Support NeoGAF

[Cybrwzrd]

People jerking off each other's hate boners for ERA. Telling scary stories about the mean leftists. You must have missed it.

I am rather left leaning myself. That being said - I took a 3 month ban back during the dark age for daring to compare the left's desire to control speech and China's cultural revolution. When you start shutting down people's ability to speak freely, you create an environment that is ripe for tyranny. There are "mean leftists" out there, and they are just as evil as any far right Nazi.

And that is exactly JP's point.

 

[PtM]

Did you have more to add there or were you hoping that your words alone would make a for compelling counterpoint?

You normally form the hypothesis before putting it to the test through a study.

 

[Dunki]

People jerking off each other's hate boners for ERA. Telling scary stories about the mean leftists. You must have missed it.

Consumers are not peers of producers.
They only have that much influence. Producers can still choose to not listen to them.
"They don't even really care" is just a convenient assumption to disregard criticism.
"Asking for boycott" is a good few steps away from censorship.

1. The thing people are telling you and others that there are indeed both sides and on both sides are ridiculous authorian people who are a danger to free speech. Nothing else. So yes there are mean scary leftists and there are mean scary rightists and the part regarding Era is that they would should down ANY discussion about the both sides argument.

2. Nothing is more powerful these days to shut people and their opinions down is to call and accuse them of racism/sexism etc. To call a movie on social media sexist will mobilize a true justice mob who will go after the people involved. Again these are the same tactics people claim the right and trolls are doing. So yes it is Censorship when changes/opinions are being shut down by a social media mob no matter which side they are on. The thought that censorship only can happen through the gov. is not only naive but pretty dangerous regarding artistic freedom and freedom of speech.

 

[Kadayi]

You normally form the hypothesis before putting it to the test through a study.

I didn't say otherwise. My point was more about not cherry-picking the data that supports it.

Well, it's the classic case of looking for the evidence to support a hypothesis and being selective in what's highlighted, versus being open-ended in terms of drawing conclusions once the data is in.

For future reference, if you're going to take exception to what's been said a least make the effort to read it properly before jumping in feet first.

 

[Arkhan]

There is a discussion to be had here and it is not about another forum. Please keep it on topic.

 

[gioGAF]

Jordan Peterson is very smart. He was composed, articulate and spot on with every point he made. He is very deliberate with his words and it is always a pleasure to hear his take on things.

The interviewer was either incompetent or deliberately trying to bait him into getting upset. Professor Peterson never takes the bait and keeps cool, however she just continues to cling to her empty comments.

 

[ipukespiders]

It's a circle jerk in the other direction, you know, what everyone complained about before.

And I bet you'll be allowed to disagree without being banned or dog piled.

So, ya know, the opposite of before.

 

[Kadayi]

Peterson's full interview with Geenstijl. Firstly discussing the aftermath of the interview and then going into his philosophy.

 

[ipukespiders]

^^^ Holy shit, that's a long one. I'll have to watch it later, thanks for posting.

 

[Relativ9]

This one is also really good:


PS: this thread inspired me to finally chose a new avatar

 

[LightofRohan]

Sweet god this is hard to listen to, it's like watching a live reenactment of an Old Time Neogaf thread. I've ALWAYS seen that on here (before the change). They don't really add anything to the discussion just do vast aggressive statements and negative straw-man arguments and the mods were just fine siding with those people, which always blew my mind.

"Oh, so you fucking hate women?" "No.... I didnt say that..."
"You are invalidated cause you are just racist" "What I didnt say that..."
"Ok so you think women should be killed?" "WTF I DIDNT SAY THAT"
(Jordan_Peterson has been banned)

Such a toxic unproductive way to discuss anything.

 

[Makariel]

"So, you're saying we should organise our societies along the lines of the lobsters?" is still my favourite line of this entire interview.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

"So, you're saying we should organise our societies along the lines of the lobsters?" is still my favourite line of this entire interview.

With Giant Enemy Crab as president

 

[Kadayi]

"So, you're saying we should organise our societies along the lines of the lobsters?" is still my favourite line of this entire interview.

'There weren't even trees' is the clincher for me. That was pure

 

[ipukespiders]

Sweet god this is hard to listen to, it's like watching a live reenactment of an Old Time Neogaf thread. I've ALWAYS seen that on here (before the change). They don't really add anything to the discussion just do vast aggressive statements and negative straw-man arguments and the mods were just fine siding with those people, which always blew my mind.

"Oh, so you fucking hate women?" "No.... I didnt say that..."
"You are invalidated cause you are just racist" "What I didnt say that..."
"Ok so you think women should be killed?" "WTF I DIDNT SAY THAT"
(Jordan_Peterson has been banned)

Such a toxic unproductive way to discuss anything.

Don't forget all the dog piling:

"I can't even"
"Fuck outta here"
"Sources. Now!"
"LOL, he probably voted Trump"
"Literally shaking right now"

 

[Musky_Cheese]

Don't forget all the dog piling:

"I can't even"
"Fuck outta here"
"Sources. Now!"
"LOL, he probably voted Trump"
"Literally shaking right now"

Gross, disgusting... ever other comment.

 

[LightofRohan]

Gross, disgusting... ever other comment.

Seriously? I can't even respond to this... ugh.

Don't forget all the dog piling:

"I can't even"
"Fuck outta here"
"Sources. Now!"
"LOL, he probably voted Trump"
"Literally shaking right now"

WOW. I'm just going to comfort myself by thinking this a joke.

 

[ipukespiders]

Seriously? I can't even respond to this... ugh.

WOW. I'm just going to comfort myself by thinking this a joke.

LOL. Mods help!

 

[EviLore]

Re: equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome, that's a really important subject that should be discussed more.

I defended Bret Weinstein during the whole Evergreen shitshow after reading up on all of it myself rather than going with the groupthink (which is absolutely my fault as showrunner here; I wasn't successful in my attempts at course correction, unfortunately), since the content of his arguments was sound and reasonable and there was no reason to be trying to ruin his career over any of it. The fact that he appeared on Fox News to defend himself when no other programs would have him on is not a valid argument for discrediting him, and I doubt anyone even watched that segment or the several hour long interview he did with Joe Rogan at the time which anyone who's interested in what happened there should watch.

Anyhow, Bret Weinstein did a followup appearance on Joe Rogan with some distance from the heat of the whole Evergreen thing and talked about the equality of opportunity/outcome issue and a lot of other social subjects that resonated with my own interests. Thought it was a very good listen. I'm significantly more moderate than he is, but I respect his positions and how he handled himself through that whole scandal and what he's striving for. Link here:



Now I see that Bret and Jordan were on an episode together too haha, so I'll give that one a spin. I expect it'll be fun.

 

[Lupingosei]

Now I see that Bret and Jordan were on an episode together too haha, so I'll give that one a spin. I expect it'll be fun.

They had a really interesting talk about evolution and racism and they talked about some really heavy stuff. It was very interesting but after that talk, you will understand why so many people on the left are so opposed to Evolutionary Biology because Evolution is not a nice thing a people and their nature is pretty damn terrible. If you believe in the idea that everything is only a social construct you can never every accept Evolutionary Biology because it is fundamentally against the ideas of social constructivism.

 

[cubicle47b]

Evilore, you should watch some videos by Jonathan Haidt. You'd enjoy them.

 

[Lionel Richie]

Consumers are not peers of producers.
They only have that much influence. Producers can still choose to not listen to them.
"They don't even really care" is just a convenient assumption to disregard criticism.
"Asking for boycott" is a good few steps away from censorship.

Well, social pressure then. And producers indeed can choose not listen to them and that's why the industry isn't extinct. Still, it must be heavily obnoxious for any creator having to deal with questions like "why isn't the protagonist fat?" and that's the main thing that separates this situation from criticism. When you hammer home a moral point that's barely related to the work at hand ("why is Quiet showing her tits?") as a mean of questioning its presence there, that's pretty hardly criticism. Otherwise, hey, Gustave Flaubert was simply criticized by the legal system when he wrote Madame Bovary!

Censorship is enforced by a government or at least a very strong party in power. Asking for boycott is what largely anonymous people do when they group up and realize they pretty much have no power in this particular matter. The principle behind them is the same.

 

[finowns]

Evilore, you should watch some videos by Jonathan Haidt. You'd enjoy them.

I’m reading The Righteous Mind and it’s changed how I think about politics. Amazing book.

 

[Mohonky]

People jerking off each other's hate boners for ERA. Telling scary stories about the mean leftists. You must have missed it.

Yes, there are some worms in the woodwork which is pretty typical of any online space; but I'm not understanding your repeated calls that this thread is somehow not conductive to any discussion?.

You're only contributions to this thread have been reiterating this repeatedly but you havent really commented on the content on the video so I'm not sure what points you want to discuss? Im not trying to have a go at you here I'm just trying to understand what you'd prefer to see or how this thread is off the rails?

Users have pointed out that there is an air of civility here at present that was lacking in the past and I think that speaks more of users being happy that they can express points of discussion and expect to be treated with some dignity and respect, contrary to before when users would frequently make disengenous posts, knee jerk responses and flippant remarks rather than actually discuss the content which led to hostility and the inevitable thread lock.

I don't ordinarily speak of the other forum, but I think there is an interesting comparison to be made that this thread is 3 pages long on what I would consider a very slow moving forum these days, the other forum which carries on the old mentality lasted a matter of minutes, had absolutely no discussion and was locked because no one could contribute anything constructive.

I'll agree I detest the use of the terms like 'leftists' and 'SJWs' as collectives because they are dismissal remarks designed to berate and downplay genuine discussion in the same way that previously everything was 'neo-Nazi' 'bigot' and 'literally Hitler' as similar descriptors used to dismiss users or sources.

It's not perfect nor will it ever be, but at least topics are still open for discussion and users feel they can have a say (so long as its constructive) which was severely lacking previously.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

And I bet you'll be allowed to disagree without being banned or dog piled.

So, ya know, the opposite of before.

Depends. If I come out and say things like (paraphrasing) "All Republicans are low IQ knuckledraggers who have zero cognitive knowledge of politics and probably got through life by banging their relatives" or something that hits a certain level of users in their soft spots, expect the dogpiling to begin. People don't tend to on any side take well to insults.

Your concept of free speech is running into a crowded room and screaming "Fire!". Only reason it doesn't happen now is because these forums are pretty dead. The more people, the more likely you'll kick the beehive.

Bet you're not going to be able to get away with shittalking most Freedom Caucus Republicans on places like, say /rThe_Donald.

 

[I'm new be nice]

Depends. If I come out and say things like (paraphrasing) "All Republicans are low IQ knuckledraggers who have zero cognitive knowledge of politics and probably got through life by banging their relatives" or something that hits a certain level of users in their soft spots, expect the dogpiling to begin. People don't tend to on any side take well to insults.

There's no easy answer, you have to follow your heart and determine if you feel like a conversation is going in an appropriate direction. That comes down to what kind of temperament you have.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

There's no easy answer, you have to follow your heart and determine if you feel like a conversation is going in an appropriate direction. That comes down to what kind of temperament you have.

Are you going to tell me that we expect to judge people on temperament on the internet?

 

[Mohonky]

Depends. If I come out and say things like (paraphrasing) "All Republicans are low IQ knuckledraggers who have zero cognitive knowledge of politics and probably got through life by banging their relatives" or something that hits a certain level of users in their soft spots, expect the dogpiling to begin. People don't tend to on any side take well to insults.

As a user I would ignore that post as its not contributing anything but to knowingly shit stir.

If I was a moderator, I'd tell you to cut the shit and contribute only if you have something worthwhile discussing.

I disagree with the frequent banning of past and let users learn what is and isnt a means of being a productive member of a community. If they display a repeated ignorance or willingness to simply be disruptive then I'd consider removing them.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

As a user I would ignore that post as its not contributing anything but to knowingly shit stir.

If I was a moderator, I'd tell you to cut the shit and contribute only if you have something worthwhile discussing.

I disagree with the frequent banning of past and let users learn what is and isnt a means of being a productive member of a community. If they display a repeated ignorance or willingness to simply be disruptive then I'd consider removing them.

And here's the issue. Most people would, but not all. You probably know plenty of people who have some pretty thin skin.

Now, how do you know what these people said to get banned? What meaningful comments were said that would get dogpiled?

Please, you don't get to hold a morale high ground because you heard some rumors and made your own conclusions, or judge a group based off a small amount of people.

Because if you do, you don't get a right to complain when the same is applied to you.

 

[I'm new be nice]

Are you going to tell me that we expect to judge people on temperament on the internet?

Other way around.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

Other way around.

This feels like you expect no judgement from people. If so, good luck with that.

 

[highrider]

Great posts guys.

 

[I'm new be nice]

This feels like you expect no judgement from people. If so, good luck with that.

No, again, the other way around.

What is your temperament, and how do you read the comment. That's determined by how you view the world and people, and it's going to be different case by case. And the question is how much do you wish for that to be moderated. And that's determined by your temperament. And people with a different temperament prefer a more heavily moderated conversation, while others prefer one more laxed.

This is why if you don't want somebody to come into a forum you frequent saying "All Republicans are low IQ knuckledraggers who have zero cognitive knowledge of politics and probably got through life by banging their relatives", because you already know you don't wish to discuss that because it's wrong, then there's nothing wrong with that. At all. It just means you have a different temperament from others who wish to be able to rip that person a new one, and potentially open themselves up to seeing something controversial that might actually be correct and doesn't follow the lines of unreasonable or insane.

On the one end you open yourself up to ideas that might be wrong, on the other you close yourself off from ideas that might be right. Some people want one, some the other. I don't hold anything against someone who doesn't want to engage with that. Life is short.

 

[Kadayi]

Now I see that Bret and Jordan were on an episode together too haha, so I'll give that one a spin. I expect it'll be fun.

Yeah, that's a good one. I appreciate Rogan's ability to let people talk on a subject at length whatever their backgrounds and belief systems, especially when general news media tends to give them short shrift, or continues to run with fairly disingenuous narratives to vilify them in the public eye. The various articles attempting to cast portray Peterson as an Alt-Right figure (and therefore to be disregarded being the underlying message) are as dismal as they are predictable.

 

[TTOOLL]

I highly recommend watching JP on H3 podcast, really amazing. It's pretty long but it's worth it.
JP has such good arguments based on facts and studies that that it is easy to know why the left won't even listen do him, they right away call everything bullshit and move on.

Ps: I cried laughing at the "literally shaking" comment by ipukespiders . So bizarre yet so true how it shoes the fragility of a lot of people nowadays.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I read this in The Atlantic today: Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson is Saying?

Peterson was pressed by the British journalist Cathy Newman to explain several of his controversial views. But what struck me, far more than any position he took, was the method his interviewer employed. It was the most prominent, striking example I’ve seen yet of an unfortunate trend in modern communication.

First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.

Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and various Fox News hosts all feature and reward this rhetorical technique. And the Peterson interview has so many moments of this kind that each successive example calls attention to itself until the attentive viewer can’t help but wonder what drives the interviewer to keep inflating the nature of Peterson’s claims, instead of addressing what he actually said.

He concludes:

Lots of culture-war fights are unavoidable––that is, they are rooted in earnest, strongly felt disagreements over the best values or way forward or method of prioritizing goods. The best we can do is have those fights, with rules against eye-gouging.

But there is a way to reduce needless division over the countless disagreements that are inevitable in a pluralistic democracy: get better at accurately characterizing the views of folks with differing opinions, rather than egging them on to offer more extreme statements in interviews; or even worse, distorting their words so that existing divisions seem more intractable or impossible to tolerate than they are. That sort of exaggeration or hyperbolic misrepresentation is epidemic—and addressing it for everyone’s sake is long overdue.

I think the article is fine insofar as it goes, but I'd have liked to see some proposed solutions instead of just criticisms. "Get better" isn't particularly helpful.

 

[cubicle47b]

I think the article is fine insofar as it goes, but I'd have liked to see some proposed solutions instead of just criticisms. "Get better" isn't particularly helpful.

It seems like people misconstrue what other people say on purpose so maybe get better is enough. I suppose you could ask people to be generous and respond to the best version of their argument instead of assuming the worst.

 

[I'm new be nice]

It seems like people misconstrue what other people say on purpose so maybe get better is enough. I suppose you could ask people to be generous and respond to the best version of their argument instead of assuming the worst.

Personally I have a hard time with the idea that someone is being misconstructive on purpose, my general rule of thumb is to never assume malice unless revealed as so, and if revealed to act accordingly. People (myself included) do a lot of things without exactly knowing why they do them.

I so often see comments like "they're not arguing in good faith", which seems counterproductive to discussion, or really just shuts it down completely. It's easy enough to say "I disagree with you" without needing to take it to the extreme that the other person is malicious.

I think the solution is to just point out the fallacy and self fulfilling prophecy of assuming malice from the get go. It's important to let people speak with their own words.

 

[ipukespiders]

Depends. If I come out and say things like (paraphrasing) "All Republicans are low IQ knuckledraggers who have zero cognitive knowledge of politics and probably got through life by banging their relatives" or something that hits a certain level of users in their soft spots, expect the dogpiling to begin. People don't tend to on any side take well to insults.

Your concept of free speech is running into a crowded room and screaming "Fire!". Only reason it doesn't happen now is because these forums are pretty dead. The more people, the more likely you'll kick the beehive.

Bet you're not going to be able to get away with shittalking most Freedom Caucus Republicans on places like, say /rThe_Donald.

Good news, I hear Channel 4 is hiring.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It seems like people misconstrue what other people say on purpose so maybe get better is enough. I suppose you could ask people to be generous and respond to the best version of their argument instead of assuming the worst.

I think there's a mix. On the one hand, I think many people just don't pay close attention to what others say--even on non-controversial topics. For example, when I was in law school, one of my professors was lecturing us on questioning witnesses and the importance of always listening to their answers (even though you should know ahead of time what they will be). In the middle of his lecture, he looked to the clock in the back of the room, then to me, and asked if I had a watch. I answered with the time, but that's not what he had asked me.

It's even easier to unintentionally mishear or misinterpret comments in the context of a controversial conversation--and even easier still when that controversial conversation takes place on a public discussion forum where you may feel some pressure to "win."

On the other hand, I think those same pressures--and the desire for social approbation--lead some people to intentionally misrepresent or exaggerate what others say. If you're surrounded by people who think like you, that's often the easiest way to "win" any argument, for instance.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I am rather left leaning myself. That being said - I took a 3 month ban back during the dark age for daring to compare the left's desire to control speech and China's cultural revolution. When you start shutting down people's ability to speak freely, you create an environment that is ripe for tyranny. There are "mean leftists" out there, and they are just as evil as any far right Nazi.

And that is exactly JP's point.

The issue I take with this is that one of the figureheads of people whose speech was "controlled" was Milo Yiannopoulus, who in the past has used his stage presence at Universities to dox trans people and who was reportedly planning to dox undocumented immigrants. Not all speech should be created equal.

 

[Relativ9]

The issue I take with this is that one of the figureheads of people whose speech was "controlled" was Milo Yiannopoulus, who in the past has used his stage presence at Universities to dox trans people and who was reportedly planning to dox undocumented immigrants. Not all speech should be created equal.

Does the figurehead really matter when we're talking about deeprooted philosophical and ethical issues that cut to the very core of what the "self" is? If the figurehead for senior citizen's right to work was a holocaust denier, would you oppose their right to work? I think most of us agree the Milo is a bit of a douchebag, but ideas must be allowed to stand or fall on their own merits. And all speech should be "created" equal, that doesn't mean it'll be given equal treatment once it enters the marketplace of ideas.

 

[Dunki]

The issue I take with this is that one of the figureheads of people whose speech was "controlled" was Milo Yiannopoulus, who in the past has used his stage presence at Universities to dox trans people and who was reportedly planning to dox undocumented immigrants. Not all speech should be created equal.

So if someone doxxes people and call their workplace and want them fired because they are a trump supporter?

Also as far as I know. I could be totally wrong here but Milo only mentioned well known activists in certain positions. He never gave away their home adress, parents etc. As for undocumented immigrants. It is still ilegal as far as I know. So if he goes to the specially authorities it is well in its right to do so. That should not hinder anyone to hold speeches IMO.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

No, again, the other way around.

What is your temperament, and how do you read the comment. That's determined by how you view the world and people, and it's going to be different case by case. And the question is how much do you wish for that to be moderated. And that's determined by your temperament. And people with a different temperament prefer a more heavily moderated conversation, while others prefer one more laxed.

This is why if you don't want somebody to come into a forum you frequent saying "All Republicans are low IQ knuckledraggers who have zero cognitive knowledge of politics and probably got through life by banging their relatives", because you already know you don't wish to discuss that because it's wrong, then there's nothing wrong with that. At all. It just means you have a different temperament from others who wish to be able to rip that person a new one, and potentially open themselves up to seeing something controversial that might actually be correct and doesn't follow the lines of unreasonable or insane.

On the one end you open yourself up to ideas that might be wrong, on the other you close yourself off from ideas that might be right. Some people want one, some the other. I don't hold anything against someone who doesn't want to engage with that. Life is short.

You're arguing about internal temperament, and I'm talking about the judgement of another party based on their temperment.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

Does the figurehead really matter when we're talking about deeprooted philosophical and ethical issues that cut to the very core of what the "self" is? If the figurehead for senior citizen's right to work was a holocaust denier, would you oppose their right to work? I think most of us agree the Milo is a bit of a douchebag, but ideas must be allowed to stand or fall on their own merits. And all speech should be "created" equal, that doesn't mean it'll be given equal treatment once it enters the marketplace of ideas.

Unless said speech is designed to harm another person. Seriously, people use the term "Free Speech" as this giant security blanket.

 

[Relativ9]

Unless said speech is designed to harm another person. Seriously, people use the term "Free Speech" as this giant security blanket.

You implying that I need a "security blanket" to protect my words from causing me consequences deeply hurts me. It implies a weakness of character on my part and makes me question all my arguments up until this point and lowers my sense of self worth. Your speech is hateful to my character and should be banned.

See what I did there? That's the thing with removing rights and granting special protection and special treatment, it only "works" if you like the people doing it. It sets a precedent that can be abused in future extremes without a clear line or endpoint, it's this very foundation that fascism is built on.

Note: I'm not equating my pretend offence above to that of any vulnerable group or any real suffering, I'm just showing that it uses the same logic and can very easily be twisted into something far darker than originally intended.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

The issue I take with this is that one of the figureheads of people whose speech was "controlled" was Milo Yiannopoulus, who in the past has used his stage presence at Universities to dox trans people and who was reportedly planning to dox undocumented immigrants. Not all speech should be created equal.

There are already laws that make harassment and threatening language illegal. If he crosses a line, he can be punished for it. Being a shithead isn’t illegal. Outright preventing him from speaking is wrong.

This may seem like an odd Segway, but hang on-

Have you ever seen the Anime “Kino no Tabi”? - Spoilers from half of an episode of a 15 year old anime below-

Well it’s the story of Kino, a traveler who visits many different countries, always only for 3 days. One day she comes to a city-state in ruins, and there is only one person left living in the city. So she talks to this man, and he tells her the history of his country.

The people lived under a tyrant king and one day they were able to overthrow him. So they decided to rule the country with democracy. All decisions were put to vote. This caused problems tho since people don’t always agree. So to prevent disagreements from occurring, they decided that the best way forward and to prevent new tyrants from coming into power would be to execute everyone that voted against the majority. Eventually it came down to the man, his wife and a doctor. The doctor decided that he had enough and wanted to leave to go to a new place to start over. It was put to vote, the Doctor lost and was executed. A short time later, the man’a wife became ill, and died from something that the doctor could have cured. So the man was alone.

When the 3 days was up and Kino and Hermes, her traveling companion and sentient motorbike, were ready to leave, the man refused and demanded a vote to make them stay. They vote to leave, and as they ride off, you hear a gunshot in the distance.

Back to my point. This is an extreme example, but when those in power begin to shut down people they dont agree with, you undermine freedom itself. The people in that city didn’t want a tyrant king again, but by eliminating everyone who disagreed they themselves became the tyrants. Eventually you may be the one who isn’t allowed to speak because you no longer agree with the majority. What then?

 

[A Link to the Past]

So if someone doxxes people and call their workplace and want them fired because they are a trump supporter?

Also as far as I know. I could be totally wrong here but Milo only mentioned well known activists in certain positions. He never gave away their home adress, parents etc. As for undocumented immigrants. It is still ilegal as far as I know. So if he goes to the specially authorities it is well in its right to do so. That should not hinder anyone to hold speeches IMO.

I don't believe in doxing anyone, unless the doxing is done because there is a legitimate belief that someone intends to do harm to someone. Trump supporter or otherwise.

There are already laws that make harassment and threatening language illegal. If he crosses a line, he can be punished for it. Being a shithead isn’t illegal. Outright preventing him from speaking is wrong.

This may seem like an odd Segway, but hang on-

Have you ever seen the Anime “Kino no Tabi”? - Spoilers from half of an episode of a 15 year old anime below-

Well it’s the story of Kino, a traveler who visits many different countries, always only for 3 days. One day she comes to a city-state in ruins, and there is only one person left living in the city. So she talks to this man, and he tells her the history of his country.

The people lived under a tyrant king and one day they were able to overthrow him. So they decided to rule the country with democracy. All decisions were put to vote. This caused problems tho since people don’t always agree. So to prevent disagreements from occurring, they decided that the best way forward and to prevent new tyrants from coming into power would be to execute everyone that voted against the majority. Eventually it came down to the man, his wife and a doctor. The doctor decided that he had enough and wanted to leave to go to a new place to start over. It was put to vote, the Doctor lost and was executed. A short time later, the man’a wife became ill, and died from something that the doctor could have cured. So the man was alone.

When the 3 days was up and Kino and Hermes, her traveling companion and sentient motorbike, were ready to leave, the man refused and demanded a vote to make them stay. They vote to leave, and as they ride off, you hear a gunshot in the distance.

Back to my point. This is an extreme example, but when those in power begin to shut down people they dont agree with, you undermine freedom itself. The people in that city didn’t want a tyrant king again, but by eliminating everyone who disagreed they themselves became the tyrants. Eventually you may be the one who isn’t allowed to speak because you no longer agree with the majority. What then?

But the fact that he has used his platform to do that and intended to do it again demonstrates validity in preventing him from having a platform. There is cause to believe that he will use his platform to commit a crime, and it's no solace to his victims to punish him after the fact.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

But the fact that he has used his platform to do that and intended to do it again demonstrates validity in preventing him from having a platform. There is cause to believe that he will use his platform to commit a crime, and it's no solace to his victims to punish him after the fact.

No prosecutor has charged Milo with committing any crime related to any of his speeches, unless I missed it. Has he been convicted of committing a crime? You are saying that he has.

Please clarify your position. Are you in favor of extrajudicial limitations on rights as a means of preventing individuals from potentially committing a crime in the future?

 

[Lynd7]

I'd been wondering why I hadn't seen a thread on this on Resetera, turns out there was but it was locked almost immediately, with most the posts saying JBP is an idiot and shouldn't be listened to.

I find this sort of mentality sad and find Peterson to be very fair and intelligent in his thoughts and analysis.