No repeated calls. I've been responding to posts directed at me. It's what I'm doing right now.
This is also a falsehood.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Channel4] Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism
- Thread starter PSlayer
- Start date
Mohonky
Member
So this popped up as I was watching some JP videos to get an understanding if why people consider him so controversial and to see some clarification on questions he was resppnding to and it's quite interesting to see him dissect what he believes to be happening in the interview.
I think its also important to watch how he talks with people, I've noticed it in many videos. He sits quietly, listens, waits for the other person to finish and then he has a moment of unraveling what the other person is saying and then proceeds from there. I know I used to always jump in before someone was finished or had an answer formulated in my head before they had finished asking the question but I had it verbally beaten into me when I worked in sales to listen more entirely ajd carefully to what a person is saying (not just literally but what it was they were really saying even if they didnt directly say it)
Edit: better video linked 2 posts down
I think its also important to watch how he talks with people, I've noticed it in many videos. He sits quietly, listens, waits for the other person to finish and then he has a moment of unraveling what the other person is saying and then proceeds from there. I know I used to always jump in before someone was finished or had an answer formulated in my head before they had finished asking the question but I had it verbally beaten into me when I worked in sales to listen more entirely ajd carefully to what a person is saying (not just literally but what it was they were really saying even if they didnt directly say it)
Edit: better video linked 2 posts down
Last edited:
A Link to the Past
Banned
I am saying that he committed a crime, not that he was charged with committing a crime. Also, potential is irrelevant when we know that he was seeking to use his platform to dox hundreds of people. If I knew someone to have used their platform to do something illegal was going to be in that same situation again, I would push against it because free speech does not extend to saying something with the intent to cause harm.
Cybrwzrd
Banned
The thing is, that needs to be proven in a court of law. If he did harass people with the intent to cause them harm, then he should be charged and tried, and then if found guilty he should serve his sentence.
Look I’m not defending Milo, I am defending the basic human right of free speech. You don’t get to pick and choose who can exercise that right based on feelings.
I also don’t believe someone should ever lose their basic human rights even if they are a criminal. Speech is one of those indellable rights.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Milo is not being prevented by the government from speaking. Universities absolutely have the right to pick and choose who to they allow to speak, and people can respond in turn and try to apply pressure with their own speech. Also, there's no basis in feelings, it is based on factual observation. Milo planned to dox people on stage, hundreds of people. Waiting to see if it happens again after it has already happened, and not acting unless he is found guilty of a crime.
Finally, I am not advocating for a criminal having their speech limited. However, I am advocating that if someone exploits free speech to commit crimes, that no longer should be a right. Free speech is only a right until you start using it to reduce the rights of others. Just like if you used a firearm to commit a crime, your second amendment rights could reasonably be restricted.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Not state schools.
And free speech extends to many kinds of speech intended to hurt others.
EDIT: And why are we talking about Milo in a thread about Jordan Peterson? Is it because you want to argue against Peterson's rights by way of Milo's? Like, "Milo is an asshole, therefore Jordan Peterson shouldn't be allowed to talk!"
Last edited:
Cybrwzrd
Banned
Gun ownership isn’t a basic human right. I have no problem with not allowing felons to have access to guns.
Is there admissible evidence that he planned to do what you are accusing him of?
A Link to the Past
Banned
Speech that intends to cause harm is not protected speech. Willfully harmful speech is not protected.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...tudents-cancelled-talk-illegals-a7561321.html
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/21/...r-milo-yiannopoulos-publicly-identifies-them/
Milo both has a history of doxing and using his platform to dox people.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Source?
For what it's worth, here's a 2014 summary of free-speech exceptions, prepared by the Congressional Research Service. You'll search in vain for the "willfully harmful speech" exception.
Last edited:
Mohonky
Member
I believe it would likely to come under obscene speech.
From memory Im fairly sure Free Speech is a basic human right and is usually attributable to criticism of theology, government etc. Hate speech (among other speech) is not protected anywhere so far as Im aware
Edit: it comes under Article 19 Freedom of Expression and Ideas
Last edited:
llien
Member
Do you want to hear how well that worked in USSR?
What about TVs? Aren't all of them non-governmental in US? So couldn't they just censor stuff at will then?
People mistake nuances of the US constitution with fundamental rights cemented in UN' Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Silencing opponents, instead of facing them and defeating their argument is what nazis and commies were doing.
Last edited:
A Link to the Past
Banned
Doxing people is not an opinion.
llien
Member
And neither are death threats. What is your point?
Makariel
Member
When has Jordan Peterson ever doxed anyone? You're seriously veering off topic here, perhaps make a new "I hate Milo because"-Thread? Thanks.
Also saying their name is not anyform of doxxing as well and as far as I know Milo only did mention her in his speeches.
Cybrwzrd
Banned
The first one is heresay at best. and would not be admissable. The second article is calling Milo out for identifying elected figures at UCLA, which isn't doxxing. Unless the author of the article is guilty of it as well. What crime was committed there?
I asked for evidence of a crime that Milo could be charged with. Not hit pieces.
Regardless you have successfully shifted the discussion from Jordan Peterson to Milo because you want to use the worst of us as an arguement against free speech.
xBladeM6x
Member
I feel like she was playing devil's advocate and behind closed doors, is probably less emotionally driven in her argumentation. Though in review of this conversation on that face of it, she comes off as incredulous, hostile, unreasonable, brainwashed and eventually just starts resorting to character assassination. It honestly started to remind of me of Piers Morgan, which in itself is the bottom of the barrel. Bad form on her part.
The second one even gets its headline from a fired professor that joked about wanting white genocide for christmas.
finowns
Member
Kinda agree with this. I thought her worst bit was when she tried to belittle him by asking if he was just trying to 'rile people up' and implied he was alt-right, as if that was an argument.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
It isn't obscene speech--not in the U.S., at least. That phrase has a specific meaning in U.S. law.
And if you weren't aware that "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment in the U.S. (unless the particular speech at issue independently comes within an actual exception), then you obviously didn't put much effort into your search.
DoctorEkkoUK
Member
I think the thing with free speech and why it is important to allow everyone to speak no matter how crazy their views are is the fact that it can be defeated with rational debate. it is better to have the debate in the open and defeat the crazy ideas in a fair forum than to force viewpoints underground where they gain momentum as a "banned" or edgy opinion and go unquestioned.
RafterXL
Member
There are no hate speech laws in the U.S. and things that would be considered as such are absolutely protected by the first amendment. Hate speech is free speech, and the Supreme court reaffirmed that last year.
Kadayi
Banned
This post confused me. Then I turned on 'show ignored content' at the bottom of the page and then it all made sense.
Like any forum, there are rare people who demonstrate time and again that they are for want of a better description, bad actors. People who bring constant opposition, but don't necessarily provide viable counterpoints versus spiralling de-rails. I see we've already strayed into likening Peterson to Milo Y, as if the former was in any way a deliberate right-wing provocateur like the latter versus a long-standing University academic who just doesn't subscribe to certain ideas (a Mangoes versus pears comparison if ever I saw one).
Rather than wasting your time and energy trying to get anywhere with such people, I recommend simply right-clicking on their username and selecting ignore. The new forum software not only will hide their posts, but it will also apparently hide any quotes others make of their content as well. Truly we are living in the future.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Did anyone see the clip of Peterson saying that feminists support Muslim men because they have an "unconscious wish for brutal male domination"? I legitimately loled when I saw that.
The first actually also contains an example of something he did.
The first actually also contains an example of something he did.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Christ lol, I don't even know what to say beyond "this is not something that can be substantiated with evidence"
Vicetrailia
Member
Well feminists support African Americans cause, you know....
It was probably a joke albeit a sexist one.
Last edited by a moderator:
A Link to the Past
Banned
Well feminists support African Americans cause, you know....
Because feminism is about intersectionality and often they are more sympathetic to the causes of other marginalised groups? *shrug*
Vicetrailia
Member
I'm honestly guessing that it was a sexist joke. He doesn't believe it, but he doesn't mind saying it.
Lupingosei
Banned
Last edited:
A Link to the Past
Banned
I don't know if I agree with that; it's not exactly an unpopular opinion on people from the right. I remember a video by a person called "Black Pigeon Speaks" that argued that women would destroy the west because they desire being dominated by Muslim refugees.
Cybrwzrd
Banned
No, it is something that “reliable sources” say he did. That isn’t evidence.
Kadayi
Banned
Personally, I always take a presented sound byte devoid of the full context with a healthy dose of scepticism. Full video. Part in question starts around 2 hrs13 minutes: -
I don't take it as him being serious so much as bemused by the feminist movement being comfortable with Islam, which is a culture entirely at odds with western liberalism.
I don't take it as him being serious so much as bemused by the feminist movement being comfortable with Islam, which is a culture entirely at odds with western liberalism.
Last edited:
Lupingosei
Banned
It is actually women seem to like even more than man, which is pretty crazy when you think about the zeitgeist.
A Link to the Past
Banned
He literally went on stage and doxed a trans woman. It's in the article, and you would have seen it if you read the whole thing.
Vicetrailia
Member
What's funny is that the interview this topic is about he kept saying that women want do dominate their relationships with men. Now he soundbites this.
Last edited by a moderator:
A Link to the Past
Banned
Doesn't necessarily entail a contradiction though. My takeaway is that women consciously wish to dominate, but subconsciously seek domination.
Cybrwzrd
Banned
He literally went on stage and doxed a trans woman. It's in the article, and you would have seen it if you read the whole thing.
That was the second article. The Trans woman in question is an elected student official and Trans-rights activist at UCLA Berkeley. Milo published a public Facebook post that she made.
That isn't Doxxing.
Don'tBeWeird
Member
What a fucking embarrassment. But very entertaining to see people already attempting to overclock their brains trying to excuse this. Look for a new saviour, folks. The show is over.
A Link to the Past
Banned
This is a common misunderstanding of doxing. Doxing does not merely involve that the information has no potential access otherwise. Posting something on your public Facebook page does not, for instance, mean that someone can share it with hundreds of thousands of followers, especially if the purpose is malicious.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Since when is "radical feminism" a sex?
Muslims are marginalized in Saudi Arabia?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that (1) Peterson's comment was serious, and (2) he's wrong about it.
So what? Is your argument, "He said something mean and incorrect, therefore never listen to him"?
Last edited:
A Link to the Past
Banned
No, but in the U.S. they are. And in general, people fleeing for their safety would serve as an example of marginalisation.
Lupingosei
Banned
But the whole video is about Saudia Arabia and why they would never accept the apartheid regime in South Africa but have no problem with Saudia Arabia.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Who is they?
Kadayi
Banned
No overclocking required, If you actually watch the conversation within its context of the discussion they are having and take the time to listen it becomes clear, it's not a statement of fact so much as one of befuddlement at this passive acceptance by radical feminists of Islam which by its very nature is antithetical to everything they stand for. It's the disconnect of the Women's march featuring Linda Sarsour as its poster child, whose a firm and outspoken advocate for Sharia Law. How much tolerance should one give to the intolerant? It's all very well to want to keep to liberal ideals, but not to the point where you promote those who would love to take them away.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked