slug.com slug.com

2 5

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Bari Weiss tried to have a professor fired.

Peterson himself cries all the time, and has threatened to sue at least 2 people to silence them. He's threatened to slap people for saying things he doesn't like.

Murray is a hack, and he's riding on Petersons coat tails, the same as Dave Rubin and the others did.

They only believe in free speech when it suits - they'll happily silence others. Murray himself has said any penguin employees that cried should be fired.

hacks.

While I appreciate your obvious passion I’m not sure what Bari Weiss has to do with this particular video.
And who are the ‘others’ to whom you refer?

@stevie-f Murray mentions Bari Weiss in the first ten seconds of the video and pretends she was "chased out of the NY times" when the reality is she quit, but had tried previously to have people fired.

"they" = the free speech grifters.

this is a video of Douglas just attacking a strawman in defence of his pals who only selectively appreciate free speech - Peterson will threaten to sue at the drop of a hat, yet Douglas will pretend he's a champion of free speech - he's not.

@bastion hello, point taken about Bari Weiss in the video.
As for JP suing people it would seem he was reacting to legitimate instances of libel. That stands in stark contrast to attempting to cancel someone for having a different opinion or for committing the unforgivable sin of wrongthink

@stevie-f a woman said he was a misogynist so he threatened to sue her, in order to silence her.

i don't think that's libellous is it?

He's silencing people who have criticisms of him.

@bastion actually that is the definition of libel. Did she have evidence? But I’d need to read the details. It’s like accusing someone of rape. It’s quite different from disagreeing with an argument

@bastion so I did some research. In 2018 it’s alleged that Bloomsburg professor Wendy Lynne Lee tweeted that Peterson was an: incel misogynist, commited white nationalist.
These were baseless claims and he was right to take action.
They were not reasoned counters to his ideas.
Ad hominem attack seems to be the go-to when someone can not mount an argument

@stevie-f peterson frequently accuses people of being communists, post modernists and destroying society etc etc doesn't he?

do you think people on the right don't accuse the left of similar things daily?

Peterson even planned to make lists of "neo-marxist" professors.

[insidehighered.com]

Or is that not libel? Seems to be very strange double standards at play here.

@bastion I read that article and note that he thought about it, reconsidered it and decided not to go ahead with it. I also note that he was targeting ‘courses’ not individuals. Not, I submit, the actions of an intolerant or unreasonable person. I also noted how uncharitable his critics remain about the subject.
And the sentiment is entirely in keeping with his long-standing opposition to post-modernist ideology and communism..
I can’t help but observe the contrast between JO, deciding to NOT go ahead with that idea and AOC’s call to draft ‘lists’ of Trump enablers.
Nothing you showed me indicated libel. He made no ad hominem attacks against any individual.
He has spoken out against the ideas of certain individuals. But disagreement and argument is not libel.
I should admit that I agree with his opinion of post-modernism and especially communism.
I think marxist communism wherever it was practiced has been an unparalleled murderous disaster , just sayin’

@stevie-f it's a cult isn't it? dear leader can do no wrong.

what do you make of him saying he'd happily slap his critics?

@bastion I’d have to look at the evidence.
I’m not suggesting I agree with everything he’s ever said.
I also can’t help but notice an absence of a counter-argument from you.
I’m inferring a tinge of frustration on your part. Am I reading you wrong? If so, please disabuse me.
Do you think he’s wrong about post-modernism and communism?
If so, why?
I came to Slug to have open discussion.
I want to have my arguments challenged.
But allegations about JP’s supposed personal shortcomings do not constitute arguments against his philosophical positions

@bastion so I researched the ‘slapping’ comment. It was one time only and directed at a single reviewer in response to a negative review of a book.
To be fair the reviewer did call him a fascist and made another unpleasant racist reference which, in my opinion, was clearly aimed to bait a response.
That said JP should not have reacted as he did.
I found it funny tbh.
But a single instance does not invalidate his positions with which I agree. I’m still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge he’s a flawed human, as am I.
And I return to my point that it still does not constitute a counter-argument

@stevie-f well so far:

he's threatened to slap people who say things he doesn't like.
he's threatened to sue people who say things he doesn't like.

anyone who thinks he's a big fan of free speech is being taken for a ride.

he's a drug addict that cries all the time. i find the fandom bizarre.

@bastion fair enough, he’s certainly part entertainer I grant you. Anyway, I think I’ve devoted enough text to the matter. Let’s agree that we see things differently.
I recall your original objection was about Douglas Murray. What are your philosophical objections to his argument - and by extension the other voices championing free-speech?

@bastion so I’ll revisit your criticism of Jordan Peterson. I have not read his books. But I’m old and don’t need another’s rules for my life. My experience of him has been listening to his lectures and interviews; many of them.
I agree with his arguments. His alleged personal shortcomings don’t diminish the validity of those arguments.
I’m still waiting for a cogent counter-argument from you. So far I can only discern ad-hominem vitriol.

@stevie-f why do you continue to argue with a brick, if that ! No use

1

"Educate yourself"

Yeah, this argument is one of my least favorites and I've seen it often. I've also seen it paired with "history says otherwise" followed by no actual event, "do try and keep up" followed by no reference to what information I missed, and other confusing statements, due to a lack of information. (I don't get if they are supposed to be "zingers"? They seem more like something you'd hear on a grade school playground.)

Jordan Peterson, much like Bret Winestien and others, got thrust into the spotlight for the most insane reasons. Hundreds, if not more, college administrators, professors, and scholarly leaders have been accused of hate speech, white supremacy, racism, sexism, and any number of "isms", "ists", and "phobias" there are. I never thought freedom of speech would be in danger on a college campus of all places.

Watching Jordan Peterson argue in court a few years back about how there should not be law enforced compelled speech was like watching a cross between watching "The Twilight Zone" and "1984".

I agree with Douglas Murray. We really need more adults.

Peterson threatens to sue people who say things he doesn't like.

Peterson frequently cries.

@bastion That's not the Peterson I have heard or read. It's natural to be annoyed by idiots comments at times. I get extremely annoyed by xtian, or Muslim fundamentalist for example.

@angelo [thecut.com]

here's Peterson threatening to sue a woman in order to silence her.

@bastion I read the Vox article and interview [vox.com] and I read Petersons response [jordanbpeterson.com]

Dr. Manne works at the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University. It was my understanding that Peterson threatened legal action because of her position and what he claimed was misrepresentation of his book and his credibility.

I've seen the argument quite often that a person can't stand for freedom of speech and sue for slander. It may seem a contradiction, but I don't agree. Freedom of speech does not include freedom from consequence. Petersons ideas and ideologies are completely open to criticisms from any and including credible sources. Critics, particularly accredited ones, risk their own credibility if they misrepresent his work. Peterson has every right to defend his credibility legally. This also works both ways.

To go a step further, the law that Peterson was fighting against a few years back was to make it illegal to not use a persons chosen pronouns. I'm against lawful regulation of compelled speech. However, being free from lawful regulation doesn't mean I'm free from risk. If I willfully choose not to use pronouns, talk against their use, and other forms of small to larger actions, I also must accept that I very well could be subject to criticisms. If I fight back, my critics are risking the possibility of legal action as well.

My personal ideal goal is debate and normal discourse when I talk about subjects. I prefer a greater freedom of shaping my ideas without self censoring in order not to offend. Which is why I include any and all individuals who stand for freedom of speech as well. This includes Dave Chappelle, Bill Maher, JK Rowling, and Helen Pluckrose, to name a few. I don't have to agree with what they say, only their right to say it.

@saramarylop3z "I don't have to agree with what they say, only their right to say it."

well sure - but if Peterson doesn't like what's said about him : he threatens to sue in order to silence critics.

@bastion Exactly correct.😁

@saramarylop3z suing people so they are silenced isn't very "free speech"

@bastion I would risk being sued if I felt my opinions were valid. I would also sue if I felt I was being silenced.

@saramarylop3z right but that's not what is happening here.

what is happening is Peterson threatens to sue people, in order to silence them.

@bastion Isn't that the point of both suing and slander? If there's no potential consequence, neither would be considered an option and risk wouldn't be taken. If Manne wishes to silence Peterson or if Peterson wishes to slander Manne, or vice versa, unless either action hold weight, it's meaningless.

@saramarylop3z Manne doesn't wish to silence peterson.

Peterson silenced Manne.

That's what actually happened.

It's strange how the Peterson fans end up with these post-modernist views where reality isn't objective and they have to re-write what has actually happened. Very PoMo indeed.

@bastion I think I may have been misunderstood. Peterson, along with other academics, politicians, celebrities, from progressive to conservative have the right to voice their opinions. I'm against law protected compelled speech.

However, free speech is not without consequence. Manne has every right to voice her professional opinion. If her opinions have the possibility of discrediting someone, then there is a risk. Both Manne and Peterson took risks. I see them as equals in the matter of free speech and consequence, not in how I personally feel. I don't have a problem with voicing my personal opinion. I just was trying to be a bit more objective with my response.

If it were about how I personally feel, I would narrow my view to only those I agree with. In the Manne and Peterson case, I personally find fault with both for one reason or another. By saying vice versa, I was saying that if the roles were reversed I'd still feel the same as far as free speech and consequence.

Additionally, I am confused as to why so many people hate Peterson. Or why he is such a controversial figure. I find the reactions to him more fascinating then the man himself.

@saramarylop3z if i was to say for example : peterson is a teary man who was addicted to drugs.

should he be able to sue me into retracting?

@bastion Peterson is a public figure; slander and defamation is prosecutable aspecially when it comes to being called a misagynist when he's very much not. People forget what a misagonist actually is in the modern world. Disagreement with a woman is not misagynistic. And he couldn't sue you for saying he's had to get treatment for opioids, and that he tears up when he talks about something very emotional. It's a fact. What's your point in all of this?

@Wolak he says women shouldn't wear make up.

he says you can't debate with women, as you cannot strike them.

he's a teary drug addict that sues people to silence them.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:156705
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.