OWNx.com
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The best rant ever
#11
(07-13-2017, 10:24 AM)brunt Wrote: I did find this reference (link)
Quote:In a panel discussion on TVO’s The Agenda in October, Peterson said not only would not using someone’s preferred pronouns be considered discrimination under the new human rights legislation, it would be a form of hate speech.

“That’s why I made the video. I said that we were in danger of placing the refusal to use certain kinds of language into the same category as Holocaust denial.”

But my reading of this, is not that he is treating punishing holocaust denial as a "respectable" constraint on free speech, but rather contrasting between "hate speech", as in "you must not say this" with "compelled speech", as in "you must say this". There is a huge difference between the two, and I agree with him that compelled speech legislation is worse that hate speech legislation, but that does not mean that I support hate speech legislation.

A. Why conflate holocaust denial with hate speech? unless of course, you think it constitutes hate speech .........

B. Nor does it mean you oppose it. Nor does it mean he opposes it.

(07-15-2017, 10:01 PM)brunt Wrote: So in short, while I try to assess the validity of someone's argument by the logic they use, how I assess the person himself, I look for consistency. The fact that Dr. Peterson states that it is important that you should be able to say something with which he disagrees, in this case the holocaust, is a good thing. The same statement coming from a neo-nazi skinhead is met with more skepticism from me.

and what would your skepticism have to do with your support, or lack thereof, for the the right to free speech?

(07-15-2017, 10:01 PM)brunt Wrote: That having been said, I maintain that there is a huge difference between "hate speech" and "compelled speech". Both may be controlled by state laws, but dictating what you must say is a very different animal than dictating what you must not say. And in my books, even though I am no big fan of hate speech legislation, compelled speech is a much worse animal.

yes, they are different, in that it would be expected that one would typically precede the other ......................
Reply
#12
(07-13-2017, 06:47 AM)andrew_o Wrote:
(07-13-2017, 05:43 AM)cbeatty Wrote: He uses pure reason to defend free speech in the instance of legislating forced group preferential pro noun usage. What seems peculiar to me (I could be mistaken), is that he seems to have no difficulty accepting legislation which oppresses those who would deny the holocaust.

What's your position on the holocaust CB?

and CB runs away... Wink
Reply
#13
Your response cbeatty, honestly, I find to be quite bizarre. You started off with this, very reasonable stand.


(07-13-2017, 05:43 AM)cbeatty Wrote: He uses pure reason to defend free speech in the instance of legislating forced group preferential pro noun usage. What seems peculiar to me (I could be mistaken), is that he seems to have no difficulty accepting legislation which oppresses those who would deny the holocaust.

Now, having watched a bit of Jordan Peterson, it did not seem like the correct stand to me, so I did some looking into things. Specifically, I looked into your hypothetical of hate speech legislation and the holocaust.

Having found a quote (it was not that easy, he has said a lot of things, and sifting through them all - even with Google - is not a trivial exercise), I posted it. I thought that it addressed your hypothetical pretty darned well.

As far as your last post, sure I will address the points one by one:

(07-16-2017, 10:47 PM)cbeatty Wrote: A. Why conflate holocaust denial with hate speech? unless of course, you think it constitutes hate speech .........

B. Nor does it mean you oppose it. Nor does it mean he opposes it.


As far as I can see, I am not conflating the two. Your original post addressed the hypothetical of his stand of free speech potentially conflicting with his thinking on the holocaust - your example. I was able to dig up some information that proved otherwise, or at least pointed in the direction of otherwise.

Even at that, the two are very closely related. In Canada, hate speech laws exist, and have been used. The first big case, and by far biggest to date has been Ernst_Zundel, who was jailed for talking about holocaust denial. Specifically for breaking Canada's hate speech laws.

So, you brought it up, AND it is a real-life case of hate speech laws in action. So I figured that it was only reasonable to address it.

Part B is a bit odd. Yes, in the truncated quote, it is not particularly clear whether or not he opposes hate speech legislation. However, in the full quote that I included, he was quite clear - he opposes it, and specifically addresses that he thinks that it is counterproductive from a psychological perspective.

As far as whether or not I oppose it, that was not what I was talking about. For the record, I believe that hate speech legislation is insidious, and should not be done. Speech that can be demonstrated that is intended specifically to cause bodily harm, and is likely to do so is another matter altogether. But jailing somebody for stating something that simply goes against accepted facts is outright wrong.

(07-16-2017, 10:47 PM)cbeatty Wrote: and what would your skepticism have to do with your support, or lack thereof, for the the right to free speech?

My skepticism has nothing to do with whether or or not the right to free speech exists or should exist. Remember, I was addressing your hypothetical regarding whether or not Jordan Peterson would support legislation against holocaust deniers.

The quote that I included certainly implied that he would be against such legislation. However, given that human beings are very illogical animals, and will certainly state proudly that they have some stand for the sake of appearing virtuous, all the while such a stand can be motivated by personal interest.

While I agree that such skepticism does not address the morality of the subject in general. But given that we were discussing one man's opinion on the subject, I thought that it is prudent to temper a quote with some analysis regarding his broader thoughts on the issue.

For instance, if the same opinion had been stated by Ernst_Zundel, I would be forced to wonder if his desire for a lack of hate speech laws in the area of holocaust denial were motivated by the fact that he had been charged, tried, convicted and served time for such laws.

The fact that Jordan Peterson believes that the holocaust happened, yet still believes that having such laws is a bad idea reinforces my belief that the quote is consistent with his beliefs, and has a high probability of extending to other areas as well.

(07-16-2017, 10:47 PM)cbeatty Wrote:
(07-15-2017, 10:01 PM)brunt Wrote: That having been said, I maintain that there is a huge difference between "hate speech" and "compelled speech". Both may be controlled by state laws, but dictating what you must say is a very different animal than dictating what you must not say. And in my books, even though I am no big fan of hate speech legislation, compelled speech is a much worse animal.

yes, they are different, in that it would be expected that one would typically precede the other ......................

My point goes far beyond simply stating the obvious fact that they are two different actions, and that laws addressing both are likely to occur at different times. They are vastly different degrees of, for lack of a better word, evil.

It is one thing to state that certain opinions that disagree with the official stand of the anointed class shall not be uttered. This is a serious restriction on free speech that stifles debate and is representative of closed minded zealots who are not sure enough in their stand to allow it to be criticized. Giving such people the full power of the law is a bad idea.

But adopting legislation that makes it a crime to refuse to be forced to say certain things is another thing. And that is precisely what this law up here does. You can theoretically do jail time for purposefully not addressing a snowflake by "zhe", or by a stretch "dragon self".

I see a pretty clear distinction in terms of degrees of tyranny with those two.
Reply
#14
(07-17-2017, 05:37 AM)andrew_o Wrote:
(07-13-2017, 06:47 AM)andrew_o Wrote:
(07-13-2017, 05:43 AM)cbeatty Wrote: He uses pure reason to defend free speech in the instance of legislating forced group preferential pro noun usage. What seems peculiar to me (I could be mistaken), is that he seems to have no difficulty accepting legislation which oppresses those who would deny the holocaust.

What's your position on the holocaust CB?

and CB runs away... Wink

My interest in this thread is that of Free Speech, and I do not wish to divert away from that. Start a thread on the holocaust and I will answer your question.
Reply
#15
(08-18-2017, 02:32 PM)cbeatty Wrote:
(07-17-2017, 05:37 AM)andrew_o Wrote:
(07-13-2017, 06:47 AM)andrew_o Wrote:
(07-13-2017, 05:43 AM)cbeatty Wrote: He uses pure reason to defend free speech in the instance of legislating forced group preferential pro noun usage. What seems peculiar to me (I could be mistaken), is that he seems to have no difficulty accepting legislation which oppresses those who would deny the holocaust.

What's your position on the holocaust CB?

and CB runs away... Wink

My interest in this thread is that of Free Speech, and I do not wish to divert away from that. Start a thread on the holocaust and I will answer your question.

Yeah sure...
Reply
#16
(07-13-2017, 10:24 AM)brunt Wrote: I did find this reference (link)
Quote:In a panel discussion on TVO’s The Agenda in October, Peterson said not only would not using someone’s preferred pronouns be considered discrimination under the new human rights legislation, it would be a form of hate speech.

“That’s why I made the video. I said that we were in danger of placing the refusal to use certain kinds of language into the same category as Holocaust denial.”

But my reading of this, is not that he is treating punishing holocaust denial as a "respectable" constraint on free speech, but rather contrasting between "hate speech", as in "you must not say this" with "compelled speech", as in "you must say this". There is a huge difference between the two, and I agree with him that compelled speech legislation is worse that hate speech legislation, but that does not mean that I support hate speech legislation.

I don't see him making the distinction that you point out. He makes no reference to compelled speech. In fact, he is concerned that the refusal to use certain speech would become a form of hate speech and be put "into the same category as Holocaust denial."

He does not appear to be a heavyweight in the charge to defend free speech. He does fight like a heavyweight in his concern over being forced to use pronouns preferential to those other himself. Perhaps it is question of whose ox is being gored.

(07-13-2017, 10:24 AM)brunt Wrote: OK, I found some evidence to support my opinion

Quote:Do you believe that society should draw the line at all when it comes to limitations on hate speech?
Quote:No. Hate speech laws are wrong. The question – not a question, but THE question – is ‘who gets to define hate?” That’s not to say there’s no such thing as hate speech – clearly there is. Hate speech laws repress, and I mean that in the psycho-analytical sense. They drive [hate speech] underground. It’s not a good idea, because things get ugly when you drive them underground. They don’t disappear, they just fester, and they’re not subject to correction. I made these videos, and they have been subject to a tremendous amount of correction over the last six weeks. I don’t just mean from my public response, but also partly from the university’s response, partly from a group of friends who have been reviewing my videos and criticizing them to death. This is why free speech is so important. You can struggle to formulate some argument, but when you throw it out into the public, there’s a collective attempt to modify and improve that. So with the hate speech issue – say someone’s a Holocaust denier, because that’s the standard routine – we want those people out there in the public so you can tell them why they’re historically ignorant, and why their views are unfounded and dangerous. If you drive them underground, it’s not like they stop talking to each other, they just don’t talk to anyone who disagrees with them. That’s a really bad idea and that’s what’s happening in the United States right now. Half of the country doesn’t talk to the other half. Do you know what you call people you don’t talk to? Enemies.
[*]
That's pretty clear. You can read the full interview at http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-te...-peterson/.
[*]

Brunt, you do inspire thinking.

OK. He clearly calls out hate speech laws to be wrong. He defines the question as "who gets to define hate?" Pehaps more basic questions are, Does a person have a right to hate? and, Does a person have the right to freely express that hate? I wish he would have defined what he considers hate speech. He seems to define holocaust denial as hate speech. How does denying a happening, particularly if one believes that to be the case, constitute hate?

It is interesting that he pins the fact that half of the US doesn't talk to the other and are essentially enemies, on hate speech. Do you see truth in that.
Reply
#17
(08-19-2017, 05:11 AM)cbeatty Wrote:
(07-13-2017, 10:24 AM)brunt Wrote: I did find this reference (link)
Quote:In a panel discussion on TVO’s The Agenda in October, Peterson said not only would not using someone’s preferred pronouns be considered discrimination under the new human rights legislation, it would be a form of hate speech.

“That’s why I made the video. I said that we were in danger of placing the refusal to use certain kinds of language into the same category as Holocaust denial.”

But my reading of this, is not that he is treating punishing holocaust denial as a "respectable" constraint on free speech, but rather contrasting between "hate speech", as in "you must not say this" with "compelled speech", as in "you must say this". There is a huge difference between the two, and I agree with him that compelled speech legislation is worse that hate speech legislation, but that does not mean that I support hate speech legislation.

I don't see him making the distinction that you point out. He makes no reference to compelled speech. In fact, he is concerned that the refusal to use certain speech would become a form of hate speech and be put "into the same category as Holocaust denial."

He does not appear to be a heavyweight in the charge to defend free speech. He does fight like a heavyweight in his concern over being forced to use pronouns preferential to those other himself. Perhaps it is question of whose ox is being gored.

Not in that quote, but it is a point that he makes extremely frequently, particularly in reference to the "gender pronoun" issue against which he has been fighting for a while. There are a lot of his videos containing references to that, I guess that I just transferred the knowledge from those.

If you care to see them, try some of these links: (google search)

I have watched a bunch of his stuff for a number of reasons: 1) he's a pretty clear thinker, 2) it is interesting that this stuff is going on not terribly far from where I live, and 3) I was pretty close to becoming a university professor in Canada myself - I like to think that had I taken that path, then I would have taken the stand that he has in the face of student lunacy.


(08-19-2017, 05:11 AM)cbeatty Wrote:
(07-13-2017, 10:24 AM)brunt Wrote: OK, I found some evidence to support my opinion

Quote:Do you believe that society should draw the line at all when it comes to limitations on hate speech?
Quote:No. Hate speech laws are wrong. The question – not a question, but THE question – is ‘who gets to define hate?” That’s not to say there’s no such thing as hate speech – clearly there is. Hate speech laws repress, and I mean that in the psycho-analytical sense. They drive [hate speech] underground. It’s not a good idea, because things get ugly when you drive them underground. They don’t disappear, they just fester, and they’re not subject to correction. I made these videos, and they have been subject to a tremendous amount of correction over the last six weeks. I don’t just mean from my public response, but also partly from the university’s response, partly from a group of friends who have been reviewing my videos and criticizing them to death. This is why free speech is so important. You can struggle to formulate some argument, but when you throw it out into the public, there’s a collective attempt to modify and improve that. So with the hate speech issue – say someone’s a Holocaust denier, because that’s the standard routine – we want those people out there in the public so you can tell them why they’re historically ignorant, and why their views are unfounded and dangerous. If you drive them underground, it’s not like they stop talking to each other, they just don’t talk to anyone who disagrees with them. That’s a really bad idea and that’s what’s happening in the United States right now. Half of the country doesn’t talk to the other half. Do you know what you call people you don’t talk to? Enemies.
That's pretty clear. You can read the full interview at http://www.c2cjournal.ca/2016/12/were-te...-peterson/.
Brunt, you do inspire thinking.

OK. He clearly calls out hate speech laws to be wrong. He defines the question as "who gets to define hate?" Pehaps more basic questions are, Does a person have a right to hate? and, Does a person have the right to freely express that hate? I wish he would have defined what he considers hate speech. He seems to define holocaust denial as hate speech. How does denying a happening, particularly if one believes that to be the case, constitute hate?

It is interesting that he pins the fact that half of the US doesn't talk to the other and are essentially enemies, on hate speech. Do you see truth in that.

Thanks.

My take on his comments on hate speech is that he is being reactive. He's a university professor with claims of hate speech thrown in his face on a daily basis. Snowflakes throw the "hate speech" label at absolutely anything, and extremely frequently, himself. Given this assumption, the onus is not on him to define hate speech, but rather his stand is closer to "if it does indeed exist, it is speech that is far more hateful than what you think it is".

The question of who gets to define hate is pretty important, and under the aforementioned assumption of being reactive is aimed directly at his accusers. His point is a good one - it is not up to the snowflakes to unilaterally define what constitutes hate speech. It is up to society as a whole to define what can and cannot be said in public, not the anointed few.

My guess as to your comment about him considering holocaust denial to be hate speech is likely due to a unique Canadian take on the matter. By law, holocaust denial is hate speech up here. My earlier mentioned example of Ernst Zundel is a perfect example - he was jailed for a long time under our hate speech laws specifically for his actions of holocaust denial. I agree with you perfectly here - denial of a historical event, despite how firmly held the belief, is a difference of opinion, not hate speech. I cannot speak for Dr. Peterson, but I would guess that he feels similarly.

As far as the two halves of the country, most people are focusing on the wrong thing in my opinion. It is not just a matter of free speech, although that is indeed incredibly important. More important in my view is the steadfast absence of listening and at least considering the possibility that someone with differing opinions could actually be correct, or at least as correct as they are. I simply will not engage in debate with someone who shows signs of stubborn adherence to a set of beliefs, even in the face of abundant evidence of them being absolutely wrong. I have better ways to spend my time.

And what the heck is the deal with these idiots (broad category here, I am not just referring to the snowflakes), who will not ever admit that they are, or could conceivably be wrong? To me, that is a sign of an idiot rather than someone of strong convictions.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
OWNx.com