This is my first thread by the way and it is something I'm interested in so, I'm not going to apologise for posting in this thread. [...] I've felt that about a lot of conversations here, but I would never tell somebody that because it is not constructive or conducive to us having an amicable dialogue. But that's all off topic.
I think most people, including myself, have already expressed on numerous occasions that your participation is valued, if only for that fact that people agreeing with each other make for lousy discussions. You can't begrudge people for expressing their concerns on the qualitative nature of this discussion in order to construe it as an attack on yourself.
She got doxxed multiple times. People were sending her super specific rape and murder threats referencing where she lived. She closed the YouTube comments on her videos because it was all just rape, death threats and other awfulness. I even downloaded Jordan's twitter mentions from the past day and can count like 10 +- 2 harassing messages. Anita once screenshotted a bunch of the twitter mentions that she got, and like 20-25 of them per day are just horrible harassment.
Everybody has already stated, on numerous occasions, that Anita's harassment was bad, revolting and unjustified. What people take issue with, is that you construe an
appeal to emotion out of that concession in order to
dismiss any other concern that people are raising. Here's why:
1. People are getting tired of constantly discussing Anita's importance when most of them have pretty much agreed that she was indeed very important in the context of GG. Furthermore, her degree of importance is in no way related to the validity of her claims. The people participating in this discussion have raised multiple concerns about her rhetoric, many of which are simply brushed aside because you keep falling back on her importance. Even
if she were of no import in the greater scheme of things, it would not pertain to the qualitative nature of her arguments.
2. By that same measure, we could
easily dismiss any criticism directed at Jordan Peterson (or any other person). Peterson knows that the threats he receives are from a militant minority of people that are in no way representative of all of his critics. He could easily appeal to people's emotions by constantly referring to the harassment he receives, in order to vilify his critics. He doesn't do that because he'd rather let his arguments stand on their own merit. You don't see him running around calling his numerous and very vocal critics "
human garbage". I think it would be high time for Peterson's opposition to extend the same courtesy to those in support of him and stick to the arguments at hand in order to advance the discussion.
How is it that one set of people is constantly vilified through guilt by association, while another set of people gets away scot-free, despite also having a minority amidst their ranks that's engaging in the same crappy behavior? It's human nature, is what it is. People take umbrage to the fact that Anita is engaging in some kind of faulty generalization in order to shield herself from criticism. At best, she is lacking any kind of debating skills, at worst she has a shaky grasp on the terminology she is dealing in. The fact that she needs to
read from a sheet of paper even when she is amidst the ranks of favorable fellow feminists certainly does not lend credence
to her expertise. This is speculation of course, but I think part of why her appearances are so scripted is because she's cultivated a very fanatical fellowship that could easily turn on her for the slightest slippage of word.
Meanwhile you have someone like Peterson who's making the rounds despite a strong headwind, despite harassment and threats, freely debating the every living soul out of everybody no matter the odds. That is the sign of someone with true expertise and competence who truly believes in the validity of his cause. The determination to make sacrifice for something that you believe to be right is what separates the wheat from the chaff. Do you honestly think that the great thinkers of this world, who dared challenge the predominant worldview, never faced such strong opposition? In fact the vast majority of them were quite ill-fated and persecuted as wrong-thinkers and heretics,
so so many of them. Now I'm not saying that Peterson is one of the greats, but he stands by the same principle, unlike Anita.
Your simple dismissal of these facts (which you seem to propagate in
other topics too), not only does a great disservice to those who risked it all by sticking to their principles in order to bring humanity a little step forward, but also underlines your ignorance for the history of science and the scientific method. The scientific liberty of thought is a painful lesson from the past that you so easily dismiss by deeming certain ideas '
too problematic'. Again, you are certainly free to express your criticism, just as well as I am able to express mine, but please do so by
addressing the arguments at hand, instead of referring to your subjective experiences and feelings as an individual.
The difference between you and me is simple. While you seek to silence and deplatform any speaker that is subjectively deemed 'hateful', I
desperately want those who I disagree with to engage in
any sort of public debate, so that we can address their arguments. The betterment of humanity happens through education and critical engagement, not through censorship, deplatforming and shaming. We've already tried that in the past and it didn't work out so well. So please do not consider this an attack on you as a person, I'm sure you mean well and want to do good, but as a well reasoned statement against your rhetoric. I have faith that well and openly educated students/gamers/people can deal with any sort of '
problematic content' in a reasonable manner, they don't need your or anybody else's moral guidance.
