We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, March 7. 2019
Prof. Peterson nails it at the Oxford Union. There is really nothing more to be said on the topic. As he sagely observes, there are few "solutions" in life - just trade-offs.
Posted by The Barrister in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 18:03 | Comments (14) | Trackbacks (0)
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
JP is gaslighting by admonishing us that hate speech is real and that it is a serious problem.
Replace the term "Hate Speech" in this video with "Wrongthink" and you'll see that JP is laying the groundwork for Newspeak under the guise of being a populist.
JP is a charlatan and an Orwellian nightmare.
There is only free speech...all other speech qualifiers are simply a way to shut down free speech.
This blowhard student put me to sleep just as he did to his neighbor two seats away. "Hate speech" seems to be the ONLY topic allowed for discussion regardless of the forum. I've learned that only white people deliver this hate, no one else of different skin tone, nationality or native tongue. What does society do about it? Rid itself of all white, English-speaking people, which it seems to be doing quite successfully in all forms of media, education and social services.
Today, when announcing that a man with a rifle had just killed a LEO trying to serve him with a warrant and escaped by car into the area at large, not one newsreader described the man as a black until six hours into the chase. The same goes for criminals attacking women pn foot for their purses, cell phones and packages...no skin color announced as that would be "racist"! It wasn't until a camera picked up the perp in the act that citizens were aware of his skin color, which does cut down on the number of potential threats when one is cautiously avoiding being harmed.
You are absolutely correct.
In fact, that is exactly what I thought when I watched this video.
Re: hate speech
I agree with Peterson’s points that while hate speech exists as a concept, laws against it (and laws regulating speech in general) are a very bad idea that can only make the situation worse.
The irony is that those who drafted hate speech legislation — the Left — are those using it most against their political opponents today, enabling the violence against Trump supporters and the constant defamatory lies such as the Charlottesville hoax.
The only correct response to anyone who makes this statement is to shut off their mic immediately. The lesson should answer the question. If any speech can be prevented because someone can label it as unacceptable than all speech can be repressed. But in practice it will be the most aggressive and most repressive groups who decide what is unacceptable and what must be censored. How will that be different from the old Soviet Union?
I thought Peterson completely missed a very important point: that we are responsible for the way we react to our situation. The questioner talked about speach that might make him "so deeply uncomfortable that he feels that he doesn't belong." That sounds like a personal problem but worse it legitimizes our current situation where the offense you feel gives you power over others and you end up with a hierarchy based on your feelings and not with regard to any truth and certainly not merit.
We all choose our response to our situation. So we might choose to be offended by what someone says which is a relatively weak choice, or we could choose to be ignore it or even laugh at it which is a relatively stronger response but what makes things worse is when you demand that your weakness allows you to have power over someone else.
I can deplore hate speech without wanting to regulate it. I'm content to work on my own style of speech, rooting out as much spite and disdain as I can, which can only increase my reach and persuasiveness. I can also urge other people to do the same. Peterson is actually quite good at speaking clearly and forcefully without needlessly giving offense. If he gives offense, it's not because he was venting spleen or intimidating or taking revenge, but because he has a difficult concept to put across. The success of his message is enough to persuade me that minimizing hate in speech is an excellent idea--though not one I'd turn over to the government for implementation or enforcement.
There is speech that is clearly "hate speech", and we've all heard it, either at the personal level or the political.
Just listen to that Rep. Omar (D) when she talks about Israel, or Farrakhan when he talks about...well, anything. Or Obama's pastor when he says "AmeriKayKayKay" in his multimillion dollar church with his half million dollar homes.
Look at the vitriol that has been dumped on MAGA hat wearers.
Hillary Clinton calling me and mine "deplorables"--these are the clear and obvious examples.
So yeah, there is "hate speech".
But it's protected speech, just like anything that isn't intended to foment violence or isn't libel or slander.
Agreed. JP is a professing leftist with a modicum of sense with which to expose the left's more insane goings-on. Here he gave away the argument as soon as he opened his mouth.
Judged by its fawning over JP while sitting on its hands the modern right is an unmitigated failure.
Exactly. JP legitimizes the leftist projection called hate speech which was then slid over the ideological transom for the ostensible right to adopt lock, stock, and barrel. It's an old but brilliant tactic, and as Rusty correctly notes, a solidly, inescapably Orwellian one at that.
There is no such thing as hate speech (unless if weaponized by an opponent) because it requires mind reading, which is to say, projection and the theft of language, hence active, conscious weaponization. Here the left, with JP as standard-bearer, is very successful selling the one-sided notion that civilized persons must be civilized for speech to survive.
Yet the left had already made the full spectrum from pathological dishonesty to outright violence its traveling companion because the fundamental tenet of leftism is tearing down civilization. Civility?
Duped codependency like this is how the right lost civilization: Too late to its own funeral, and ignorant of how it all died right to the end.
I guess I'm the odd man out since I agree with Peterson. In technology and social problems there is no such thing as a perfect solution. There are always suboptimal consequences. If you can pick the solution set that works directionally most of the time with minimal and livable down side that's the best we can do. Who decides what hate speech is, has very clear directional problems and down side. There are real examples in the UK and Canada we can see, as well as the imbalance on current social media via censorship and "thumb on the scale". Complete hands off has some imperfections that are somewhat subjective and harder to quantify but has worked directionally for 230 years in the US. It only seems to be wounded of late with attempts to restrict. Hands off is directionally the best fit answer. So by agreeing with the first guy, yes hands off has problems; Peterson takes the logically true view, invites the questioner to explore the logos of that and also takes the resistance to being heard as he argues for the better alternative: non-regulation. I'm ok with that.