Home        About Dan        News        Books        Forum        Art
Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#169184 - 06/11/19 04:58 PM The Real Issue Is Not Free Speech
Bontrager Offline

Registered: 05/31/19
Posts: 10
Loc: California

In about three minutes, beginning at 36.06 minutes into this video, and ending at around 39:38 minutes, Jordan Peterson sums up the matter in a nutshell.

#169185 - 06/11/19 06:33 PM Re: The Real Issue Is Not Free Speech [Re: Bontrager]
jmill Online   content
Full Shrike

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 5649

Jordan Peterson is an amazing thinker. It's interesting how circumstances thrust him into the spotlight, and brave of him to accept the burden that he now bears.

#169196 - 06/16/19 06:45 AM Re: The Real Issue Is Not Free Speech [Re: jmill]
ScottSA Offline
CEO of the Hegemony

Registered: 05/19/06
Posts: 14308
Loc: Canada
 Originally Posted By: jmill

Jordan Peterson is an amazing thinker. It's interesting how circumstances thrust him into the spotlight, and brave of him to accept the burden that he now bears.
I couldn't agree more. It's one thing to be smart - and this guy blows me away in that department - but being at the forefront of sociopolitical controversy is a burden greater than most people realize. You're no longer the grey man - the guy who hides in back and gets along - now you're suddenly a "controversial thinker" by virtue of disagreeing with hegemonic thought, and as such liable to be attacked from all sides. And by default you become a leader. You become the focal point of all those who hate what you espouse and all those who love it, and once you're on that treadmill you can either run and hide or rip your shirt off and pound your chest. Peterson did the latter and that takes real guts.
If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what is an empty desk a sign?~Albert Einstein

#169197 - 06/16/19 06:42 PM Re: The Real Issue Is Not Free Speech [Re: ScottSA]
Ward Offline

Registered: 03/02/09
Posts: 1354
Thanks for posting. Peterson is a remarkable person whose voice I only discovered last year. In his book "12 Rules for Life", rule #9, he wrote that one should always"assume the person you are listening to might know something you don't." In todays world that is a remarkable feat but well worth keeping in mind.
#169199 - 06/17/19 06:19 PM Re: The Real Issue Is Not Free Speech [Re: Ward]
jmill Online   content
Full Shrike

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 5649
An interesting aspect to this is not just the courage it takes to stand up, but also the demonstration of the power one man who refuses to bow down can wield. And on top of that, Peterson is extraordinarily respectful of his position and humble about it. He's made a powerful and positive impact on the debate.

Of course, because he is truthful and effective, the left is trying to discredit him, call him a hatemonger, a homophobe, a misogynist, a fascist, a right-winger (he's actually a bit left of center personally), a racist, and anything else they can think of to try and destroy him. After hearing dozens of speeches by him, on YouTube and in other venues, I can confidently declare that those charges are utterly baseless, and are in fact pernicious lies. In the video above that Enright/Bontrager posted, he clearly defines what the lines are between rational, decent thinking (right or left) and how to identify the extremists on either side of the debate who are clearly out of bounds.

#169213 - 06/28/19 01:17 PM Re: The Real Issue Is Not Free Speech [Re: jmill]
jryan Offline

Registered: 06/08/07
Posts: 8586
Loc: Oakton VA
There is actually a second half of the free speech assault that I think is probably more dire, and harder to combat. It is the private censorship of individuals by near-monopoly social media conglomerates.

This is the pointy end of the spear for the kind of culture that Peterson is describing since many who are of the same mindset comprise the majority of the managerial authority in companies like Alphabet, and Twitter and Facebook. These people see themselves as Saint George and Conservatives as the Dragon.

Consider recent testimony by the CEOs of these companies. You don't even need to read between the lines to understand the existential crisis that these companies are feeling. On the one hand they embrace the #resistance, but on the other they are a for-profit company operating in a well defined legal space.

At odds with their desire to push election outcomes is their split corporate personality. On the one hand they fight in court endlessly to be legally considered "carriers", agnostic platform service providers. As a carrier they can't be held responsible for the content that their users submit to the platform, much like an ISP can't be held responsible for child pornography that a customer distributes over their data lines. By being a carrier they have no liability.

On the other side of that coin is their #resistance mind that sees Russian ads posted on their service showing Hillary Clinton boxing Jesus as partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump. They, being the civic minded resistance, take it on themselves to then "prevent another 2016", as one Google exec was caught saying in a leaked internal memorandum.

So, over the last several years, these major social media corporations have come to the conclusion that, hey, they are way to big to police themselves normally, so they needed to design robots to hunt down the ads and videos that contain content they disagree with.

"Well", says the law, "now that these companies have taken an active role in policing content, they no longer fit the definition of a carrier, and so therefore must be considered a publisher and are therefor legally liable for their content." It was at this point that the digital crack downs began in earnest against wrongspeak and wrongthink (read: Conservatives) with test shots fired against thoroughly unsympathetic contributors like Alex Jones, and being satisfied with the lack of outrage at their private dinner parties, began deplatforming people wholesale for being conservative (PragerU) or the wrong kind of comedian (Steven Crowder) or just annoyingly hard to debate (Jordan Peterson).

When finally called in to testify on these many bridges too far, these organizations finally tipped their hand when, on being asked if they supported the idea of Government "helping" them police "hate speech", said yes.

And just like that, the #resistance transformed what was a great experiment is free speech and open forum for ideas and creativity into corporate lobbyists openly antagonistic to the very idea of the First Amendment. If they were able to create anti-hate speech legislation, which now, thanks to dumb Anthony Kennedy will require stacking the Supreme Court, they would be able to 1) excuse their own efforts, thereby retaining their carrier status, 2) Close the door on the threat of a competing, truly free carrier service and 3) Bill the Government for their efforts.

Win-Win-Win for Google, a loss for everyone else.

This has me in a conundrum. It is a conundrum that I have pondered a lot in recent years, even back when it was more a concept for a dystopian short story I was considering writing, but has become all too real. How do you fight against a wholesale assault on the First Amendment without violating the first Amendment in the process? I just don't know.

Edited by jryan (06/28/19 01:45 PM)
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” - Richard Feynman

Page 1 of 1 1

Hop to:

Generated in 0.194 seconds in which 0.123 seconds were spent on a total of 13 queries. Zlib compression disabled.

Home    Books    Curtis on Publishing   Previews    Bio    Bibliography    Snapshots     Foreign News    Reader's Forum    Art