This topic has been locked by a moderator.
Is a Nute Gunray joke really appropriate here? And it’s apparently up to three accusers now.
Maybe not. I certainly didn’t mean to offend anyone, and definitely no disrespect intended to the accusers in this case. I will delete the pic.
I haven’t seen anything about a third accuser, link?
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti
Could be a fourth one in the wings now as well.
Where were you in '77?
To me, Jay sounds more like the Libertarians I know moreso than Republicans.
When you’re so far to the left that you can’t even see the center, everybody looks right-wing.
Are you talking about me? I don’t know if you’ve paid much attention, but whenever I talk about any issue here, nothing pleasant arises.
Frankly, if you’re calling me an extreme left-wing partisan, you should take a closer look.
To me, Jay sounds more like the Libertarians I know moreso than Republicans.
When you’re so far to the left that you can’t even see the center, everybody looks right-wing.
Are you talking about me?
No. Sorry for the confusion.
To me, Jay sounds more like the Libertarians I know moreso than Republicans.
When you’re so far to the left that you can’t even see the center, everybody looks right-wing.
I see the center, I just don’t like it. Thanks for ignoring my post, by the way. I remember you doing that last time you quit the thread.
At some point, continuing a ceaseless, line-by-line back-and-forth covering four or five different subjects gets a bit tiresome, so rather than continue going in circles and getting so exhausted that I feel the need to step away, I let it drop. Is there some resolution you see on the horizon that I’ve missed?
And since when is an explicit acknowledgment of every post required? Pretty sure I could go back through not just this thread, but any number of threads in which I’ve posted, and find instances where I haven’t received a direct reply to a comment and didn’t act entitled to a response. Sometimes, people just have nothing more to say on a particular subject.
Besides, when I walked away from the thread previously, that had less to do with our interaction and more to do with the general dynamic of the thread at the time. Participation and overall discussion quality have improved since then, so I thought I’d give it another shot.
MTFBWY…A
Here is a very good read about mob rule, the internet, and the crumbling of democracy.
The Atlantic – America is Living James Madison’s Nightmare
“Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”
To me, Jay sounds more like the Libertarians I know moreso than Republicans.
When you’re so far to the left that you can’t even see the center, everybody looks right-wing.
I see the center, I just don’t like it. Thanks for ignoring my post, by the way. I remember you doing that last time you quit the thread.
At some point, continuing a ceaseless, line-by-line back-and-forth covering four or five different subjects gets a bit tiresome, so rather than continue going in circles and getting so exhausted that I feel the need to step away, I let it drop. Is there some resolution you see on the horizon that I’ve missed?
No, it’s just that you usually suddenly abandon arguments immediately after I make a particularly good refutation of an incorrect assessment of my position. In this case it was a very cogent, though harsh, explanation for my hatred of Ben Shapiro that you totally ignored. You painted me as some guy who is so radical that he hates Ben Shapiro (who is himself as far to the right, if not farther, as I am to the left) for no rational reason. I provide you with that explanation and you ignore it. I think that’s rather disrespectful. If you’re not going to acknowledge my response to something you challenged me on in our conversation then can you at least in the future warn me so I won’t waste my time on composing the post you plan to ignore?
And since when is an explicit acknowledgment of every post required? Pretty sure I could go back through not just this thread, but any number of threads in which I’ve posted, and find instances where I haven’t received a direct reply to a comment and didn’t act entitled to a response. Sometimes, people just have nothing more to say on a particular subject.
It isn’t an entitlement but it’s a common courtesy to actually acknowledge something someone has said to you when you’re engaged in a conversation with them rather than just suddenly ignore it even though you’ve been an equal participant in that conversation up until that point, especially since you’re the one that actually started responding to me. Why even post in the thread if you’re just going to abandon conversations suddenly with no warning whatsoever?
Besides, when I walked away from the thread previously, that had less to do with our interaction and more to do with the general dynamic of the thread at the time. Participation and overall discussion quality have improved since then, so I thought I’d give it another shot.
Discussion quality is irrelevant if you just give up on it without any kind of closure. I actually thought our discussion was going pretty well. Apparently it wasn’t, though. I guess this is another instance of my senses lying to me.
The Person in Question
What else did you expect me to say to you about Shapiro that was going to change your mind about him?
What else can I say to convince you that I’m not sympathetic to the right?
I had no idea simply letting it trail off was going to elicit such a response. Next time I’ll post something like “Okay, cool. Good talk.” Sound good?
MTFBWY…A
What else did you expect me to say to you about Shapiro that was going to change your mind about him?
Who said anything about changing minds? You said that my hatred for him was hyperbole. I explained exactly why I find him detestable. You were wrong in assuming that I hate him because of mere disagreements with the man.
What else can I say to convince you that I’m not sympathetic to the right?
Actually it’s everything that you’ve already said that convinced me of that.
I had no idea simply letting it trail off was going to elicit such a response. Next time I’ll post something like “Okay, cool. Good talk.” Sound good?
At least just signal that you’re going to abandon the conversation so I don’t waste my time responding to something that you’re going to ignore. That’s all I ask.
The Person in Question
Rightwing troll Steven Crowder calls Kavanaugh accuser a “lying whore.” I bet his old friend Andrew Breitbart is proud.
The Person in Question
People like Crowder only muddy the search for the facts. It’s a shame the media pays so much attention to all the name calling and yelling.
It wouldn’t even matter if Kavanaugh admitted to doing these things, Republicans would still support him. They wouldn’t care just like they didn’t care about Trump admitting to sexual assault.
The Person in Question
Yeah. Politicians don’t care about anything, just so long as you have a little R or D beside your name… It didn’t used to be this way.
It wouldn’t even matter if Kavanaugh admitted to doing these things, Republicans would still support him. They wouldn’t care just like they didn’t care about Trump admitting to sexual assault.
Republican support in general, yes. But it’s 51 particular Republicans that matter. Among that number, we have one with a record of standing up to pressure (Murkowski), one with a record of antagonizing Trump verbally, if not with votes (Flake), and one with a record of being a principled maverick a few years back and recently selling out for no particular reason (Collins). If two of those three were on board, Kav would already be confirmed. There’s a slim chance Murkowski and Flake will hold out. There’s even a chance Flake has no intention of voting for Kav, but is dangling the possibility so that this process drags out and causes maximum political damage to Trump. But my money’s on eventual confirmation too, even with a positive paternity test on an underage victim from last year. Murkowski’s 50/50 though.
And even if he isn’t confirmed, he’ll become a cause célèbre among the sort of conservatives who use the term “Borked” to refer to decent, qualified justices who get screwed by politics, even though they were merely the DOJ Hatchet Man who helped obstruct justice by not having enough scruples to refuse Nixon’s orders for the Saturday Night Massacre like his immediate two predecessors. Well, okay, they tend to leave off that part of his resume.
Arch-hypocrite pseudo-intellectual Jordan Peterson sues university over comments made in private by employees of the university “in order to make academics more careful about what they say about him.”
What a litigious, hypocritical fraud. For those of you that don’t know, Jordan Peterson’s claim to fame is that he pretended that his freedom of speech was under attack, even though he was never fired, disciplined, or censored in any way by his university.
The Person in Question
Arch-hypocrite pseudo-intellectual Jordan Peterson sues university over comments made in private by employees of the university “in order to make academics more careful about what they say about him.”
What a litigious, hypocritical fraud. For those of you that don’t know, Jordan Peterson’s claim to fame is that he pretended that his freedom of speech was under attack, even though he was never fired, disciplined, or censored in any way by his university.
He also has a #1 bestselling book.
I thought his claim to fame was that he said his freedom of speech was under attack by the Canadian govt. bill C-16, which I kind of agree with. And then later he went on to say how all universities are post-modernist Marxist institutions, yada yada yada and all that crap.
He’s a whiny hypocrite at times, but I don’t understand why people are so vehemently opposed to him. His views don’t seem all that controversial to me.
The book came after him pretending to be under attack by the government and his university even though all evidence pointed to the contrary.
The Person in Question
The book came after him pretending to be under attack by the government and his university even though all evidence pointed to the contrary.
Censorship by the university, no. I think he has a good argument against the Canadian government.
But his main contribution, I think, has been helping young men take responsibility for their lives through his lectures and his book, which actually makes some use of his expertise in psychology.
Then he inevitably comes back to censorship and Marxism and how it’s everywhere and it’s going to end the world. At which point I tune out.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that he’s a mixed bag for me.
But his main contribution, I think, has been helping young men take responsibility for their lives through his lectures and his book, which actually makes some use of his expertise in psychology.
I don’t understand how he’s helping young men take responsibility. I’ve read excerpts of his book where he tells his readers to cut off their friends because people that need help are usually exploiting you. He also says that our culture needs to allocate enough women to satisfy all the creepy men that are bitter that no one wants to fuck them. He blames sexual harassment at least in part on women wearing makeup to work. He says that men can’t deal with “crazy women” because they’re not allowed to use physical force against them, which he says is a prerequisite for respecting someone, which implies that you can’t fully respect women. I don’t see where taking responsibility comes into any of that shit. It sounds to me like he’s enabling weak and whiny young men to continue to think that the world is out to get them. I don’t get why any reasonable people like this man. I just don’t get it. I don’t even like calling him an expert because, as you pointed out, he either ignorantly or fraudulently misuses words all the time. Everyone’s a nihilist to him, or post-modernist, or a neo-Marxist, or some other term that he’s using completely dishonestly. He conflates nihilism and post-modernism all the fucking time and he seems to believe that post-modernism is inherently communistic, which is the most imbecilic take on the term I’ve ever heard. He has no understanding of recent human history. He claims that Nazism was an atheist and anti-theist doctrine, which is an abject lie, and he seems to think that the U.S.'s behavior during the Cold War was justifiable if no humanitarian, which is incredibly absurd. Those are just my problems with his dishonesty, I could write a whole book about all the problems I have with his self-help philosophy.
The Person in Question
https://www.yahoo.com/news/julie-swetnick-revealed-michael-avenatti-145917533.html
Censorship by the university, no. I think he has a good argument against the Canadian government.
Not at all. Canadian Bill C-16 only added transgenderism and gender identity to the list of characteristics that you aren’t legally allowed to discriminate against. The same law had already been on the books in the province that Peterson lived in for years before C-16 hit the federal stage. Needless to say, nothing bad happened to Peterson. He claims that the bill is too vague and could lead to all manner of horrifying things happening to him, including people being censored for “criticizing someone’s fashion,” which is not true at all. The lawyers of the Canadian Bar Association even came out and debunked all of the claims that Peterson made about this bill. The beautiful irony is that not one time was Jordan Peterson’s freedom of speech inhibited in any way by the Canadian government or his university, and now Jordan Peterson is the one that is trying to put a stop to people’s freedom to speak out against him. He is the only character in this story that has actually taken strides to hinder free expression.
The Person in Question
https://www.yahoo.com/news/julie-swetnick-revealed-michael-avenatti-145917533.html
I think the mods should delete this post. What if an originaltrilogy.com member is a judge? He could be really offended by us sharing these stories!
The Person in Question
Arch-hypocrite pseudo-intellectual Jordan Peterson sues university over comments made in private by employees of the university “in order to make academics more careful about what they say about him.”
What a litigious, hypocritical fraud. For those of you that don’t know, Jordan Peterson’s claim to fame is that he pretended that his freedom of speech was under attack, even though he was never fired, disciplined, or censored in any way by his university.
Peterson’s lawsuit against the university is legitimate. The university’s employees attempted to intimidate and punish Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate student and TA, for showing a clip of a Peterson lecture (with whom she hardly agrees on anything, by the way) during her class. The university employees lied about having received complaints from students when they had received none and told Shepherd she was propagating hate speech. Thankfully, Shepherd recorded the entire exchange and it’s probably the only reason she’s still a student there.
The university deserves to be sued and their employees fired for being liars who tried to push an agenda, damage a student’s reputation, and label Peterson as an extremist with hateful views.
The only thing this situation has to do with free speech is Lindsay’s right to show a Peterson clip during her own class, upon which her university infringed. Peterson is suing to protect his character and reputation, which is valid.
Peterson’s, and every other Canadian’s, free speech was under attack by the “pronoun law”. There’s nothing pretend about it and it had nothing to do with the university where he teaches.
MTFBWY…A
Censorship by the university, no. I think he has a good argument against the Canadian government.
Not at all. Canadian Bill C-16 only added transgenderism and gender identity to the list of characteristics that you aren’t legally allowed to discriminate against. The same law had already been on the books in the province that Peterson lived in for years before C-16 hit the federal stage. Needless to say, nothing bad happened to Peterson. He claims that the bill is too vague and could lead to all manner of horrifying things happening to him, including people being censored for “criticizing someone’s fashion,” which is not true at all. The lawyers of the Canadian Bar Association even came out and debunked all of the claims that Peterson made about this bill. The beautiful irony is that not one time was Jordan Peterson’s freedom of speech inhibited in any way by the Canadian government or his university, and now Jordan Peterson is the one that is trying to put a stop to people’s freedom to speak out against him. He is the only character in this story that has actually taken strides to hinder free expression.
Yep, you hit it on the head. Basically that law is only to say that I cannot be evicted or fired because of my gender identity. You’re not committing a crime to misgender me in Canada; you’re just being an asshole.
Censorship by the university, no. I think he has a good argument against the Canadian government.
Not at all. Canadian Bill C-16 only added transgenderism and gender identity to the list of characteristics that you aren’t legally allowed to discriminate against. The same law had already been on the books in the province that Peterson lived in for years before C-16 hit the federal stage. Needless to say, nothing bad happened to Peterson. He claims that the bill is too vague and could lead to all manner of horrifying things happening to him, including people being censored for “criticizing someone’s fashion,” which is not true at all. The lawyers of the Canadian Bar Association even came out and debunked all of the claims that Peterson made about this bill. The beautiful irony is that not one time was Jordan Peterson’s freedom of speech inhibited in any way by the Canadian government or his university, and now Jordan Peterson is the one that is trying to put a stop to people’s freedom to speak out against him. He is the only character in this story that has actually taken strides to hinder free expression.
So I did some more research and I concede to you on this point. The Canadian “civil rights” code protects certain classes of people only against speech that advocates genocide, which I don’t have a problem with. I thought they had broader hate speech laws.
Arch-hypocrite pseudo-intellectual Jordan Peterson sues university over comments made in private by employees of the university “in order to make academics more careful about what they say about him.”
What a litigious, hypocritical fraud. For those of you that don’t know, Jordan Peterson’s claim to fame is that he pretended that his freedom of speech was under attack, even though he was never fired, disciplined, or censored in any way by his university.
Peterson’s lawsuit against the university is legitimate. The university’s employees attempted to intimidate and punish Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate student and TA, for showing a clip of a Peterson lecture (with whom she hardly agrees on anything, by the way) during her class. The university employees lied about having received complaints from students when they had received none and told Shepherd she was propagating hate speech. Thankfully, Shepherd recorded the entire exchange and it’s probably the only reason she’s still a student there.
The university deserves to be sued and their employees fired for being liars who tried to push an agenda, damage a student’s reputation, and label Peterson as an extremist with hateful views.
The only thing this situation has to do with free speech is Lindsay’s right to show a Peterson clip during her own class, upon which her university infringed. Peterson is suing to protect his character and reputation, which is valid.
She did play the clip and was brought into a meeting with professors who went against the university policy and she faced no disciplinary action from the university. In fact, the university condemned the meeting and defended her. How is that grounds for a lawsuit against the university? How are private comments that someone else recorded and made public comparing Peterson to Hitler, as ludicrous as that is, in any legal way “slander”?
Peterson’s, and every other Canadian’s, free speech was under attack by the “pronoun law”. There’s nothing pretend about it and it had nothing to do with the university where he teaches.
I referenced this already, but here’s that claim being debunked:
https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f
“The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens. Nor will it hamper the
evolution of academic debates about sex and gender, race and ethnicity, nature and culture, and other
genuine and continuing inquiries that mark our common quest for understanding of the human condition.
The amendment will, however, make explicit the existing requirement for the federal government and
federally regulated providers of goods and services to ensure that personal information, like sex or
gender, is collected only for legitimate purposes and not used to perpetuate discrimination or undermine
privacy rights. In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by
the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates
individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression.” - Canadian Bar Association
How in the hell, is that a violation of anyone’s free speech?
EDIT: I mentioned the connection to his university because he claimed that his university would use C-16 (which you inaccurately call the “pronoun law”) to deplatform him, which obviously never happened.
The Person in Question
Censorship by the university, no. I think he has a good argument against the Canadian government.
Not at all. Canadian Bill C-16 only added transgenderism and gender identity to the list of characteristics that you aren’t legally allowed to discriminate against. The same law had already been on the books in the province that Peterson lived in for years before C-16 hit the federal stage. Needless to say, nothing bad happened to Peterson. He claims that the bill is too vague and could lead to all manner of horrifying things happening to him, including people being censored for “criticizing someone’s fashion,” which is not true at all. The lawyers of the Canadian Bar Association even came out and debunked all of the claims that Peterson made about this bill. The beautiful irony is that not one time was Jordan Peterson’s freedom of speech inhibited in any way by the Canadian government or his university, and now Jordan Peterson is the one that is trying to put a stop to people’s freedom to speak out against him. He is the only character in this story that has actually taken strides to hinder free expression.
So I did some more research and I concede to you on this point. The Canadian “civil rights” code protects certain classes of people only against speech that advocates genocide, which I don’t have a problem with. I thought they had broader hate speech laws.
Yeah, I also thought that too at first because Peterson and company were saying it so fervently that I didn’t really question him, but if you’re interested in more on C-16, I just posted a link to the Canadian Bar Association’s rebuttal to Peterson where it explains the actual effects of the bill.
The Person in Question
