slug.com slug.com

5 3

As this community is discussing what types of speech may or may not be acceptable, with respect to attracting those on the new left to this community, will post on Gen/Hellos. Here's what Jordan Peterson has to say on this specific subject, while being questioned as to his political affiliations due to his views. He calls it an ideological war. Dec 2018.

purdyday 8 Apr 18
Share

Be part of the movement!

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

Create your free account

5 comments

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

2

Yes i see no reason to make a blanket rule beyond civility I think dealing with misuse of speech in discourse should happen if/and it may be needed.

Difficulty in conversation and difference in viewpoint do not have to mean no communication.

2

I consider myself an absolute realist. That said, my perspective is that free speech should be just that, free. Opposing views come in all forms and they should be allowed. It's the individual's choice whether to respond or not. The problem I have with drawing a line is once that's done, that line will always be. As this site grows, that line will move. A free speech platform should allow all, not just that which is "appropriate".

3

I've only been on here a few weeks but, if someone comes on here insisting people refer to them by some of those freaky pronouns, I doubt they'll make much headway. As long as things stay civil, I don't think the admins would intervene in that situation.

I think the type of speech the site is wrestling with is more of the white supremacy flavor.

On your last statement, haven't seen any evidence that this is really an issue here on this site. Just some people taking off the gags, venting frustrations at the direction the country seems to be headed and finally being heard somewhere that won't earn a ban, or mob attack. Unless there is a group on here I haven't stumbled upon, but even if there is we all have a choice on what to participate in or not, just my opinion for what it's worth.

@purdyday I have actually interacted with a white supremacist on here. I wasn't a fan. It's definitely not a large presence. I don't think there is a group. I do know that one of the admins posted about someone falsely trying to use a fake Richard Spencer account and wanted some input about whether to allow people like that on here.

That last sentence in my post was just my opinion. This site is relatively new. There have also been posts from admins requesting input about how far is too far when it comes to civility. So that could be it as well. I don't have an special insight.

@purdyday I've seen it pop up but the community isn't supportive so it disappeared quick. I do wonder if they still exist on the site but hide under a rock somewhere.

5

Not to be contrary, but I don't think we should be trying to attract anybody except ppl who want a higher level of discourse. I don't think we should recruit ideology or a political party. We will inevitably vary on such things. But, the PURPOSE for the site isn't politics, unless I'm mistaking the intent. Attract intellectuals. Attract learners. Attract people with something useful to say. OKAY, I'll watch the video...

@Chuckpo, watch the video and get back to me. You are absolutely right, that you mistake my intent. I feel that you tend more often than not, to do this with me. Wonder if its because of the contextual way I express myself. English/English is a little different from American English, not complaining, just trying to understand you better 🙂

@purdyday, interesting. I haven't picked up on that. I actually didn't mean 'contrary' to you, but just contrary to the general discussion going on across IDW at the moment. I'm sorry if my comments made you feel misunderstood. I try to choose my words carefully, but this does tend to happen, so clearly it's something in my communication style or that I take a small piece of a topic and sort of go on ONLY that. Probably one of those things that wouldn't have happened face-to-face, though. Don't give up on me, I like you! Hahaha.

I would be interested in your specific observations from the video, if you care to elaborate...

@chuckpo As if I would ever give up on you, lol And you're right, face to face, or over the phone is always more conductive to effective communication. Which brings me to the video..

My reason was not political at all - thought video might prove useful on an open question, of how to deal with the perception that we are only interested in right of liberal views on here. And how to deal with that, as a group (or should we?). And are we possibly driving away people with more leftist views, before we get a chance to engage with them? Many have expressed a desire to see more left leaning views in this group and I was challenging myself on that one too.

I came across this video, and while watching , it occurred to me that it might be useful as a part of the topic above. For me, it is a prime example of what you could expect with a more <<<<left than center person who might be emotionally invested in a subject and doesn't get why you have your opposing views, as that is not the general narrative they have come to understand. The video does not completely answer this challenge, but is a sampling microcosm of what we might expect in that scenario and how to maybe break it down.

The senator (can't quite hear her name) calmly and quite convincingly lays out the sources, she believes are credible and asks how Peterson, how as an individual, can you disagree with the group consensus as presented, they are all credible authorities on the subject. She seems genuinely puzzled, but still composed, and then Peterson asks for the groups to be named, insists that if the sampling is fair, individual sources also need to be cited and that he rejects having to defend against unnamed sources. At that point, she seems to get pretty flustered and seems to want to be excused out of the conversation, she asks if she has run out of time? - (reminds me of the white rabbit in Alice in wonderland, oh look at the time, must be going. The queen will be angry) ....this also came up for discussion on the IDW post as a problem response, when engaging someone who has more broadly socialist views.

Peterson of course, from his real life experience on the topic in question is also emotionally invested, but argues his point precisely with facts and logic. He points out why he is not a bigot, and zeros in on precisely what he has a disagreement with. He gets a little passionate at times, not aggressively so and speaks with conviction on a subject that he is very familiar with.

In my view the video is a good example of what to do when faced with group think, that is credentialed on powerful emotions, rather than facts. You have to tread very carefully, after listening honestly and with integrity to the other persons concerns and attempt to understand where they are coming from. The other side can and will shut down their logic centers if they feel attacked, it is a reasonable response in some circumstances, many of us shut down when long held beliefs and perceptions are challenged.

And of course, not many of us can be as brilliant as JP, but we can listen better and pick our battles carefully. Am not virtue signalling, when I say I am trying to do that myself and have more failures to my credit than successes, but am learning.

@purdyday, yeah, JP would be formidable under any circumstances, because he's just so widely read. It's hard to talk to a person who knows so much about the topic--especially when you're prepared to go only so far yourself. She clearly hasn't spent the time thinking about or studying the topic. She was exposed. Embarrassing, but to be honest anyone who fails to prepare puts themselves at risk. JP is flat out intimidating. I'm surprised anyone is willing to interview him. Takes some arrogance, because I've yet to see journalists come in with enough knowledge to engage him. Every time I watch him, I learn. We're roughly the same age, but we're not the same person. He's an impressive dude. I do know enough to see, I believe, when people who are desperate to knock him down don't have the knowledge or the intelligence to do it. So many of the criticisms against JP simply miss the point. They don't get him. And their criticisms are weak and banal--usually steeped in something they've created that's fake or puerile. I think I got off topic again.

@chuckpo I laugh with you on the last, not at you 🙂

@purdyday
Peterson - post-debate his opponents leave the venue... limping.

Is intellectual pummeling a thing?
His response although apparently effortless on his part, was kind of scary.

Watching this video makes me think of a surfer who has chosen the wrong damned wave to ride. It masses above him, ominous, looming in utter indifference of those who merely skim the surface. The surfer has but a moment to realize how far out of his depth he truly is. He cannot catch the cascade, cannot fathom the wave nor the cognitive logic syzygy that drives it. And then the rest is white noise.

I don't get many chances to use the word syzygy... this probably wasn't one either... but I went for it.

Mr. Peterson's performance was beyond impressive.

@An_Ominous I love it!

4

Hello. I realise that different people have different definitions of free speech. If the definition of free speech is simply "say whatever you like, including cursing and name-calling", then I can't go along with that because courtesy matters to me. If anyone has a valid argument and manages to get it across in a decent manner, I don't care if that comes from left, right or centre. Besides, what I don't know is often in different/opposite opinions from mine, so, based on that, I will welcome left-leaning views as well as right-leaning views. (Actually, I don't like this polarised left-right concept at all.)

I totally agree. All speech should be expected. Unless the is intent to harm belittle sell ect. A person or self. Example i did not flag or report because I'm 50 year's old and can pick my battles win the war. But some need the safety net

One question. Who decides where the line is drawn? Free speech has to be free from any and all censorship unless it is inciting violence or hate. Incitement to violence is already a crime. We may not agree with the worst of opinions but we must fight for the right of anyone and everyone to voice their opinion even if we find it abhorrent or exactly the opposite of what we believe.

I take your question rhetorical, sir. That's my very point; "different people have different definitions of free speech", and what you present is you definition of free speech.

By the way, it's nice to hear from someone local-ish - finally! 😀

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:31831
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.