That said, are there people who fold at the slightest criticism, feel (or act) as though they were victimized, and use that to evade responding to cross-examination? Yes, and they've become tedious at this point. Heckling is a part of politics and always has been. It's also a part of life. A lot of these so-called victims need to grow a thicker skin, become more forceful, and adopt an interaction style that conveys information instead of feelings of persecution.
BTW, I'm talking about hacks like Jordan Peterson.Originally Posted by xerxe
Wait, how is Jordan Peterson a "victim"? His philosophy is the opposite; taking responsibility of one's own life...
Lol, again, please tell me you're kidding:
Speaking of "evade responding," what a lot of these reporters do is ask questions with false assumptions built in them, designed to make the person look bad:
"How shameful do you feel about your sexist views!?"
"Do you think a trans woman is a real woman!?" (11 second mark below):
You can see the reporters doing this the entire interview above. Why would anyone answer questions like that? It's bait. It's a setup. It's retarded.
LOL.
I would LOVE to see how you'd react when you're constantly misinterpreted by media, not allowed to use social media platforms, when your opposition plain out acts immature, and you don't have people constantly patting your back.
Here's cancel culture rearing its ugly head, JP sure has thin-skin getting all emotional here with an auditorium full of people yelling at him
It's like you're equipping yourself with all the weapons and advantages, while your opposition is handicapped, and you say "just toughen up!!!" lmao
“If you’re faced with unreasonable opposition, it’s best to let the unreasonable opposition speak. Because they manifest themselves as unreasonable, and everyone can see it. So that’s part of the reason you want free speech.”It's actually these students' feelings that are making them irrational and victims to logic / JP. That's why they won't let people like JP speak, because they know they can't use logic against him, which is why they resort to acting retarded.
You got it totally backwards dude.
It's REALLY weird how you take something and spin it to the opposite.
Lol
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-09-2021 at 09:31 AM.
Jordan Peterson is a whiny hypocrite who hates freedom of speech.
Peterson spoke at Liberty University, contentedly ignoring the university's history of aggressive censorship. This Christian university (founded by the late Jerry Falwell) has explicitly banned speakers it doesn't like, including Libertarian and anti-Trump Christian speakers, citing the usual "student safety" excuse; and aggressively censors what student newspapers are allowed to print. Cartoonishly, the university has positioned itself as a champion of freedom of expression against so-called 'safe space' culture at more liberal campuses.
Much more detail here about Liberty University's culture of censorship:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...s/?arc404=true
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...ch-critics-say
Peterson's visit to the university is on Youtube. He gives his usual long-winded answers about the importance of freedom of speech, seemingly (or rather, selectively) oblivious to the institutional censorship just outside that auditorium.
Any 'brutal truths' about censorship WRT this emphatically Right wing organization? Nope, just selective outrage directed at leftist speech-policing, absurdly and bombastically equated to Maoism. But, as the slimy, bottom-of-the-barrel hypocrite that he is, Peterson goes on podcasts and TV, shakes hands with influential people, and sheds real tears about the stifling of freedom; mainly his own and others' like him, as it turns out. He is assuredly not an ally of freedom of speech.
There's a lot of weird things going on with your response. I'll address them one by one.
1. You're conflating Jordan Peterson with Liberty University. It's not his responsibility to "fix" a university's problems or whatever internal event happened. You also make the *false* assumption that the accusation against the University is correct and that JP was also aware.
2. The sources you provided give a very biased *blown out of proportion* view of what happened. These are the facts:
--The student newspaper at Liberty University is not independent. Rather, it is a paid for by the University. The students incorrectly thought they were the owners/editors. A cub reporter at the New York Times doesn't make publishing decisions.
--Jerry Falwell Jr made a choice - the correct one in hindsight. The opposing viewpoint was not shunned but it wasn't allowed to be used as an official platform of the University. They (the students) could and did set up their independent newspaper later on.
3. Your premise on Liberty University is faulty. Liberty University actually welcomes/invites people from the left to come and speak. Some examples:
--Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
--Alan Dershowitz, leftist Harvard professor. This professor's quote on Liberty University:
4.“I think many people would be shocked to know that Liberty University is more diverse in its opinions than Harvard University. … Today, unless you speak on behalf of identity politics, on groupthink, radical left views, you’re not really encouraged to come on campus. I’m a liberal, and I have been banned and shut down on university campuses because I support Israel. … I think every American should know this, that you have invited me to speak here today even though we have some fundamental disagreements about some social issues, about some political issues, about some religious issues — but you welcome me with open arms. The obverse is not true. Somebody with your views would not be welcome to speak today at major Ivy League universities. I’d be there defending you. I’d be there introducing you. I’d be proud to have you as a speaker on my campus. But you would be shut down. There would be efforts to what’s called ‘de-platform’ you, which is a fancy word of saying, censoring you, not letting you speak.”No, this is totally inaccurate. I already answered this in my first reply to you. Again, JP visits a diverse range of universities. At Liberty University JP gets welcomed (no protests, no public demonstrations, no obscene signs ) while the EXACT OPPOSITE happens at other Universities.
Stop being delusional.
5. Overall, you're twisting and being delusional with the facts.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-11-2021 at 03:24 AM.
Alan Dershowitz aggressively aligned himself with Trump, and his "Leftist" credentials, if he has any, are somewhat convoluted. But that's neither here nor there, because Liberty University doesn't welcome a full range of views. Speakers have gotten banned there, and with very little of the same notoriety acquired by liberal universities. Here's just one example, of a banned Christian speaker: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/31/56110...cizing-trump-a
How does this impact Jordan Peterson? Because he has positioned himself as a champion of radical freedom of speech on campuses. Selective criticism is worse than none; it creates the deliberate impression that one's preferred side is innocent of the same actions. In his talk there and virtually everywhere else, he discusses freedom of speech rather extensively, and denounces it rather emphatically as universally wrong. I'd think that Liberty University was part of the same universe.
The student papers at other universities are also privately owned, alienable, or cancellable. Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are also fully privately owned and operated, but the question of censorship remains the same.--The student newspaper at Liberty University is not independent. Rather, it is a paid for by the University. The students incorrectly thought they were the owners/editors. A cub reporter at the New York Times doesn't make publishing decisions.
--Jerry Falwell Jr made a choice - the correct one in hindsight. The opposing viewpoint was not shunned but it wasn't allowed to be used as an official platform of the University. They (the students) could and did set up their independent newspaper later on.
Last edited by xerx; 02-11-2021 at 06:50 AM.
Incidentally, I agree that it's deeply wrong to ban controversial speakers from universities. All universities.
People like Charles Murray should be allowed to speak. The best way to deal with them is to set up a separate counter-seminar, at the same time and with the same level of publicity, where their ideas are rebutted intelligently by qualified speakers. The only solution to fake news, even loud, sensationalistic news, is to raise the standard of discussion, and to raise people's expectations about speakers' level of intellect and expertise.
It's also the case that many of these controversial speakers, including Jordan Peterson, have a few intelligent observations that are either worth considering or point to problems that are irresolvable under the current system.
Uh, regardless of how "leftist" he is, he was unwelcomed from speaking at other universities. I'll post his quote again since it seems like there's some amnesia going on:But that's neither here nor there, because Liberty University doesn't welcome a full range of views.
“I think many people would be shocked to know that Liberty University is more diverse in its opinions than Harvard University. … Today, unless you speak on behalf of identity politics, on groupthink, radical left views, you’re not really encouraged to come on campus. I’m a liberal, and I have been banned and shut down on university campuses because I support Israel. … I think every American should know this, that you have invited me to speak here today even though we have some fundamental disagreements about some social issues, about some political issues, about some religious issues — but you welcome me with open arms. The obverse is not true. Somebody with your views would not be welcome to speak today at major Ivy League universities. I’d be there defending you. I’d be there introducing you. I’d be proud to have you as a speaker on my campus. But you would be shut down. There would be efforts to what’s called ‘de-platform’ you, which is a fancy word of saying, censoring you, not letting you speak.”
You're doing the same thing. Here's some clarification:
Now because of these false assumptions, you generate more delusional stories:It was (Martin's removal) because of the promotion of these unscheduled, publicized plans to meet on campus property without the university’s permission that justified his removal from campus grounds, according to an official statement from Liberty.
“What if someone you had never met announced on social media that they were going to come into your living room, invite others, and have a ‘prayer meeting’ after stating publicly that your home is the most hostile environment to the gospel in the U.S.?” Becki Falwell said. “Wouldn’t you call the police and have the stranger removed from your home?”
Again, you make the *false* assumption that,How does this impact Jordan Peterson? Because he has positioned himself as a champion of radical freedom of speech on campuses. Selective criticism is worse than none; it creates the deliberate impression that one's preferred side is innocent of the same actions. In his talk there, he mentions freedom of speech rather extensively, and denounces it rather emphatically as universally wrong. I'd think that Liberty University was part of the same universe.
--the accusation against the University is correct and
--JP was also aware of this.
The reality of the situation:
--Liberty university had reasons (misrepresenting the school's platform and scheduling events without permission) for their actions, which is not equated to censorship.
--JP goes to hostile universities and allows the opposition to act like wild animals. This is allowing free speech on his part. What else should he do
???The student papers at other universities are also privately owned, alienable, or cancellable. Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are also fully privately owned and operated, but the question of censorship remains the same.
1. The question of censorship depends on the facts of the situation. The examples you mentioned are not censorship.
2. You're evading the central point and grasping for straws, but I guess 99% of your JP accusation rides on this Liberty university thing so I can't blame you
Last edited by Computer Loser; 02-11-2021 at 05:26 AM.
thats basically asking an NF to act like an ST. NFs do what NFs do (esp beta); play/act like the victim and convey feelings, not information.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote