
- pretty* me*fadein11
- JPs stance was overly principled. However, his argument (i think) was valid. The Canadian Gov was legislating on compelled speech. Speech you MUST use...Morning_star
- ...not words you MUST NOT say. He felt they overstepped the mark under the influence of a Social Justice agenda.Morning_star
- I get it was about the precedent it set but in reality it didn't really did it, a bit of a storm in a teacup in the scheme of things.fadein11
- you've no idea what you're talking about fadein. you're just regurgitating what you've read from your 3rd hand, triggered sources.Gnash
- once again, expressing not a single original opinion. that's why you can't quite explain it. not because you're not a legal expert,Gnash
- but because you're just aping anothers opinion without quite understanding it.Gnash
- I must have been brainwashed by the liberal media too because I heard the same thing :) What was the net impact of this law? How many people have been chargedyuekit
- for using the wrong pronoun in the years since it's been in effect?yuekit
- If the answers are "nothing" and "no one", then surely it is a bit of a tempest in a teapot.yuekit
- What is written into Canadian law is compelled speech - a fundamental erosion of the principle of freedom of speech. If you don't think that is worth...Morning_star
- ...resisting then so be it. I think his principled approach is justified, if a little too ernest.Morning_star
- "Compelled speech" is just a term Peterson himself came up with, isn't it? It's not anywhere in the law itself to my knowledge.yuekit
- Laws are often written vaguely enough that they can be subject to different interpretations. Peterson's critics always maintained that he was exaggerating andyuekit
- misleading people about what this particular law actually meant. Based on what I can tell, the lack of any realworld impact would seem to vindicate his critics.yuekit
- Compelled Speech: - https://en.wikipedia…Morning_star
- If that's the case Yuekit, what is the point of the law? other than to placate the idealogical social justice types and make Trudeaux look lovely. It's not...Morning_star
- ...a trivial thing to build compelled speech legislation in to law.Morning_star
- Morning_star did you not read your own link? It talks about how Jordan Peterson invented and popularized the term.yuekit
- According to its proponents, this law was simply adding gender identity into existing hate crime laws.yuekit
- You can agree or disagree with that goal but the idea that it was some kind of terrible blow against free speech isn't supported by the results AFAIK.yuekit
- I have read the link and nowhere does it sate that JP invented the term. I'm not sure what your point is? He made his argument from a position of principle,..Morning_star
- ...i'm not sure that the results are relevant. If anything they support his assertion that the law was necessary.Morning_star
- ..*UNnecessaryMorning_star
- He didn't just say unnecessary, he claimed it would force him to use certain words, which wasn't true.yuekit
- No comment, I don't have an original thought lolfadein11
- about time.Gnash
- I'll get into this if you want Yuekit. But you seem to have done some research so you must be aware that his objections were multi faceted and not just an...Morning_star
- ..opposition to the compelled speech element. He had objections regarding the accuracy of the claim that gender is fluid plus he disagreed with the president...Morning_star
- ...it would set for future legislation amongst other things. One of his arguments is that language evolves to accommodate the 'new' and therefore the law...Morning_star
- ...would be unnecessary.Morning_star
- I watched this controversy transform from a slow-news-day local story (i live in toronto) to the epic nonsense it's become.Gnash
- even legal experts that support c-16 do not defend the law, they simply downplay it's effects. which is, yet again, what's going on hereGnash
- the same old, oft aped trope.Gnash
- it became a controversy because the histrionic meltdowns offered newsworthy footage for our networksGnash
- Much like Channel 4s meltdown after the Cathy Newman interview. I still think that most people have a fundamental misunderstanding of him and feel they...Morning_star
- ...can catch him out with a few 'difficult' questions.Morning_star
- The Cathy Newman interview isn't half as bad when you watch the whole uncut interview but admittedly she didn't deal well with his inability to answer simplefadein11
- questions (deflect, deflect, deflect) very well. She's a good girl and became a hate figure for his disciples, which kind of sums up my opinion of him.fadein11
- lol at "your" opinionGnash
- @morning, I never seem to see him distance himself from his more extreme supporters/fans. I may be wrong but does he ever?fadein11
- Yes. All the time. He tends to package it with his descent for the extreme Left too.
With regard to your comments about 'his inability to answer simple...Morning_star - ...questions' - whilst he isn't succinct he answered all her question. They may not have been the answers she wanted but they absolutely addressed her ...Morning_star
- ...questions.Morning_star
- Fair enough. I follow his Twitter, which can be a little erratic to say the least.
The best interview/talk I ever saw with him was with his daughter talkingfadein11 - his families long history of depression, father, grandfather, himself and now his daughter. He came across a lot better in that I felt but it was quite old. Hefadein11
- seemed quite different back then.fadein11
- talking about*fadein11
- what a fucking hypocrite you are, fadie. You've waxed on often about what a nazi he is and how abhorrent you find all his views.Gnash
- lol at following him. now you actually read some of his words and realize he's not exactly what you were told to thinkGnash
- perhaps there's some potential after allGnash
- que? I have never called him a Nazi haha. Wtf are you on about? I disagree with a lot of what he says but a Nazi haha.fadein11
- I followed him from when you started bangin on about him, good to see he has soured a little on you also.fadein11
- I dislike him for many reasons but a Nazi. I have also said he makes some interesting points occasionally. You're brainwashing yourself dude.fadein11