Peterson holds traditionalist views on how society and relationships should work via gender, which is most famously explained by him saying men should have some standards for themselves.
Thing is, he sees $$$ in pandering to the alt right outrage hounds so he goes out of his ways to present these mostly mild views in a controversial way, acting like he's the last sane voice in a world gone mad. It's the same racket Milo Ylanghdfjikwhk went with, to a degree.
I don't know why people are getting so mad about hate speech laws being enforced. Are you some kind of fucking alt-righter?
you dont know why people are getting mad at someone who spent a couple decades railing against hate speach laws now using those same laws to stop people from daring to criticize him?
Hate speech laws are not the issue. Defamation is. It’s hate speech to say “Jews eat babies”, it’s defamation to say “I saw this particular Jewish person eat my baby”.
The alt right is literally a bunch of red pillers who saw the insanity of full blown SJWs and instead of taking a stand, said "I want in on that action".
Peterson is not using hate speach laws. It’s a defamation action. He’s not saying you can’t express opinions - he’s saying you can’t spread lies. Freedom of speach does not include, never has included and never will include, a freedom to lie.
You’re asking me? Actori incumbit probatio, dumbass. Not to mention that, if that’s the most you can come up with, you’ve basically already lost whatever argument you were trying to make.
Not surprised tho. This guy pretty much makes anyone look like an idiot.
I know the video. He never claims that those are DNA representations in the literal sense. But let me ask you this, considering that we don't really know how thoughts are formed, considering that cultures that had no contact with each other exhibit common themes (such as that serpent and his role in the creation), why do you find it unbelievable that something which exists in every single cell of our body may influence our thoughts?
Not to mention that, even if he would literally claim that the Chinese or other culture have made representations of DNA, this would not invalidate in any way all his observations about the society we live in.
I'm actually surprised he isn't this sub's favorite intellectual or something. Not only he makes fun of both right and left, he always delivers the goods in terms of drama.
I did not make stuff up and neither does JB. There's nothing wrong, scientifically, in finding interesting parallels between human thought patterns and our biology. Clearly there's a connection between the two. We have evolved from animals that could not think, so thought and consciousnesses clearly evolved from matter somehow, therefore from biology.
I'm a lawyer and my native language is a Latin one, I don't have to feel bad about being able to express, concisely, that a certain rule exists for millennia.
i look forward to the day when someone disproves him on an important topic. until then, you guys stick to your logical fallacies, I'll go clean my room.
That's what I said an important topic. I don't agree with him either on other minor things. And there's nothing wrong in admitting to be wrong, nobody's born with perfect knowledge and understanding, you acquire it. Good for him for still learning at his age and not becoming an ideologist.
/> no one can disprove him on an important topic
/> here's a video of a limpbrain changing his mind in like 30 seconds
/> nuh uh I said IMPORTANT civil rights isn't an IMPORTANT topic
did memerson teach you how to move those goalposts?
I don't think that's the case. This is the only instance of him saying something clearly wrong on a civil rights issue but it's a pretty specific one, namely gay couples having access to cake over owners having full control over their business. It doesn't make him look good and he was wrong but I don't agree you can conclude from this that he was wrong over an IMPORANT topic. Besides the dude literally changed his mind? Something literally every single person in history has done thousands of times?
Okay dude so what‘s an important topic to you? I mean how should we know what meets your criteria I’m important if all you say is that every rebuttal is unimportant.
I mean what do you need me to articulate? The idea that there is a pervasive conspiracy of Cultural Marxists infiltrating and undermining our academic institutions is fucking moronic and nonsensical.
He seems to have a positive influence on some people and gets a lot of flak he doesn't deserve but he is far from infallible and some of the shit he spouts is Yahoo Comment section tier idiocy
The idea that there is a pervasive conspiracy of Cultural Marxists infiltrating and undermining our academic institutions is fucking moronic and nonsensical.
Lol what? Where did I say I don't care about free speech?
I'm exercising my free speech right now to say that some of the things Jordan Peterson says are fucking retarded and that people who blindly hang on his every word as if it's gospel are behaving more like they're in a cult than as if they're just fans of a self-help speaker
If I respond with a direct quote of something absurd that he said, will you respond with "that's obviously out of context, please watch this hour-long YouTube video first"
What the hell is wrong with you people? More than anything, this is about teaching universities that infringing free speech for the sake of some very loud and very mentally deranged people will cost them big time.
Free speech doesn’t have to protect defamation, especially when it’s aimed at silencing you. How about we leave it to the legal system in place to decide? After all, that’s the best compromise that society has come up with so far.
wait, i thought it was only triggered sjws who screamed about being "silenced" and demanded retribution when they were criticized. isnt jp all about open debate and discussion, even for unpopular opinions? what changed?
Dude is a professor at the ducking university of Toronto and he’s shocked some of his colleagues started reeeeeeeeing in their meeting. Somebody get memerson some Red pills asap
How many brain dead’s are teaching classes. He has a ton of things he can do that is much greater, but I’ll admit a little bit of sanity being preached at that college probably isn’t terrible for the easily corrupted leaf Mind.
It had maybe 6-9 months where it was all in good fun and had a wide variety of different sorts of people there. Of course, it eventually became a commie / social justice circlejerk, as all metasubs* eventually do.
All metasubs that are not *explicitly radical centrist, anyhow.
Badecon is better than badhistory and both are only slightly better than the rest of those subs which are fucking awful. That's just my opinion feel free to disagree. Like and subscribe.
Normal people: "This guy is bland and says boring things. At least manchildren are cleaning their rooms"
SJW: "This guy is a threat to our causes."
Peterson Fans: "LOBSTERS"
More seriously, I am not sure why you are vegan, but if it's because they can suffer pain, you might be willing to eat bivalves, as they don't feel pain as far as we know.
If you disregard the fans, Memerson doesn't really say anything that unreasonable. Maybe a little questionable at times, but certainly not justifying the level of hysteria.
Just like James Damore. He outraged a lot more people than the number of people that actually read his memo.
If he wasn't a big deal no one would flip out and if no one flipped out he wouldn't be a big deal. This of course infuriates everyone and makes them flip out even more.
And here's what I find funny. He says even though more people complain about toxic masculinity and such, violence has gone down, citing an (irrelevant imo?) source about decreased property crime to make his point.
But then, where this source would actually be helpful and go against his point, he ignores it, instead saying the decrease in monogamy and relationships like that lead to frustration and violence by sexually repressed men, there should be socially enforced monogamy.
But this relies on the premise violence has increased over time, as we get less monogamous, which he has proved false, by his other point.
**(cherry picked quotes, but I'll try to keep context)
*(dependant on your own views
Honestly, I see why so many unconditionally support him.
1) The evil Jews I mean blacks I mean SJW's want to take away your rights, go back to Mao era. I don't think he is a terrible person, but actively creates divisions in society by pitting groups against each other, leading to harm to both the "corrupt trumptards" and "fake news libtards" where no knowledge from the other side is accepted, and those who fuel the fire (JP) rake in the dough.
And 2) He first establishes himself as a father figure-- do your chores, improve yourself, I believe in your potential to succeed, and so upon people criticising JP's views, even if normally they themselves disagree, they experience cognitive dissonance and then unconditionally support him.
He also makes hella money, which tells us a lot about the tribalistic nature of our society.
Not really, he critized Ryerson which is notoriously known for their far left stances. Also he orginally shot to fame for his critiques of a hughly controversal bill. His supporters are probably from a lot of people fed up with the preexisting divisions from identity potitics.
Nothing you listed really seems in line with all this drama to me. it's just shit from some random ex-college professor as opposed to any significant figure. He's like Anita Sarkesian where the detractors make him far more relevant than his fans do.
Yeah that's a good point, I replied to the other guy but it's mainly his supporters almost unconditional support of him and blatant hate of those who go against him, and his own divisiveness ("Look at these evil SJW's! They are the real eviils") that propagate the tribalism between each group (and CGP grey made a great video on that sorta stuff)
But yeah, I do agree with what you've said, excluding the part about how he is tame (although in comparison to other, more popular, more radical people, you're 100% correct)
Although I do unironically believe any law abiding citizen should have an unrestricted right to bear arms.
I was wondering, what about those with mental illnesses or, although legal, are ar risk of being radicalised/ a threat to other people?
And
That's what I meant, could have phrased it better though.
No problem, I try to talk (and debate) on a good faith basis, so if someone makes a generalisation, spelling error, etc. I just assume they meant something which supports what they said earlier (even if it means a juicy opportunity to act superior on the internet haha)
what about those with mental illnesses or, although legal, are ar risk of being radicalised/ a threat to other people?
as someone who does support some degree of gun control, i'm deeply uncomfortable with restrictions being made along these sorts of lines. what sort of mental problems should disqualify you from gun ownership? anxiety is a mental illness. should anxious people not be allowed to have guns? should you not be allowed to have a gun because you slit your wrists over a bad breakup, and now there's a suicide hold on your record? what if it happened when you were 17, 30 years ago? furthermore, do you really think it's such a good idea to legitimize law enforcement access to your mental health records? it's not like cops are known for discretion, good judgement, or respect for the rights of others.
your second category carries implications that are just as disturbing. how do you propose identifying those "at risk of being radicalized"? most radicalization happens online. should i have to submit my internet history to the state for clearance to get a gun? i've seen a few isis videos in my time, doesnt mean i want to bring the caliphate here. should i have to pass some sort of civics test to ensure i conform to their idea of a good citizen? law enforcement bodies inherently lean authoritarian, do you really want only the authoritarian-minded to have guns? gun control should be based on tangible facts with little subjective wiggle room (do you have a criminal record? do you have a restraining order against you? do you have good vision? etc), not ideologically loaded designations that give cover to massive expansions of the surveillance state.
To begin with, I would like to say the views I presented weren't my own (e.g I believe everyone over a certain age should be able to have a gun if they pass background checks which ensure they aren't likely to harm themselves or others), but stuff people say to me when I present my views (and I agree, a lot of them are very authoritarian)
gun control should be based on tangible facts with little subjective wiggle room (do you have a criminal record? do you have a restraining order against you? do you have good vision? etc), not ideologically loaded designations that give cover to massive expansions of the surveillance state.
Yeah I 100% agree with ya there, thanks for laying out your view clearly (especially the last sentence!)
I don't fully understand folks like you that read things and then immediately repackage them into something that wasn't said. Why do you do this?
Feminists support Islam due to wanting to be dominated, masculine-ly
He didn't say this. It was a weirdo hypothetical that he's prone to do, not a statement of fact or his opinion. When feminists align themselves with Islam of all religions and even start wearing the hijab as a symbol of female empoweredment (lol), then maybe a question like that is worth asking. I think it's a stretch, fwiw.
2) Is against climate change activism (from which I infer to mean he is not a believer in or is paid to not be a believer in climate change
Read the article, dummy. Context isn't your strong suit. It's pretty good, btw.
He never says this in the video. The most he commits is he says he thinks the a mark of a free society is one where the citizens have the right to bear arms. He doesn't give a line on restrictions.
Often mis-represents other's arguments (e.g. say "leftists" or feminists want equality of outcome, misrepresent bill C-something
He didn't misrepresent the bill and a lot of leftists/feminists do want this. You're blind to think otherwise.
Throws in a few "SJW trigger words" alongside weird conclusions to un-linked, albeit accurate, research of others. Recent tweet:
I don't understand what your problem is with this one. He's doing whatever he can to rebuke this "toxic masculinity" nonsense thrown around. Unless you're the type to use the term unironically.
But then, where this source would actually be helpful and go against his point, he ignores it, instead saying the decrease in monogamy and relationships like that lead to frustration and violence by sexually repressed men, there should be socially enforced monogamy. But this relies on the premise violence has increased over time, as we get less monogamous, which he has proved false, by his other point.
Christ you suck at reading. To get it out of the way, it's irrefutable that men that don't get women are frustrated (Incels) and can possibly become violent over this (especially young dudes). Crime is mostly committed by young single dudes, being married greatly reduces your chance of being involved in crime. You ding him for being cherry picking his sources, then you do the same thing except with a worse interpretation.
JBP is easily the most misunderstood person online right now because of people like you. I'm a JBP fan (now rip me up), but lately he has been losing me quite a bit. I certainly don't support is dumbass hypocritical lawsuit here. How he can possibly pursue this lawsuit after everything he's said is beyond me.
Okay, to start with I apologise if I've taken anything out of context or wrong, however I don't think saying "folk like you" fosters healthy debate
He didn't say this. It was a weirdo hypothetical that he's prone to do, not a statement of fact or his opinion. When feminists align themselves with Islam of all religions and even start wearing the hijab as a symbol of female empoweredment (lol), then maybe a question like that is worth asking. I think it's an eye roller of a question, fwiw.
I agree. I'm a feminist and a male in the UK, and I believe if Muslim wants to immigrate they must also immigrate into the culture prevalent here-- not forsaking their religion but believing in the key ideas of gender equality, age of consent, bodily autonomy.
Whilst he didn't outright say that, I did infer from his hypothetical that he does believes that they want masculine dominance, which isn't that far a stretch right?
He never says this in the video. The most he commits is he says he thinks the a mark of a free society is one where the citizens have the right to bear arms. He doesn't give a line on restrictions.
After re-watching it, keeping in mind what you've said, sheesh I rushed to a conclusion. My bad, I must be sleep deprived (funny how I'm getting less sleep after exams!) or stupid, but yeah, you're right. I will say I didn't mean to misrepresent his views in order to create controversy.
I actually agree with his views here (although I do think there should be more thorough entry checks and regular checks like yearly or something.)
He didn't misrepresent the bill and a lot of leftists/feminists do want this. You're blind to think otherwise.
About me being blind: I'm not, haha, but I know what you mean, to you it appears I am ignorant to assume the majority of people on the 'left' side of politics (I'll say 'left' in America) want equality of opportunity, however from my experience, this is true-- many just want starting equality, but sadly don't fully think through policies (affirmative action, quotas etc.) that actually reduce true diversity.
And he said one could be imprisoned for the misuse of pronouns, however not only is this false (he would at most be fined if found in violation of the code, and simply misgendering someone is less what the code is about than genocide or actual hate speech against trans people.
I don't understand what your problem is with this one. He's doing whatever he can to rebuke this "toxic masculinity" nonsense thrown around. Unless you're the type to use the term unironically.
I am that type. I would like to know why you disagree, but yes, I think parts of masculinity are toxic, and this is not a recent thing-- from the ancient greeks (https://www.reading.ac.uk/Ure/tour/citizenship/gender.php), to Elizabethian times (as exemplified in Romeo and Juliet) and, although perhaps to a lesser extent, male on male violence and the tying of sex to self worth, prevalent today.
Parts of masculinity, where men are seen as disposable, tools, stoic figures who also need to prove themselves, are toxic in my view.
This does not mean I consider masculinity toxic.
And I'm saying the decrease in property crimes does not prove his point about how "toxic masculinity" is decreasing/ not a problem-- he instead would have to state sources on domestic violence, rape, assault, etc.
Christ you suck at reading. To get it out of the way, it's irrefutable that men that don't get women are frustrated (Incels) and can possibly become violent over this (especially young dudes). Crime is mostly committed by young single dudes, being married greatly reduces your chance of being involved in crime. You ding him for being cherry picking his sources, then you do the same thing except with a worse interpretation.
Okay. For one, I would like to say just because people are frustrated and possibly violent due to not finding a partner does not justify this violence or frustration.
Have you considered that it is less that being married reduces violence, but less violent people are more likely to get married?
And IDK what you mean by
You ding him for being cherry picking his sources, then you do the same thing except with a worse interpretation.
I'm just trying to say previously he argued crime is decreasing in order to show toxic masculinity isn't a problem, and now the says it is increasing due to the sexual frustration of young men in today's society.
I think a better solution would to not tie one's self worth with success in dating/ sex, instead of socially enforcing monogamy for all, which will result in needless divisions in society.
JBP is easily the most misunderstood person online right now because of people like you.
Again, I get your frustration but c'mon, think about it. The kind of people that really want to #rek JBP don't care about what you say about them, whereas I, someone who doesn't actually want to spread lies about him, do. It's just detrimental to healthy debate.
I'm a JBP fan (now rip me up), but lately he has been losing me quite a bit. I certainly don't support his dumbass hypocritical lawsuit here. How he can possibly pursue this lawsuit after everything he's said is beyond me.
I 100%, but I ain't goin' to insult you for being a fan of his, he's spoken on a lot of stuff (imo some stuff he isn't qualified to speak upon), and so I know nothing, good or bad, about you from this fact.
If people rip on ya just for supporting him without knowing what parts you support and to what extent, that sucks dood.
And whilst legally justified (I guess? At least he thinks it is) I agree that the lawsuit is hypocritical. But again, you'll find some of his diehard fans defending him no matter what.
I think the fame is getting to his head.
Whilst I can't comment on him personally, from his views becoming more divisive and us vs them to an unnecessary use of hyperbole and exaggeration, I'm inclined to agree with you there.
And thanks for the clear & non-aggressive words, and I hope I've clarified/ fixed stuff I've oof'd up prior
I mostly agree with you, but please don't call yourself a male feminist even if you're male and angry with feminists. It's something both sides can agree on: anyone calling themselves a male feminist is probably a rapist.
I'm not? I mean no disrespect, I just mean I support equality between the sexes?
I don't always say feminist, often I just say egalitarian or pro-equality, depending on my company, but I still think the core messages of feminism are relevant today, but need to shift now to support and acknowledge the problems that men face under these systems.
It's something both sides can agree on: anyone calling themselves a male feminist is probably a rapist.
I don't know what the 2 sides are, but I'm just a 16 year old kid, not a rapist. I'm really confused why you'd assume that from me, is there connotations male feminists have that I'm not aware of?
It's a meme here, using the term "male feminist" is the same thing as using the term "rapist" in this sub because of how many male feminists have been outed as rapists recently.
Ehhh he says some very questionable shit. Toss in the goofiness about the dragon of chaos and the knights of the order of the enlightenment and I can see why he's teased so much. Though yeah I don't really wanna defend people's obsession with hating him.
Agreed on the Damore part though. That was a fairly reasonable memo
"Witches are real and they live in swamps" <-- literal actual quote from JP
I'm super out of the loop on this. I searched google for this, and it's some kind of circular meta-jerk with no primary sources. I'll assume this is from his unfinished fantasy-sci-fi epic until I can find any concrete source that says otherwise.
After skimming through this, it seems very obvious that he's trying to say that the trope of witches that live in swamps exists in some collective consciousness.
Which goes directly against your retardation about him not saying anything unreasonable.
Want me to find you his video about how the caduceus shows that ancient people knew about DNA and how it's double helix shaped?
Critics. Peterson fans are losers who are desperate for a father figure but at least they're trying to improve their lives. The anti-lobsters are your typical insufferable pathetic leftists who wet their nappies with rage at people saying things they don't like.
His critics don't spam my youtube recc's with clickbait videos with thumbnails of Peterson at his most dashing, pointing in the air like a philosopher who actually thinks up new stuff instead of rehashing literally century old bullshit.
Maybe I'm biased because of the sites I visit, but for every single retarded Peterson fan out there, I feel like there's like five crying SJWs who can't stop talking about how terrible he and his fanbase are. So I'd definitely say the """critics""" are worse. I would have forgotten the guy even exists like half a year ago if he didn't live rent free in all their heads, forcing them to keep crying about him over and over again.
Eh, both are terrible because they're obsessive to the point of being blinded by their love/rage. I bought the self-authoring course when I heard him on the H3 podcast. It absolutely did help. I like a lot of the concepts of his book I read, but it was definitely a bit 'dry'.
You can like things without being a 100% fanboy.
You can dislike things without 100% intensity.
You're allowed to point out merits of flawed people, and point out flaws of those held to exalted positions.
I've no idea what this thread is actually about, but I do know this shit goes 0 to 100 around here real quick.
Memerson fans because most people don't even know who he is, and his loyal slaves love to inflate his "no shit sherlock" talking points into some cultural revolution.
Because washing yourself daily is that profound of an idea to them.
The suit alleges professors Nathan Rambukkana and Herbert Pimlott, and Laurier Equity Office staffer Adria Joel compared Peterson to Adolf Hitler and accused him of being a “charlatan,” among other things, during a private meetin
that's his whiny bitchy little complaint
what a fucking little wuss
its really just "someone said mean things make them stop!!" horseshit
I mean, those were people meeting in their official capacity, explaining why a video of him can't be used because he is similar to Hitler. It isn't like they were sitting around having a beer, and were like "peterson is literally hitler, right guys?"
It's ironic that he is the free speech guy, suing someone over speech, but if you have someone in a position of power, using that power to paint a peer as someone on the same level as Hitler, that is damaging to that person.
They should also be fixing their own fucking countries instead of running like pussies. Fighting age men not willing to fight for their land. Pathetic. Leader ain't doin shit? Take his head. Gangs ruining your country? Form up a militia to fight the gangs. Hate those good ol country boys all you want, if some fuckbags invaded the US tomorrow, the war would be over Monday.
There weren't rednecks then, fam. I trust in our swamp rats to leave the Everglades on speedboats with all those assault weapons that were mobbed up before the ban. It'll be a good time.
It's widely agreed that hate speech isn't free speech
No shit. What does that have to do with anything? You keep bring up Canada and hate speech like the obsessed moron you are , but this is a defamation lawsuit. Defamation isn't hate speech
The suit alleges professors Nathan Rambukkana and Herbert Pimlott, and Laurier Equity Office staffer Adria Joel compared Peterson to Adolf Hitler and accused him of being a “charlatan,” among other things, during a private meetin
Yea it’s a bit justified though - you also seem mad that your daddy is having mean things said about him. Otherwise you wouldn’t be reply to every single comment against him.
Why get offended by it in the first place, if someone unironically believes that JP is literally Hitler that speaks volumes about what kind of person THEY are. Any rational person will look at that comparison and laugh at the absurdity.
Maybe people don't want a workplace flooded by insane SJWs ranting much less having them endorsed by management?
I agree but let me introduce you to the world of far left academia because it’s chocked full of people like that. I don’t understand how suing her for defamation with alter the status of her employment? In my opinion all it does is make sure that a certain segment of casual normies only know of JP based on a vague understanding of some lawsuit he launched because some Rando professor called him a Nazi.
To punish crazy people and give them consequences. There is no reason to stop it when the rewards are zero consequences and getting anyone you don't like fired.
Lol yes I do think it’s a free speech issue. Free speech isn’t the same as free from consequences from that speech tho, so I would have no problem with her employer letting her go because they’ve determined that by calling him a Nazi she is creating a hostile workplace.
I do have a huge problem with courts allowing people to sue for defamation based on another person saying something that hurts their feelings.
I am surprised that a drama mod of all ppl would be in favor of loosening the libel laws as a way to suppress speech that might hurt someone’s feelings tho.
wait, where do you think peterson works? he's a professor at u of t, not wilfred laurier, he's literally suing a random woman he doesn't know for being mean to him
Fuck, I guess I need to pay attention more. I don't follow any of this shit. I know some TA cried over some meetings or something awhile ago. This is all just Canadian nonsense to me mostly.
Haha holy shit, man the fuck up and accept that workplaces are full of shitty gossip hounds who will say terrible things behind your back, far worse than DAE LE EVIL HITLER?!? Esp in Canadian ultraliberal academia.
And in what world does Joey P. Memerton being called a Nazi hurt his career? His Patreon backers are all alt right retards who think being called a Nazi by dumbass SJWs is a sign of success.
That was not whispered among gossip hounds it was stated in the open by lunatics and the behavior was endorsed. Academia is full of bat shit people with no grip on reality and that shouldn't just be accepted.
Literally all I am saying is that people shouldn't be harassed or defamed at work. How is that GG? I tell people on here all the time to speak freely within admin rules and that insulting me is always ok.
There is a time and a place for different sets of behavior.
I don’t understand how suing her for defamation will alter the status of her employment?
I'm pretty sure the reason why you sue someone for defamation is twofold - first, to get them to retract their statement in public, secondly to discourage other people from spreading lies about you.
It's still a dumb move in this instance. It lets those academics play the martyr card, call free speech advocates hypocrites, and reinforces that calling someone a nazi isn't totally watered down yet. none of jps twelve rules for life cover how to deal with fruitcake professors calling you a nazi behind closed doors?
Hes not suing them because they said that, he’s suing them because he believes their words are both false and caused him economic damage. Thats what defamation is
But she’s some no name professor that nobody has ever heard of and all he’s doing by suing her is amplifying her ridiculous message. Any rational person will pay no mind to what some she thinks about Professor Memerson and I highly doubt it will prevent a single inclined person to decide not to buy his book or hire him to speak at their event.
Thats not how the law works, the court doesnt really care how obscure the source of the defamation is, it only cares about whether or not they are indeed liable for it
To my knowledge there are not significant differences between how Canada and the US treat defamation, if anything Canada would probably have a wider understanding of it because they do not have a first ammendment to protect people.
Yea I just checked wiki and the Canadian common law understanding of defamation is substantially wider than that of American common law:
defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.[1] The perspective measuring the esteem is highly contextual, and depends on the view of the potential audience of the communication and their degree of background knowledge. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions unless explicitly stated as such.[2] Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. Where a communication is expressing a fact, it can still be found defamatory through innuendo suggested by the juxtaposition of the text or picture next to other pictures and words.[3]
The article also quotes a 2006 commentary comparing Canadian defamation with American defamation:
For all the lofty quotes about free speech in Canadian jurisprudence, the reality is that our libel laws are the least protective of free speech in the English-speaking world.
Libel law developed in an ancient era which we would today consider backward, tyrannical and repressive. It is rooted in 16th and 17th century criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism. Cases of political libel and eventually damages actions were handled by the infamous Star Chamber until its abolition in 1641. By the end of that century, many elements of the common law of libel we would recognize today had been established. In Law of Defamation in Canada, Professor Brown notes that the common law of defamation has been described by scholars and judges as "artificial and archaic" and characterized by "absurdities", "irrationality", and "minute and barren distinctions" (pp. 1–3).
While social values and legal concepts have evolved dramatically of the past 200 years, the common law of libel in Canada remains startlingly unchanged.[10]
I should emphasize that Im not an attorney or any kind of legal expert whatsoever, certainly not in Canada, but based on my American understanding of the law I thought the case was theoretically possible but unlikely, after reading this wiki article it seems he has a case
There are massive differences between Canadian and American libel law. In Canada plaintiffs don’t have to prove falsity, malice or special damages to win a defamation suit. Canadian politicians often use libel litigation as a way to silence critics. Canada is widely considered to have the most plaintiff-friendly libel laws in the English-speaking world.
Whereas in American jurisprudence plaintiffs must prove falsity and material harm. If the plaintiff is a private citizen, he or she must prove gross neglect on the part of the defendant; If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must prove actual malice, on the part of the defendant, to win a slander or libel suit. The United States is widely considered to have the most defendant-friendly libel laws in the English-speaking world.
Yeah it's fucking stupid because nobody is on the fence about this guy anymore. And if some lefty academic calling him a nazi changed your opinion of him then you should stay safe.
Yeah... he might have a case with the Hitler thing. Considering that it was during a formal board meeting.
accused him of being a “charlatan,” among other things,
Not for this part tho. But since it's Memerson vs Ryerson, I honestly don't know who I want to win. Probably Memerson cause Ryerson will literally lose their shit and create more amusing drama.
Not too familiar with this lawsuit, on the face of it yeah seems pretty ironic. Even if he has a case, he's doing a lot to hurt any credibility you could say he has with this given the optics IMO.
But as u/ModeratorAbuseSucks says defamation is a bit different from offending someone.
Defamation is more saying something really grossly negative about someone without any rational basis.
If I was to say that "/u/spez raped and killed a young girl in 1990" that would be defamation because there is no reasonable basis to make such a claim and it is purely based on an old internet meme (don't sue me bro)
But if was to say: "/u/spez is a censor-happy cannibal who's so greedy that selling out reddit once wasn't enough" that would not amount to defamation even though it's quite negative because there is is a clear factual basis for every part of that claim.
There's more to it to that and I'm not a lawyer but that's the gist of defamation.
These links suck and I can't find who said what about who but im gonna guess someone called JP a nazi or racist, and there's really not any rational basis for those claims.
I originally misread this and thought we were talking about the American Renaissance lawsuit with an actual white supremacist:
This is a very nuanced take and I tend to agree with you. I do think Canada’s defamation laws are too broad and having the effect of chilling free speech.
Plaintiffs don’t have to prove falsity, malice or special damages to win a defamation suit. Canadian politicians often use libel litigation as a way to silence critics. Canada is widely considered to have the most plaintiff-friendly libel laws in the English-speaking world.
Whereas in American jurisprudence plaintiffs must prove falsity and material harm. If the plaintiff is a private citizen, he or she must prove gross neglect on the part of the defendant; If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must prove actual malice, on the part of the defendant, to win a slander or libel suit. The United States is widely considered to have the most defendant-friendly libel laws in the English-speaking world.
Isn't this suit in response to those professors telling that TA that playing Peterson is like playing speeches from hitler, and that is why she shouldn't have played the video? In that regard, it isn't like they made some offhand remark about peterson being hitler, they were trying to have material with him in it suppressed because it's akin to playing hitler speeches. That does seem like something that would be damaging.
I don’t know enough about the specifics of the case to comment on your description of its merits but taken at face value that would mean that maybe 4 people at most were convinced not to give his material a platform? He’s a best selling author with a professorship and receiving 90k a month just in Patreon donations. It seems like this is a ridiculous thing to want to litigate and imo makes him look like a fragile bitch.
Eh. He's an academic too and I think he's most rankled that another academic cant use his stuff in their lectures without getting threatened with disciplinary actions or fired.
That's precisely it. Memerson seems to take himself seriously as an academic, and currently anybody that's not in lockstep with the rest of social science and doesn't already have tenure is being shown the door, especially at the graduate level.
Also see Alice Draeger, etc.
This is more of an example, but admittedly stupid one.
Lobsters and humans share a very distant ancestor.
Lobsters have social hierarchies, just like humans.
A lobster's brain releases serotonin (feel good hormone) when they achieve a higher position. Humans have the same mechanism in them.
Peterson says lobsters could be useful for understanding how/why humans want to climb status hierarchies.
I personally think the lobster thing is a bit of a stretch, but think it's interesting they have a serotonin based system of self improvement(something that is very human like that most animals don't have). I was just answering the question someone asked.
what does Peterson say about how preying mantises could be useful for understanding how/why humans want to climb status hierarchies?
He'd probably think you're retarded because praying mantises and humans don't share a common ancestor the way lobsters and humans do.
Yeah, but every animal shares common ancestors and the lobster human one is way, way, way back there. Lobsters don't even have a proper brain just ganglia and shit.
It being way back there is kind of the point as it proves that heirarchies are not inherrantly social constructs but rather are hardwired into our brains. Either way, because human neuroscience and lobster neuroscience have significant overlap they can be studied to understand each other, in the same way that the physiology of rats can be helpful in understanding the physiology of humans. True all animals share anscestors but very few share characteristics to this day which are asserted to be socially constructed
Is it still neuroscience if lobsters don't have actual brains?
True all animals share anscestors but very few share characteristics to this day which are asserted to be socially constructed
If these animals also share a common ancestor why aren't they evidence that this hierarchical behavior isn't inherent? To be clear, I'm not arguing that it isn't, I'm saying lobster based evidence is very, very weak.
Is it still neuroscience if lobsters don't have actual brains?
Yes. Because neuroscience isnt the study of the brain, its the study of the nervous system.
If these animals also share a common ancestor why aren't they evidence that this behavior isn't inherent in humans? To be clear, I'm not arguing that it isn't, I'm saying lobster based evidence is very, very weak.
Im not an evolutionary biologist, nor have I studied his claims on the subject in depth so take this with a grain of salt, but to my knowledge the lobster isnt the only animal with heirarchies that shares a common anscestor with humans - monkeys, apes, cats, dogs, rate, etc all have heirarchies, but the lobster is the most different animal that shares this similarity, which is meant to illustrate how ingrained it really is and how a species with heirarchies has an evolutionary advantage
The point is that if you see lobsters having a hierarchy and then humans having a hierarchy, then "humans do it because of The Patriarchy" should probably not be your null hypothesis.
This is known to occur only when the mantis is severely malnourished. The researchers who believed this was a common behavior didn't know how to keep their bugs fed.
And humans have been known to resort to cannibalism in some instances when starved.
That is the most retarded fucking thing I've heard in this thread.
Lobsters and humans share a common ancestor because all life on Earth does to varying degrees. Yet there are animals way closer to us genetically that could provide answers than settling on a trash-tier crustacean that's fed to fatties who think they're gourmet food.
What CuriousKrow said except he isn't saying we should learn from lobsters. He is saying hierarchies are so deeply embedded in our brain that we share the wiring used in understanding our place in the hierarchy with lobsters who we separated from several hundred million years ago.
Given that it is so deep in our brain trying to blame capitalism for hierarchies like leftists do is idiotic. We aren't getting rid of hierarchies no matter what system we live under.
There is, defamation requires the statement to be false and for them to have caused economic damage. I.e. if you ran a store and I told people that youre a pedophile and people stopped going to your store because of that that would be defamation.
Hate speech (in canada at least) is defined as the advocacy of genocide, but the Canadian Human Rights comission can also bring you in front of them for alleged discrimination based on a laundry list of criteria.
I mean, how can anyone argue that someone acting in their official capacity, is a nazi, and that is why their material shouldn't be used, isn't defaming that person?
A lot of hardliners are going to try and twist textbook professional defamation into him being personally 'butthurt' about being called names.
He's suing a school that used the justification that he's transphobic and therefore as bad as Hitler (literally the school boards words) and can't have his materials shown to students who may become offended or victimized by his speech.
He's not suing a person who called him a name for calling him a name. This is important to keep clear. He is suing because the faculty in charge is trying to use a false narrative to push him out of academia, which is his profession. If they could prove their statements are not false in court, he won't win.
Defamation is notoriously hard to prove, so he likely believes he's a solid chance of winning this case, and likely spoke with a lawyer about it before going public. Its hard to prove because you have to prove that the opinion wasn't genuine, but malicious. He's stating that their public opinion of him is fabricated to harm him fornother actions.
If you are reading this and still don't get it, I want you to imagine I walked into your place of work, went to your boss and told him you're a pedo-rapist and can't believe he hired you. Or that you do sales work and some guy follow you around shouting over your sales pitch that you're a liar and thief and con artist.
You might find it very hard to get work done. You may even wonder why someone can state complete lies about you and ruin your reputation for no good reason. Well the good news is they can't, as it's defamation.
TLDR - defamation requires the guilty party knowingly fabricate or exaggerate a claim in such a way as to cause harm to your reputation and cause damages to your livelihood as a result. It is not being called some bad names by someone. Pretending that it's the latter to insult and dismiss Peterson is dishonest and ignorant.
I like 99% agree with you. There is the rare occasion where a comparison to Hitler is warranted, but this was not one of them. Some of what the WLU faculty said in that meeting was pretty dumb, especially the Hitler thing. The same point could've been made in a better fashion.
But that doesn't warrant targeting WLU with a frivolous lawsuit.
Last I checked JP makes 1.2 million a year. The point isn't that he is going to win a lawsuit. The point is that the college is going to have to defend it.
363 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-06-22
Gay porn is a genre that cuts across all demographics and the stigma that you have to be gay to enjoy it needs to come to an end right now.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 random_bullshit_blah 2018-06-22
I bet Jordan beats off furiously to gay hentai furry porn
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-06-22
That's actually his most humanizing factor tbqh
1 random_bullshit_blah 2018-06-22
lol
1 Plexipus 2018-06-22
I found JP's porn folder
1 random_bullshit_blah 2018-06-22
I feel soooooooo bad about this rough alpha male who champions free speech!
poor little guy! People said mean things!!!
I hnope he gets his money cuz those patreon checks can only cover so much
1 Bluest_waters 2018-06-22
dude makes like 90k a month on patreon
wtf?
for what? fucking snow flake now wants people to stop saying mean things?
fuck this asshole
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
This doesn't make any sense in this context.
It's Canada.
I don't know why people are getting so mad about hate speech laws being enforced. Are you some kind of fucking alt-righter?
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-22
no, it makes sense
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
Not really. It reeks of some triggered leftist hearing some right wing buzzword and clumsily attempting to turn it around.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-22
i'm sorry, i genuinely thought jordan peterson was a leftist
isn't he? he just also hates women?
1 [deleted] 2018-06-22
[removed]
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-22
also that
1 Zizac 2018-06-22
he wants to forcefully redistribute the means of reproduction... so that kinda qualifies
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-06-22
Peterson holds traditionalist views on how society and relationships should work via gender, which is most famously explained by him saying men should have some standards for themselves.
Thing is, he sees $$$ in pandering to the alt right outrage hounds so he goes out of his ways to present these mostly mild views in a controversial way, acting like he's the last sane voice in a world gone mad. It's the same racket Milo Ylanghdfjikwhk went with, to a degree.
1 cmakk1012 2018-06-22
go clean your room
1 PM_ME_UR_SUSPICIONS 2018-06-22
Lol, buzzword nazi
1 pvijay187 2018-06-22
Did your unironically use the word trigger? Please buy a gun and trigger yourself
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
Lefty gets mad over buzzword used in the general direction of his political sports team.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-22
Didn't you just get all all bent out of shape that Dr Freespeech got called a snowflake because he is suing people for saying mean shit about him?
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
Nope.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-22
Pls no sue for defamation
1 Manannin 2018-06-22
He’s offended by what someone said about him and his views so he’s suing them, very snowflakey.
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
You mean someone defamed him and now he's taking advantage of Canadian law. Welcome to Canada.
1 xcallmesunshine 2018-06-22
Still doesn’t change the fact that he’s a hypocritical twat lol
1 ineedmorealts 2018-06-22
No. He was not defamed in any sense of the world
You realize America has deflation laws as well right?
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
According to Canadian law he was.
Nobody gives a shit about your weird third world burger country.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-06-22
No because this was clearly someone stating their opinion
1 xcallmesunshine 2018-06-22
Triggered leftist is so 2016, get with the times old man
1 Bluest_waters 2018-06-22
you dont know why people are getting mad at someone who spent a couple decades railing against hate speach laws now using those same laws to stop people from daring to criticize him?
you cant understand that?
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
It's almost as if people you don't like can use the same laws you're advocating for. Welcome to Canada, bitch.
1 Bluest_waters 2018-06-22
its almost as if JP is a big fat hypocrite and his cultists followers wont admit it
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
Cool. Hate speech still isn't free speech, sweety. Welcome to Canada, enjoy your stay.
1 xcallmesunshine 2018-06-22
Wow this has come around at a full 180 huh - JP fans are using ‘leftist’ talking points verbatim.
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
I'm not a Kermit fan, I just think you're a bunch of fucking retards getting bent out of shape just like SJWs are.
Don't break Canadian law and you won't get a mountie fist up your ass.
1 xcallmesunshine 2018-06-22
Eh I have no horse in this race, both sides are being stupid/reactionary and he’s overrated.
1 wont_be_silent 2018-06-22
Hate speech laws are not the issue. Defamation is. It’s hate speech to say “Jews eat babies”, it’s defamation to say “I saw this particular Jewish person eat my baby”.
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-22
lolo that you expect people to believe this
1 better_bot 2018-06-22
We're in the middle of the second Civil War, but thankfully it's just each side trying to out-retard each other.
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-06-22
The alt right is literally a bunch of red pillers who saw the insanity of full blown SJWs and instead of taking a stand, said "I want in on that action".
And praise to Allah that they did!
1 xcallmesunshine 2018-06-22
Pretty accurate. This sub is cancer but at least its self aware compared to both the left and right.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-06-22
Have you ever even been to Canada? Or read a book about it?
1 wont_be_silent 2018-06-22
Peterson is not using hate speach laws. It’s a defamation action. He’s not saying you can’t express opinions - he’s saying you can’t spread lies. Freedom of speach does not include, never has included and never will include, a freedom to lie.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-22
>lawsuit because someone called him mean names.
>not a snowflake.
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
If you don't want a mountie fist up your ass, obey the law, fag.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-22
Lol imagine being such a fag that you sue for some retard on Twitter calling you names.
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
Careful with that hate speech. Hate speech isn't free speech.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-06-22
Oh my fucking god under Canada law that wouldn't be hate speech you hair brained septic
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-22
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
tfw you're so mad over Dr. Kermit you downvote someone's fantasy.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-22
1 ineedmorealts 2018-06-22
Lol this has 0 to do with hate speech retarded. Hate speech wouldn't be brought to a judge for in a civil case, it would be brought to the HRT
1 VioletBroregarde 2018-06-22
Not hate speech laws, defamation laws.
1 NomDuGloom 2018-06-22
Don't hate her because she's just the latest to find a way to tap into that gold mine
1 Flyllow 2018-06-22
Jesus christ, last I saw it was 40k. I need to start telling fatherless losers to clean their rooms too I guess.
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-06-22
If he showed his butthole in a Pikachu cosplay he could double that.
1 LightUmbra 2018-06-22
You sound mad.
1 Chukril 2018-06-22
Im going to wake up every morning and thank my lucky stars that I don’t see your dumb fucking mug staring back to me in the mirror.
1 Bluest_waters 2018-06-22
uh oh
someone got triggered!
lol
1 d-amazo 2018-06-22
yeah
and it is definitely OP
1 hlary 2018-06-22
1 d-amazo 2018-06-22
yeah, he is. and?
1 hlary 2018-06-22
You are pot and he is kettle
1 d-amazo 2018-06-22
lol ok bub
1 headasplodes 2018-06-22
Shut the fuck up ed.
1 hlary 2018-06-22
Fuck off faggot I been shilling for far longer then ed
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-22
What is it with the obsession with baby talk?
1 WhatsupDoc001 2018-06-22
It's not an obsession, it's how toddlers (both mental and literal) like him usually talk.
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
He's a leftist.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-06-22
Lol no one on any side of this debate is close at all to an alpha male
1 VidiotGamer 2018-06-22
translation, kermit memerson is gross and icky and makes my tummy wummy hurt".
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-06-22
15 minutes must be up.
1 Bluest_waters 2018-06-22
nah, all the trumptards fucking LOVE JP.
As long as trump-orrhea continues to infect the culture JP will somehow be relevant
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
Uhm, yea sure. Let me know when you actually have an argument against something JP said instead of a pathetic attempt at an ad hominem.
1 neutralvoter 2018-06-22
didn't he say that ancient egyptians knew the structure of DNA?
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
You’re asking me? Actori incumbit probatio, dumbass. Not to mention that, if that’s the most you can come up with, you’ve basically already lost whatever argument you were trying to make.
Not surprised tho. This guy pretty much makes anyone look like an idiot.
1 neutralvoter 2018-06-22
that was something he said, no? you asked for an argument against something he said and i gave you one. yumad
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
I am not aware he said that. If you are, prove it. That’s what that means. The burden of proof is with the one making the allegation.
1 neutralvoter 2018-06-22
well now you are aware. you're welcome. If I am what? making an argument? Okay, I am making an argument. There, proof. Ad hamalongadingdon.
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
You may not belong to T_D in terms of political orientation but you’re right there in terms of intelligence.
1 Madaruto 2018-06-22
this one I think but i don't care enough to actually watch the video
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
I know the video. He never claims that those are DNA representations in the literal sense. But let me ask you this, considering that we don't really know how thoughts are formed, considering that cultures that had no contact with each other exhibit common themes (such as that serpent and his role in the creation), why do you find it unbelievable that something which exists in every single cell of our body may influence our thoughts?
Not to mention that, even if he would literally claim that the Chinese or other culture have made representations of DNA, this would not invalidate in any way all his observations about the society we live in.
I'm actually surprised he isn't this sub's favorite intellectual or something. Not only he makes fun of both right and left, he always delivers the goods in terms of drama.
1 Madaruto 2018-06-22
I really don't care about your pseudoscience. Please preach elsewhere.
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
There is nothing pseudo-scientific about saying we do not really know how thoughts are formed.
1 Madaruto 2018-06-22
there's a lot wrong with saying we don't know how they're formed so let's make stuff up. I really shouldn't need to tell you that.
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
I did not make stuff up and neither does JB. There's nothing wrong, scientifically, in finding interesting parallels between human thought patterns and our biology. Clearly there's a connection between the two. We have evolved from animals that could not think, so thought and consciousnesses clearly evolved from matter somehow, therefore from biology.
1 Ylajali_2002 2018-06-22
why are all you memerson fanboys like this? why can't you just be normal?
1 rudest 2018-06-22
autistic screeching
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
I'm a lawyer and my native language is a Latin one, I don't have to feel bad about being able to express, concisely, that a certain rule exists for millennia.
1 Going_up_the_Country 2018-06-22
Haha, shit lawyers use Latin. Let me guess, your sign your demand letters with "Govern yourself accordingly,
Douchebag, Esq."
?
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
that's pretty funny, actually. i'll use it
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-22
are you Seb Gorka's bastard love child or something, you type like you speak in a mid-atlantic accent lmao
1 Matues49 2018-06-22
u/ComedicSans, is this really one of your lot?
1 ComedicSans 2018-06-22
No self-respecting lawyer would fellate Memerson. He's probably something gay like a tax attorney or conveyancer.
1 Illyana_Rasputin 2018-06-22
Looks like he's a gypsy, guess that rules out estate planning or corporate law.
1 ComedicSans 2018-06-22
A gypsy? He's probably a lowly criminal lawyer who gets all his business from friends and family, Lmao.
1 corelejos 2018-06-22
Yeah why can’t you just be rude and insulting like my friends here
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-22
it's funny because it's true, but not in the way you think.
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
i look forward to the day when someone disproves him on an important topic. until then, you guys stick to your logical fallacies, I'll go clean my room.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-22
https://youtu.be/iabPbcy2Mlc?t=56
watch kermit fold up and throw his own idea right down the drain the second a wanker comedian presents him with literally ONE opposing viewpoint lmao
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
That's what I said an important topic. I don't agree with him either on other minor things. And there's nothing wrong in admitting to be wrong, nobody's born with perfect knowledge and understanding, you acquire it. Good for him for still learning at his age and not becoming an ideologist.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-22
/> no one can disprove him on an important topic /> here's a video of a limpbrain changing his mind in like 30 seconds /> nuh uh I said IMPORTANT civil rights isn't an IMPORTANT topic
did memerson teach you how to move those goalposts?
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
I don't think that's the case. This is the only instance of him saying something clearly wrong on a civil rights issue but it's a pretty specific one, namely gay couples having access to cake over owners having full control over their business. It doesn't make him look good and he was wrong but I don't agree you can conclude from this that he was wrong over an IMPORANT topic. Besides the dude literally changed his mind? Something literally every single person in history has done thousands of times?
1 SgtBaum 2018-06-22
Okay dude so what‘s an important topic to you? I mean how should we know what meets your criteria I’m important if all you say is that every rebuttal is unimportant.
1 ay_what_up2 2018-06-22
Check out his AMA. Tons of arguments he was never able to respond to
1 imnotagayboy 2018-06-22
Wow is that latin? You must be really smart!
1 Tagesausbruch 2018-06-22
Serpent imagery is unimaginably deep
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
Miss me with that reasoning. How could you possibly think that something that exists in every single cell of our bodies could influence our thoughts.
1 Plexipus 2018-06-22
Cultural Marxism
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
...go on, you can do it, you're only a few words short of a sentence.
1 Plexipus 2018-06-22
I didn't really think anything more needed to be said on the subject
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
You could have stopped there, the meaning of the sentence stays exactly the same, trust me.
1 Plexipus 2018-06-22
I mean what do you need me to articulate? The idea that there is a pervasive conspiracy of Cultural Marxists infiltrating and undermining our academic institutions is fucking moronic and nonsensical.
He seems to have a positive influence on some people and gets a lot of flak he doesn't deserve but he is far from infallible and some of the shit he spouts is Yahoo Comment section tier idiocy
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
Did you really mean that? Like, unironically?
1 Plexipus 2018-06-22
A shadowy cabal is not behind whiny Twitter posts about privilege
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
Yea but this isn't about a cabal, necessarily, it's not shadowy and it's not happening on Twitter only either. Why don't you care about free speech?
1 Plexipus 2018-06-22
Lol what? Where did I say I don't care about free speech?
I'm exercising my free speech right now to say that some of the things Jordan Peterson says are fucking retarded and that people who blindly hang on his every word as if it's gospel are behaving more like they're in a cult than as if they're just fans of a self-help speaker
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-22
GOTTEEEM
1 pepperouchau 2018-06-22
If I respond with a direct quote of something absurd that he said, will you respond with "that's obviously out of context, please watch this hour-long YouTube video first"
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
In this case, props to you for not responding with a direct quote taken out of context.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-22
https://funnyjunk.com/channel/politics/Jordan+b+peterson+quotes/fbgvLso/
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
Those are lies. Did you even read them?
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-22
dude they're right on his face, he said that shit
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
it's a good test tho. replying that link.
1 SgtBaum 2018-06-22
Here you go mate. https://mobile.twitter.com/jbporcleric?lang=en
1 imnotagayboy 2018-06-22
He sounds like kermit the frog and looks retarded
1 rudest 2018-06-22
Amazon recommended the JP book to me the other day and that made me seriously reconsider my life choices.
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-22
Jordan is paying them to do that.
1 rudest 2018-06-22
Little did they know I had cleaned my room already.
1 razzmataz 2018-06-22
You really should be careful when you play with matches.
1 Jimbo_B_Beterson 2018-06-22
It was a long 15 minutes
1 CommonWrongdoer 2018-06-22
That patreon money should have been enough. I don't know why he's grasping for more
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
What the hell is wrong with you people? More than anything, this is about teaching universities that infringing free speech for the sake of some very loud and very mentally deranged people will cost them big time.
Do causes get more centrist than that?
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-22
1 UniverseInH 2018-06-22
Free speech doesn’t have to protect defamation, especially when it’s aimed at silencing you. How about we leave it to the legal system in place to decide? After all, that’s the best compromise that society has come up with so far.
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-22
wait, i thought it was only triggered sjws who screamed about being "silenced" and demanded retribution when they were criticized. isnt jp all about open debate and discussion, even for unpopular opinions? what changed?
1 Bluest_waters 2018-06-22
JP got his fee fee's hurt and now wants to silence the naughty bullies who invaded his safe space
stop being mean to him!
1 random_modnar_5 2018-06-22
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-22
He's apparently because someone called a Nazi on Twitter.
1 Kat_B0T 2018-06-22
Dude is a professor at the ducking university of Toronto and he’s shocked some of his colleagues started reeeeeeeeing in their meeting. Somebody get memerson some Red pills asap
1 nanonan 2018-06-22
Yeah I guess he should just bend over and take it instead of standing up to their ridiculousness.
1 Kat_B0T 2018-06-22
He should get a new job, universities have been a lost cause for many decades.
1 nanonan 2018-06-22
Bestselling authour perhaps? It's probably more that he likes the job, and is bloody good at it besides.
1 Kat_B0T 2018-06-22
How many brain dead’s are teaching classes. He has a ton of things he can do that is much greater, but I’ll admit a little bit of sanity being preached at that college probably isn’t terrible for the easily corrupted leaf Mind.
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-22
you'd be surprised. You spelled "bat-shit crazy" wrong
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-22
you spelled "shitty" wrong. Also: some foreign words. This is "murica. Screech english, not that faggy brit talk.
1 Kat_B0T 2018-06-22
Back to r/politics with your reeeeeeing
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-22
Since you dropped out, anyway. LOL
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-22
I mean, dude gets 90k a month for making some retarded videos.
1 nanonan 2018-06-22
So what?
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-22
I guess he should find someone to explain to his sorry ass that Duh freeze Peaches works both ways.
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2018-06-22
Maybe that was his plan all along - get them to reeeeeeeee, sue, cash out and retire in the Caribbean!
1 Kat_B0T 2018-06-22
True, fucking slick ass memerson
1 tfdidido 2018-06-22
after 90k per month i dont think he cares that much
1 ChaddingTater 2018-06-22
Anyone who posts on any of the counter subs is a massive cum swilling faggot
1 Neronoah 2018-06-22
Included /r/drama
1 do0rkn0b 2018-06-22
Especially drama.
1 Going_up_the_Country 2018-06-22
And especially faggots.
1 Osterion 2018-06-22
Badhistory was good at first :(
1 ChaddingTater 2018-06-22
I very much doubt that
1 Osterion 2018-06-22
It was a welcome change from the wehraboo spam at the time.
1 IllustriousQuail 2018-06-22
It had maybe 6-9 months where it was all in good fun and had a wide variety of different sorts of people there. Of course, it eventually became a commie / social justice circlejerk, as all metasubs* eventually do.
All metasubs that are not *explicitly radical centrist, anyhow.
1 captainpriapism 2018-06-22
nah its literally always just been nerds unable to argue their positions and getting real catty about it
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-22
nerds unable to argue their positions just downvote and move on. /r/politics is full of 'em.
1 captainpriapism 2018-06-22
theres a big subset of them that just cant let it go
theyre the same people who post in circlebroke or negareddit
like the thought that someone said a thing is infuriating to them, its not good enough to ignore it in their eyes
1 ghostchamber 2018-06-22
You probably just liked it more before the bullshit started to sink in.
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-06-22
They always manage to be more retarded and more of a circlejerk than anything they were created to make fun of.
1 WarwiththeEskimos 2018-06-22
cb2 is the worst with this shit
1 cheers_grills 2018-06-22
Ain't that the point?
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-06-22
It's supposed to be ironic but it never is
1 cheers_grills 2018-06-22
Wait, are you telling me Reddit is actually full of retards and they aren't pretending?
...
...Huh, guess that makes sense when you think about it.
/r/politics and /r/pyongyang aren't ironic either?
1 tfdidido 2018-06-22
badecon is good
1 DinosSuck 2018-06-22
Badecon is better than badhistory and both are only slightly better than the rest of those subs which are fucking awful. That's just my opinion feel free to disagree. Like and subscribe.
1 saddertadder 2018-06-22
WASSUP DRAMA ALI G HERE
(BAM BAMNAM BAM BAM BOOM)
FUCKING SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON AND RING THAT BELL!!! THANKS BROS!
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-06-22
Whose worse memerson fans or critics. Tbh that girl who those soyfessors were grilling should be the one suing
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-22
fans
1 Prysorra 2018-06-22
Normal people: "This guy is bland and says boring things. At least manchildren are cleaning their rooms"
SJW: "This guy is a threat to our causes."
Peterson Fans: "LOBSTERS"
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-22
I have been honestly craving shellfish lately and I wondered where that came from (I'm vegan...heh...heh).
...I think it's actually all the lobster chat
1 Clark_Savage_Jr 2018-06-22
Lobster isn't that great.
It's all about the crab legs and clarified butter.
1 error404brain 2018-06-22
Lobster is bwof. Crab and crayfish are much better.
And nothing can beat shrimps or scampis.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-22
i feel like you guys are torturing me with your selfish flesh-eating ways
1 error404brain 2018-06-22
Join us. Partake in the flesh !
More seriously, I am not sure why you are vegan, but if it's because they can suffer pain, you might be willing to eat bivalves, as they don't feel pain as far as we know.
https://sentientist.org/2013/05/20/the-ethical-case-for-eating-oysters-and-mussels/
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-22
it's entirely for health reasons
1 error404brain 2018-06-22
Aww, shucks. :(
1 Matues49 2018-06-22
Why would that not be vegan? Those things don't even have a mind or a proper nervous system.
1 mcslibbin 2018-06-22
kingdom animalia, dude
i don't eat snails or sea urchins, either
1 recursive 2018-06-22
If you disregard the fans, Memerson doesn't really say anything that unreasonable. Maybe a little questionable at times, but certainly not justifying the level of hysteria.
Just like James Damore. He outraged a lot more people than the number of people that actually read his memo.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-22
If he wasn't a big deal no one would flip out and if no one flipped out he wouldn't be a big deal. This of course infuriates everyone and makes them flip out even more.
1 FlawlessCup 2018-06-22
Whilst I agree, some of what he says** can be a bit* unreasonable:
1) Feminists support Islam due to wanting to be dominated, masculine-ly https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUf3aXtW4As9ArR.jpg:large
2) Is against climate change activism (from which I infer to mean he is not a believer in or is paid to not be a believer in climate change https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1007846661509566464?lang=en
3) Believes in (effectively) unrestricted rights to bear arms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJL5xZpDdsI (Clickbait title, sorry, couldn't find other link)
4) Often mis-represents other's arguments (e.g. say "leftists" or feminists want equality of outcome, misrepresent bill C-something
5) Throws in a few "SJW trigger words" alongside weird conclusions to un-linked, albeit accurate, research of others. Recent tweet: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1009150595113078786
And here's what I find funny. He says even though more people complain about toxic masculinity and such, violence has gone down, citing an (irrelevant imo?) source about decreased property crime to make his point.
But then, where this source would actually be helpful and go against his point, he ignores it, instead saying the decrease in monogamy and relationships like that lead to frustration and violence by sexually repressed men, there should be socially enforced monogamy. But this relies on the premise violence has increased over time, as we get less monogamous, which he has proved false, by his other point.
**(cherry picked quotes, but I'll try to keep context) *(dependant on your own views
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-22
This guy's a master. Imagine finding a way to make millions off of trolling sjws and telling neckbeards to clean their rooms.
1 FlawlessCup 2018-06-22
Honestly, I see why so many unconditionally support him.
1) The evil Jews I mean blacks I mean SJW's want to take away your rights, go back to Mao era. I don't think he is a terrible person, but actively creates divisions in society by pitting groups against each other, leading to harm to both the "corrupt trumptards" and "fake news libtards" where no knowledge from the other side is accepted, and those who fuel the fire (JP) rake in the dough.
And 2) He first establishes himself as a father figure-- do your chores, improve yourself, I believe in your potential to succeed, and so upon people criticising JP's views, even if normally they themselves disagree, they experience cognitive dissonance and then unconditionally support him.
He also makes hella money, which tells us a lot about the tribalistic nature of our society.
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-22
Not really, he critized Ryerson which is notoriously known for their far left stances. Also he orginally shot to fame for his critiques of a hughly controversal bill. His supporters are probably from a lot of people fed up with the preexisting divisions from identity potitics.
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-06-22
Nothing you listed really seems in line with all this drama to me. it's just shit from some random ex-college professor as opposed to any significant figure. He's like Anita Sarkesian where the detractors make him far more relevant than his fans do.
1 FlawlessCup 2018-06-22
Yeah that's a good point, I replied to the other guy but it's mainly his supporters almost unconditional support of him and blatant hate of those who go against him, and his own divisiveness ("Look at these evil SJW's! They are the real eviils") that propagate the tribalism between each group (and CGP grey made a great video on that sorta stuff)
But yeah, I do agree with what you've said, excluding the part about how he is tame (although in comparison to other, more popular, more radical people, you're 100% correct)
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-06-22
That's what I meant, could have phrased it better though.
Although I do unironically believe any law abiding citizen should have an unrestricted right to bear arms.
1 FlawlessCup 2018-06-22
I was wondering, what about those with mental illnesses or, although legal, are ar risk of being radicalised/ a threat to other people?
And
No problem, I try to talk (and debate) on a good faith basis, so if someone makes a generalisation, spelling error, etc. I just assume they meant something which supports what they said earlier (even if it means a juicy opportunity to act superior on the internet haha)
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-22
as someone who does support some degree of gun control, i'm deeply uncomfortable with restrictions being made along these sorts of lines. what sort of mental problems should disqualify you from gun ownership? anxiety is a mental illness. should anxious people not be allowed to have guns? should you not be allowed to have a gun because you slit your wrists over a bad breakup, and now there's a suicide hold on your record? what if it happened when you were 17, 30 years ago? furthermore, do you really think it's such a good idea to legitimize law enforcement access to your mental health records? it's not like cops are known for discretion, good judgement, or respect for the rights of others.
your second category carries implications that are just as disturbing. how do you propose identifying those "at risk of being radicalized"? most radicalization happens online. should i have to submit my internet history to the state for clearance to get a gun? i've seen a few isis videos in my time, doesnt mean i want to bring the caliphate here. should i have to pass some sort of civics test to ensure i conform to their idea of a good citizen? law enforcement bodies inherently lean authoritarian, do you really want only the authoritarian-minded to have guns? gun control should be based on tangible facts with little subjective wiggle room (do you have a criminal record? do you have a restraining order against you? do you have good vision? etc), not ideologically loaded designations that give cover to massive expansions of the surveillance state.
1 FlawlessCup 2018-06-22
To begin with, I would like to say the views I presented weren't my own (e.g I believe everyone over a certain age should be able to have a gun if they pass background checks which ensure they aren't likely to harm themselves or others), but stuff people say to me when I present my views (and I agree, a lot of them are very authoritarian)
Yeah I 100% agree with ya there, thanks for laying out your view clearly (especially the last sentence!)
1 Ed_Gein_AvocadoToast 2018-06-22
How else do you expect to start the mayocide?
1 shallowm 2018-06-22
this is some top-tier shit-stirring
1 ChocolateMorsels 2018-06-22
I don't fully understand folks like you that read things and then immediately repackage them into something that wasn't said. Why do you do this?
He didn't say this. It was a weirdo hypothetical that he's prone to do, not a statement of fact or his opinion. When feminists align themselves with Islam of all religions and even start wearing the hijab as a symbol of female empoweredment (lol), then maybe a question like that is worth asking. I think it's a stretch, fwiw.
Read the article, dummy. Context isn't your strong suit. It's pretty good, btw.
He never says this in the video. The most he commits is he says he thinks the a mark of a free society is one where the citizens have the right to bear arms. He doesn't give a line on restrictions.
He didn't misrepresent the bill and a lot of leftists/feminists do want this. You're blind to think otherwise.
I don't understand what your problem is with this one. He's doing whatever he can to rebuke this "toxic masculinity" nonsense thrown around. Unless you're the type to use the term unironically.
Christ you suck at reading. To get it out of the way, it's irrefutable that men that don't get women are frustrated (Incels) and can possibly become violent over this (especially young dudes). Crime is mostly committed by young single dudes, being married greatly reduces your chance of being involved in crime. You ding him for being cherry picking his sources, then you do the same thing except with a worse interpretation.
JBP is easily the most misunderstood person online right now because of people like you. I'm a JBP fan (now rip me up), but lately he has been losing me quite a bit. I certainly don't support is dumbass hypocritical lawsuit here. How he can possibly pursue this lawsuit after everything he's said is beyond me.
I think the fame is getting to his head.
1 FlawlessCup 2018-06-22
Okay, to start with I apologise if I've taken anything out of context or wrong, however I don't think saying "folk like you" fosters healthy debate
I agree. I'm a feminist and a male in the UK, and I believe if Muslim wants to immigrate they must also immigrate into the culture prevalent here-- not forsaking their religion but believing in the key ideas of gender equality, age of consent, bodily autonomy. Whilst he didn't outright say that, I did infer from his hypothetical that he does believes that they want masculine dominance, which isn't that far a stretch right?
After re-watching it, keeping in mind what you've said, sheesh I rushed to a conclusion. My bad, I must be sleep deprived (funny how I'm getting less sleep after exams!) or stupid, but yeah, you're right. I will say I didn't mean to misrepresent his views in order to create controversy. I actually agree with his views here (although I do think there should be more thorough entry checks and regular checks like yearly or something.)
About me being blind: I'm not, haha, but I know what you mean, to you it appears I am ignorant to assume the majority of people on the 'left' side of politics (I'll say 'left' in America) want equality of opportunity, however from my experience, this is true-- many just want starting equality, but sadly don't fully think through policies (affirmative action, quotas etc.) that actually reduce true diversity.
And he said one could be imprisoned for the misuse of pronouns, however not only is this false (he would at most be fined if found in violation of the code, and simply misgendering someone is less what the code is about than genocide or actual hate speech against trans people.
I am that type. I would like to know why you disagree, but yes, I think parts of masculinity are toxic, and this is not a recent thing-- from the ancient greeks (https://www.reading.ac.uk/Ure/tour/citizenship/gender.php), to Elizabethian times (as exemplified in Romeo and Juliet) and, although perhaps to a lesser extent, male on male violence and the tying of sex to self worth, prevalent today. Parts of masculinity, where men are seen as disposable, tools, stoic figures who also need to prove themselves, are toxic in my view. This does not mean I consider masculinity toxic.
And I'm saying the decrease in property crimes does not prove his point about how "toxic masculinity" is decreasing/ not a problem-- he instead would have to state sources on domestic violence, rape, assault, etc.
Okay. For one, I would like to say just because people are frustrated and possibly violent due to not finding a partner does not justify this violence or frustration. Have you considered that it is less that being married reduces violence, but less violent people are more likely to get married?
And IDK what you mean by
I 100%, but I ain't goin' to insult you for being a fan of his, he's spoken on a lot of stuff (imo some stuff he isn't qualified to speak upon), and so I know nothing, good or bad, about you from this fact.
If people rip on ya just for supporting him without knowing what parts you support and to what extent, that sucks dood.
And whilst legally justified (I guess? At least he thinks it is) I agree that the lawsuit is hypocritical. But again, you'll find some of his diehard fans defending him no matter what.
Whilst I can't comment on him personally, from his views becoming more divisive and us vs them to an unnecessary use of hyperbole and exaggeration, I'm inclined to agree with you there.
And thanks for the clear & non-aggressive words, and I hope I've clarified/ fixed stuff I've oof'd up prior
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-22
I mostly agree with you, but please don't call yourself a male feminist even if you're male and angry with feminists. It's something both sides can agree on: anyone calling themselves a male feminist is probably a rapist.
1 FlawlessCup 2018-06-22
I'm not? I mean no disrespect, I just mean I support equality between the sexes? I don't always say feminist, often I just say egalitarian or pro-equality, depending on my company, but I still think the core messages of feminism are relevant today, but need to shift now to support and acknowledge the problems that men face under these systems.
I don't know what the 2 sides are, but I'm just a 16 year old kid, not a rapist. I'm really confused why you'd assume that from me, is there connotations male feminists have that I'm not aware of?
1 jimmahdean 2018-06-22
It's a meme here, using the term "male feminist" is the same thing as using the term "rapist" in this sub because of how many male feminists have been outed as rapists recently.
1 FlawlessCup 2018-06-22
Ah okay thanks for that! I'll just say the classic egalitarian or gender-equality supporter around here
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-22
Meant to write agree, not angry.
1 FlawlessCup 2018-06-22
Oh my bad haha, I was just super confused (I thought others thought saying one was a male feminist is akin to making fun of feminists)
1 myshl0ng 2018-06-22
No surprise there
1 FlawlessCup 2018-06-22
No surprise there.
1 wootfatigue 2018-06-22
So what happens if you don’t pay the fine?
1 FlawlessCup 2018-06-22
Yeah, I get what you mean, don't pay the fine and you go to jail, so people (especially the poor!) are effectively imprisoned for this.
On the other hand, https://www.lss.bc.ca/resources/pdfs/pubs/If-You-Cant-Pay-Your-Court-Fine-on-Time-eng.pdf you can get an extensions, pay part of it at due date, or just do the prison time ($1000 roughly equal to 12 days)
1 [deleted] 2018-06-22
[removed]
1 myshl0ng 2018-06-22
He seems baller as fuck.
1 Brodo00095 2018-06-22
Ehhh he says some very questionable shit. Toss in the goofiness about the dragon of chaos and the knights of the order of the enlightenment and I can see why he's teased so much. Though yeah I don't really wanna defend people's obsession with hating him.
Agreed on the Damore part though. That was a fairly reasonable memo
1 ineedmorealts 2018-06-22
Lol wut? He says a ton of crazy shit.
Did you even read his book? I'm all of 2 chapters in and have run into countless nonsese
1 recursive 2018-06-22
I didn't even know he had a book. The original outrage was about the memo. I don't know how the situation has developed since then.
1 Denny_Craine 2018-06-22
"Witches are real and they live in swamps" <-- literal actual quote from JP
1 recursive 2018-06-22
I'm super out of the loop on this. I searched google for this, and it's some kind of circular meta-jerk with no primary sources. I'll assume this is from his unfinished fantasy-sci-fi epic until I can find any concrete source that says otherwise.
1 Denny_Craine 2018-06-22
Which goes directly against your retardation about him not saying anything unreasonable.
Want me to find you his video about how the caduceus shows that ancient people knew about DNA and how it's double helix shaped?
1 recursive 2018-06-22
Now that I know this exists, yes! Absolutely.
1 Denny_Craine 2018-06-22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb5cBkbQpGY&t=1h45m32s
1 recursive 2018-06-22
Huh. Ok, yup. Officially nuts confirmed.
1 pvijay187 2018-06-22
Honestly I can't decide. Fans swoon over his cult of personality, critical think he's a danger to society.
In reality he's just a hack
1 IFuckedZoeQuinn 2018-06-22
Critics. Peterson fans are losers who are desperate for a father figure but at least they're trying to improve their lives. The anti-lobsters are your typical insufferable pathetic leftists who wet their nappies with rage at people saying things they don't like.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-22
The critics sound like the type of people who would sue you for saying mean things to them.
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
They're the ones who wanted the law in place in the first place.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-22
So really he is on their side? What a happy ending.
1 Brodo00095 2018-06-22
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
The critics. Look at this thread. They come in and shit all over the carpet when everyone else tells that they're acting like retards.
"muh snowflake triggered safespace"
It's like word vomit.
1 better_bot 2018-06-22
His critics don't spam my youtube recc's with clickbait videos with thumbnails of Peterson at his most dashing, pointing in the air like a philosopher who actually thinks up new stuff instead of rehashing literally century old bullshit.
1 EddingtonDidNothingW 2018-06-22
Maybe I'm biased because of the sites I visit, but for every single retarded Peterson fan out there, I feel like there's like five crying SJWs who can't stop talking about how terrible he and his fanbase are. So I'd definitely say the """critics""" are worse. I would have forgotten the guy even exists like half a year ago if he didn't live rent free in all their heads, forcing them to keep crying about him over and over again.
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-06-22
Eh, both are terrible because they're obsessive to the point of being blinded by their love/rage. I bought the self-authoring course when I heard him on the H3 podcast. It absolutely did help. I like a lot of the concepts of his book I read, but it was definitely a bit 'dry'.
You can like things without being a 100% fanboy.
You can dislike things without 100% intensity.
You're allowed to point out merits of flawed people, and point out flaws of those held to exalted positions.
I've no idea what this thread is actually about, but I do know this shit goes 0 to 100 around here real quick.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
All I know is that whatever side you’re on is automatically worse
1 Matthew94 2018-06-22
Who's
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-06-22
Memerson fans because most people don't even know who he is, and his loyal slaves love to inflate his "no shit sherlock" talking points into some cultural revolution.
Because washing yourself daily is that profound of an idea to them.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-06-22
What you don't like his boomer sensibilities
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-06-22
I've seen boomers buying scratch tickets out of ethnic convenience stores, believe me they don't know how to do laundry either.
1 myshl0ng 2018-06-22
"In a Time of Universal Deceit — Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act"
Literally this
1 tfdidido 2018-06-22
both and yes
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-06-22
wow you've somehow found a way to have no opinion on this subject besides, "I'm better than everyone/everyone sucks accept me"
your parents should write a book called, "how to raise a despicable douche that everyone will hate"
1 GunOfSod 2018-06-22
She is JPs lawsuit is designed t9 support hers.
1 [deleted] 2018-06-22
[removed]
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
None of your title makes any sense.
It's widely agreed that hate speech isn't free speech. Welcome to Canada.
1 random_bullshit_blah 2018-06-22
are you fucking shitting me?
JP and his fans have been shitting all over themselves saying hate speech laws are bad and wrong and will be the end of west civ as we know it
and now...? "OH boo hoo! I got an owie from words! someone makes them stop saying mean words to me!"
fucking hypocrite
fuck this guy and his fans
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
It's almost as if people you don't like can use the same laws you're advocating for. Welcome to Canada, bitch.
1 adnzzzzZ 2018-06-22
Defamation is different than hate speech. Why are you so irrationally angry? Are you retarded?
1 random_bullshit_blah 2018-06-22
that's his whiny bitchy little complaint
what a fucking little wuss
its really just "someone said mean things make them stop!!" horseshit
mr free speech is a fraud, admit it
1 adnzzzzZ 2018-06-22
SEETHING
1 nybbas 2018-06-22
I mean, those were people meeting in their official capacity, explaining why a video of him can't be used because he is similar to Hitler. It isn't like they were sitting around having a beer, and were like "peterson is literally hitler, right guys?"
It's ironic that he is the free speech guy, suing someone over speech, but if you have someone in a position of power, using that power to paint a peer as someone on the same level as Hitler, that is damaging to that person.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-22
Refugees do not assimilate to our culture and they have to be deported.
1 adnzzzzZ 2018-06-22
I've been here since this place had like 5k subs bitch. The blatant agendaposts from retards like OP have been consistently making this place worse
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-06-22
I like that rule. Let me try.
They should also be fixing their own fucking countries instead of running like pussies. Fighting age men not willing to fight for their land. Pathetic. Leader ain't doin shit? Take his head. Gangs ruining your country? Form up a militia to fight the gangs. Hate those good ol country boys all you want, if some fuckbags invaded the US tomorrow, the war would be over Monday.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-22
Last time we were invaded they burned down the Whitehouse.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-22
No they didn't. Canada had nothing to do with that.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-22
I didn't say they did, no one is that retarded except the most powerful man on the planet.
1 totalrandomperson 2018-06-22
Imagine losing a war to fucking Canada.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-22
I don't know if Canada has ever won a war where they were the primary aggressor.
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-06-22
There weren't rednecks then, fam. I trust in our swamp rats to leave the Everglades on speedboats with all those assault weapons that were mobbed up before the ban. It'll be a good time.
1 freet0 2018-06-22
Why are you so angery?
1 Prysorra 2018-06-22
^ Hear that sound? It's a cockroach angry that light is shining on it.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-06-22
No shit. What does that have to do with anything? You keep bring up Canada and hate speech like the obsessed moron you are , but this is a defamation lawsuit. Defamation isn't hate speech
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
I don't really care. You can stop talking to me now.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-06-22
I don't care
I could, but it's fun to point out you have 0 understanding of Canadian law
1 nybbas 2018-06-22
Hey, I care.
You are wrong!
I have 10 understanding of Canadian law, come at me.
1 Singulaire 2018-06-22
Best way to grind understanding of Canadian law?
1 nybbas 2018-06-22
Definitely /r/Drama. Keep it up.
1 Singulaire 2018-06-22
Oh, good, I was already spending 8 hours a day on that.
1 saint2e 2018-06-22
1 ModeratorAbuseSucks 2018-06-22
Isn’t defamation not the same thing as “offending” someone?
1 Prysorra 2018-06-22
For subreddit dedicated to philosophy, you'd think one of them would take a moment to reflect on their own hypocrisy.
1 VicisSubsisto 2018-06-22
Only if you've never heard of that sub before.
1 random_bullshit_blah 2018-06-22
that's what he is mad about
fucking snow flake
fuck off
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
Mad as fuck.
1 xcallmesunshine 2018-06-22
Yea it’s a bit justified though - you also seem mad that your daddy is having mean things said about him. Otherwise you wouldn’t be reply to every single comment against him.
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
Stop acting like a faggot bitch boy and I won't mock you.
If you want to be anti-Kermit, do it without breaking Canadian law and acting like a fag about it.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-22
>no use mad.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
Maan you really are upset lol
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-06-22
The hell is an "anti-Kermit"?!?
And lol at you still having the NEWFAG ALT branding from when /u/Ed_ButteredToast was still a mod.
1 xcallmesunshine 2018-06-22
What does JP's colon taste like?
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
Lobster
1 xcallmesunshine 2018-06-22
Touché
1 FrenchValhalla 2018-06-22
What "other things?" Charlatan isn't defamatory, but "white supremacist" is, for instance
1 freet0 2018-06-22
Wow you sure are upset
1 Feanorfanclub 2018-06-22
Eh, I find it hard to give a shit about anyone getting in trouble for comparing someone to Hitler. I doubt it'll go anywhere.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-22
Good Lord you are insufferable. When you get a job in a few years are you going to call everyone Hitler there too?
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
Why get offended by it in the first place, if someone unironically believes that JP is literally Hitler that speaks volumes about what kind of person THEY are. Any rational person will look at that comparison and laugh at the absurdity.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-22
Maybe people don't want a workplace flooded by insane SJWs ranting much less having them endorsed by management?
It is like having SRDines with gainful employment. No one wants to be around that shit.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-22
To punish crazy people and give them consequences. There is no reason to stop it when the rewards are zero consequences and getting anyone you don't like fired.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
I’m confused because it would seem like you don’t believe in free speech?
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-22
You think having to get called Hitler at work is free speech? I suggest you do that to all your coworkers and boss and see where that gets you.
Free speech isn't free defamation.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
Lol yes I do think it’s a free speech issue. Free speech isn’t the same as free from consequences from that speech tho, so I would have no problem with her employer letting her go because they’ve determined that by calling him a Nazi she is creating a hostile workplace.
I do have a huge problem with courts allowing people to sue for defamation based on another person saying something that hurts their feelings.
I am surprised that a drama mod of all ppl would be in favor of loosening the libel laws as a way to suppress speech that might hurt someone’s feelings tho.
1 VidiotGamer 2018-06-22
It's not.
Opinion is protected speech, such as /u/Strictlybutters is an ugly moron who doesn't understand free speech.
See - opinion.
Inversely saying, /u/Strictlybutters is a racist, or a rapist, or a pedophile, is not (and lucky for you I guess).
Even in the above case, you have to know that you're wrong. Just repeating someone elses malicious lie isn't defamation.
This stuff is pretty fucking clear cut. If you think this is a free speech issue, well then you're dumb. QED.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
U seem upset
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-22
wait, where do you think peterson works? he's a professor at u of t, not wilfred laurier, he's literally suing a random woman he doesn't know for being mean to him
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-22
Fuck, I guess I need to pay attention more. I don't follow any of this shit. I know some TA cried over some meetings or something awhile ago. This is all just Canadian nonsense to me mostly.
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-22
you really dont, having to have opinions about jordan peterson is one of the worst parts of being aware of the culture wars
1 wootfatigue 2018-06-22
Well the good news is Canada doesn’t have free speech, so he’s right in using their tools against them.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
But doesn’t that make him a colossal hypocrite?
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-06-22
Haha holy shit, man the fuck up and accept that workplaces are full of shitty gossip hounds who will say terrible things behind your back, far worse than DAE LE EVIL HITLER?!? Esp in Canadian ultraliberal academia.
And in what world does Joey P. Memerton being called a Nazi hurt his career? His Patreon backers are all alt right retards who think being called a Nazi by dumbass SJWs is a sign of success.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-22
That was not whispered among gossip hounds it was stated in the open by lunatics and the behavior was endorsed. Academia is full of bat shit people with no grip on reality and that shouldn't just be accepted.
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-06-22
And YHWH shouldn't have cursed me with a micropenis and a club foot yet here we are. Life ain't fair.
Cirque, bby, you're getting real close to GamerGate levels of REEEEE THE SJWS ARE HURTING ME REEEEE
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-06-22
Literally all I am saying is that people shouldn't be harassed or defamed at work. How is that GG? I tell people on here all the time to speak freely within admin rules and that insulting me is always ok.
There is a time and a place for different sets of behavior.
1 Matues49 2018-06-22
Tbh JP is a subhuman retard who unironically deserves to have both happen to him. One of the few people who do, really.
1 VidiotGamer 2018-06-22
I'm pretty sure the reason why you sue someone for defamation is twofold - first, to get them to retract their statement in public, secondly to discourage other people from spreading lies about you.
1 jctoastpig 2018-06-22
It's still a dumb move in this instance. It lets those academics play the martyr card, call free speech advocates hypocrites, and reinforces that calling someone a nazi isn't totally watered down yet. none of jps twelve rules for life cover how to deal with fruitcake professors calling you a nazi behind closed doors?
1 Ace4929 2018-06-22
Hes not suing them because they said that, he’s suing them because he believes their words are both false and caused him economic damage. Thats what defamation is
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
But she’s some no name professor that nobody has ever heard of and all he’s doing by suing her is amplifying her ridiculous message. Any rational person will pay no mind to what some she thinks about Professor Memerson and I highly doubt it will prevent a single inclined person to decide not to buy his book or hire him to speak at their event.
1 VioletBroregarde 2018-06-22
No, this story has been going for awhile.
1 Ace4929 2018-06-22
Thats not how the law works, the court doesnt really care how obscure the source of the defamation is, it only cares about whether or not they are indeed liable for it
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
Are we talking about Canadian or American jurisprudence here?
1 Ace4929 2018-06-22
To my knowledge there are not significant differences between how Canada and the US treat defamation, if anything Canada would probably have a wider understanding of it because they do not have a first ammendment to protect people.
Yea I just checked wiki and the Canadian common law understanding of defamation is substantially wider than that of American common law:
The article also quotes a 2006 commentary comparing Canadian defamation with American defamation:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law
I should emphasize that Im not an attorney or any kind of legal expert whatsoever, certainly not in Canada, but based on my American understanding of the law I thought the case was theoretically possible but unlikely, after reading this wiki article it seems he has a case
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
There are massive differences between Canadian and American libel law. In Canada plaintiffs don’t have to prove falsity, malice or special damages to win a defamation suit. Canadian politicians often use libel litigation as a way to silence critics. Canada is widely considered to have the most plaintiff-friendly libel laws in the English-speaking world.
Whereas in American jurisprudence plaintiffs must prove falsity and material harm. If the plaintiff is a private citizen, he or she must prove gross neglect on the part of the defendant; If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must prove actual malice, on the part of the defendant, to win a slander or libel suit. The United States is widely considered to have the most defendant-friendly libel laws in the English-speaking world.
1 Bluest_waters 2018-06-22
mean words in a private meeting caused him economic damage
gtfo
1 Ace4929 2018-06-22
They could if the people who heard those words used false information to damage him financially
1 jctoastpig 2018-06-22
Yeah it's fucking stupid because nobody is on the fence about this guy anymore. And if some lefty academic calling him a nazi changed your opinion of him then you should stay safe.
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-22
Yeah... he might have a case with the Hitler thing. Considering that it was during a formal board meeting.
Not for this part tho. But since it's Memerson vs Ryerson, I honestly don't know who I want to win. Probably Memerson cause Ryerson will literally lose their shit and create more amusing drama.
1 tfdidido 2018-06-22
are u ok friend? is jealousy getting the best of you?
1 telandrias 2018-06-22
Jordan peterson is a neo nazi. https://forward.com/news/national/400597/is-jordan-peterson-enabling-jew-hatred/
Anyone who posts a video of his should be fired at least preferably sent to the gulag
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-06-22
Along with all the jews
1 WarwiththeEskimos 2018-06-22
they look white enough shrugs 🤙🏻
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-06-22
Depends on what's most convenient at the time
1 WarwiththeEskimos 2018-06-22
that’s why they are superior
The math fits: mayo=bad, not mayo=good; therefore, all the time mayo<sometimes mayo.
1 telandrias 2018-06-22
But who will be the reeducationists if the jews are sent to gulags?
1 ineedmorealts 2018-06-22
No. It's not even vaguely related.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
/u/FreeSpeechWarrior
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this lawsuit.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-06-22
Not too familiar with this lawsuit, on the face of it yeah seems pretty ironic. Even if he has a case, he's doing a lot to hurt any credibility you could say he has with this given the optics IMO.
But as u/ModeratorAbuseSucks says defamation is a bit different from offending someone.
Defamation is more saying something really grossly negative about someone without any rational basis.
If I was to say that "/u/spez raped and killed a young girl in 1990" that would be defamation because there is no reasonable basis to make such a claim and it is purely based on an old internet meme (don't sue me bro)
But if was to say: "/u/spez is a censor-happy cannibal who's so greedy that selling out reddit once wasn't enough" that would not amount to defamation even though it's quite negative because there is is a clear factual basis for every part of that claim.
There's more to it to that and I'm not a lawyer but that's the gist of defamation.
These links suck and I can't find who said what about who but im gonna guess someone called JP a nazi or racist, and there's really not any rational basis for those claims.
I originally misread this and thought we were talking about the American Renaissance lawsuit with an actual white supremacist:
https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditcancer/comments/84i3vq/til_that_californias_constitution_contains_an/ One of the most interesting active legal cases around right now IMO and it has been allowed to proceed past the first stage at least.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
This is a very nuanced take and I tend to agree with you. I do think Canada’s defamation laws are too broad and having the effect of chilling free speech. Plaintiffs don’t have to prove falsity, malice or special damages to win a defamation suit. Canadian politicians often use libel litigation as a way to silence critics. Canada is widely considered to have the most plaintiff-friendly libel laws in the English-speaking world.
Whereas in American jurisprudence plaintiffs must prove falsity and material harm. If the plaintiff is a private citizen, he or she must prove gross neglect on the part of the defendant; If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must prove actual malice, on the part of the defendant, to win a slander or libel suit. The United States is widely considered to have the most defendant-friendly libel laws in the English-speaking world.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-06-22
Ah and yeah I should clarify I was thinking from the American perspective, not familiar with the Canadian defamation laws.
1 nybbas 2018-06-22
Isn't this suit in response to those professors telling that TA that playing Peterson is like playing speeches from hitler, and that is why she shouldn't have played the video? In that regard, it isn't like they made some offhand remark about peterson being hitler, they were trying to have material with him in it suppressed because it's akin to playing hitler speeches. That does seem like something that would be damaging.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-06-22
I don’t know enough about the specifics of the case to comment on your description of its merits but taken at face value that would mean that maybe 4 people at most were convinced not to give his material a platform? He’s a best selling author with a professorship and receiving 90k a month just in Patreon donations. It seems like this is a ridiculous thing to want to litigate and imo makes him look like a fragile bitch.
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2018-06-22
Eh. He's an academic too and I think he's most rankled that another academic cant use his stuff in their lectures without getting threatened with disciplinary actions or fired.
1 Lumene 2018-06-22
That's precisely it. Memerson seems to take himself seriously as an academic, and currently anybody that's not in lockstep with the rest of social science and doesn't already have tenure is being shown the door, especially at the graduate level.
Also see Alice Draeger, etc.
This is more of an example, but admittedly stupid one.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-22
Who decides if there is a reasonable basis?
1 tfdidido 2018-06-22
.... no?
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-22
If getting called a Nazi online is defamation then the defamation laws are against free speech.
1 Sentinull 2018-06-22
Would someone explain this whole 'lobster' thing?
like, wut?
1 CuriousKrow 2018-06-22
Lobsters and humans share a very distant ancestor. Lobsters have social hierarchies, just like humans. A lobster's brain releases serotonin (feel good hormone) when they achieve a higher position. Humans have the same mechanism in them.
Peterson says lobsters could be useful for understanding how/why humans want to climb status hierarchies.
1 Bluest_waters 2018-06-22
The female praying mantis is known to eat the male after copulation
what does Peterson say about how preying mantises could be useful for understanding how/why humans want to climb status hierarchies?
The point is that just because X happens in nature doesnt mean it applies to people. Thats why people mock JP for making this comparison to lobsters
1 CuriousKrow 2018-06-22
I personally think the lobster thing is a bit of a stretch, but think it's interesting they have a serotonin based system of self improvement(something that is very human like that most animals don't have). I was just answering the question someone asked.
He'd probably think you're retarded because praying mantises and humans don't share a common ancestor the way lobsters and humans do.
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-22
Yeah, but every animal shares common ancestors and the lobster human one is way, way, way back there. Lobsters don't even have a proper brain just ganglia and shit.
1 Ace4929 2018-06-22
It being way back there is kind of the point as it proves that heirarchies are not inherrantly social constructs but rather are hardwired into our brains. Either way, because human neuroscience and lobster neuroscience have significant overlap they can be studied to understand each other, in the same way that the physiology of rats can be helpful in understanding the physiology of humans. True all animals share anscestors but very few share characteristics to this day which are asserted to be socially constructed
1 JamesRobotoMD 2018-06-22
Is it still neuroscience if lobsters don't have actual brains?
If these animals also share a common ancestor why aren't they evidence that this hierarchical behavior isn't inherent? To be clear, I'm not arguing that it isn't, I'm saying lobster based evidence is very, very weak.
1 Ace4929 2018-06-22
Yes. Because neuroscience isnt the study of the brain, its the study of the nervous system.
Im not an evolutionary biologist, nor have I studied his claims on the subject in depth so take this with a grain of salt, but to my knowledge the lobster isnt the only animal with heirarchies that shares a common anscestor with humans - monkeys, apes, cats, dogs, rate, etc all have heirarchies, but the lobster is the most different animal that shares this similarity, which is meant to illustrate how ingrained it really is and how a species with heirarchies has an evolutionary advantage
1 snallygaster 2018-06-22
this is headache-inducing stupidity
1 Ace4929 2018-06-22
I only speak the truth
1 snallygaster 2018-06-22
humans don't really have that either tho. the brain's reward/motivation system is dopamine-based.
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
But a lot of those things do, in fact, apply to people. Are you stupid?
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-06-22
I had sex with a hot bitch last night and my dick broke off inside her pussy, just like a wasp
1 Matues49 2018-06-22
Are you unironically defending JBP lobster nonsense? Legit kill yourself.
1 zergling_Lester 2018-06-22
The point is that if you see lobsters having a hierarchy and then humans having a hierarchy, then "humans do it because of The Patriarchy" should probably not be your null hypothesis.
1 mmzero 2018-06-22
It's more about the fact that people say its all socially constructed, when its very clearly biologically (chemically) driven in our brains.
1 VicisSubsisto 2018-06-22
This is known to occur only when the mantis is severely malnourished. The researchers who believed this was a common behavior didn't know how to keep their bugs fed.
And humans have been known to resort to cannibalism in some instances when starved.
1 [deleted] 2018-06-22
[removed]
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-06-22
Well when you put it like that, it definitely makes me see why everyone is blowing this out of proportion and using it as a negative.
No, wait, no it doesn't.
1 ineedmorealts 2018-06-22
He also said that when lobsters lose their social standing their brains melt
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-06-22
That is the most retarded fucking thing I've heard in this thread.
Lobsters and humans share a common ancestor because all life on Earth does to varying degrees. Yet there are animals way closer to us genetically that could provide answers than settling on a trash-tier crustacean that's fed to fatties who think they're gourmet food.
1 cnac1 2018-06-22
What CuriousKrow said except he isn't saying we should learn from lobsters. He is saying hierarchies are so deeply embedded in our brain that we share the wiring used in understanding our place in the hierarchy with lobsters who we separated from several hundred million years ago.
Given that it is so deep in our brain trying to blame capitalism for hierarchies like leftists do is idiotic. We aren't getting rid of hierarchies no matter what system we live under.
1 ChipChippersonAMA 2018-06-22
Someone should record themselves blowing Jordan Peterson and then post it to the internet and be like "hey get a look at this faggot"
1 strathmeyer 2018-06-22
Wait, are psych profs IN or OUT this year?
1 neymarflick93 2018-06-22
I don’t know much about Jordan Peterson but is there not a difference between hate speech and defamation?
1 Ace4929 2018-06-22
There is, defamation requires the statement to be false and for them to have caused economic damage. I.e. if you ran a store and I told people that youre a pedophile and people stopped going to your store because of that that would be defamation.
Hate speech (in canada at least) is defined as the advocacy of genocide, but the Canadian Human Rights comission can also bring you in front of them for alleged discrimination based on a laundry list of criteria.
1 RichEvansSextape 2018-06-22
Defamation laws may also be more sensitive in Canada than in the US, the way the UK let's you sue anyone for saying your butts smells like farts.
1 TotesMessenger 2018-06-22
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 FrenchValhalla 2018-06-22
Got banned for saying they're dishonestly framing the discussion
lmao ok /r/badphilosophy
1 Ace4929 2018-06-22
They might be good philosophers, but theyre shitty lawyers
1 VicisSubsisto 2018-06-22
No they're not.
1 nybbas 2018-06-22
I mean, how can anyone argue that someone acting in their official capacity, is a nazi, and that is why their material shouldn't be used, isn't defaming that person?
1 Gtyyler 2018-06-22
You can sue anyone for anything. This is the year of the lolsuit. Sue everyone.
1 caliberoverreaching 2018-06-22
A lot of hardliners are going to try and twist textbook professional defamation into him being personally 'butthurt' about being called names. He's suing a school that used the justification that he's transphobic and therefore as bad as Hitler (literally the school boards words) and can't have his materials shown to students who may become offended or victimized by his speech. He's not suing a person who called him a name for calling him a name. This is important to keep clear. He is suing because the faculty in charge is trying to use a false narrative to push him out of academia, which is his profession. If they could prove their statements are not false in court, he won't win. Defamation is notoriously hard to prove, so he likely believes he's a solid chance of winning this case, and likely spoke with a lawyer about it before going public. Its hard to prove because you have to prove that the opinion wasn't genuine, but malicious. He's stating that their public opinion of him is fabricated to harm him fornother actions. If you are reading this and still don't get it, I want you to imagine I walked into your place of work, went to your boss and told him you're a pedo-rapist and can't believe he hired you. Or that you do sales work and some guy follow you around shouting over your sales pitch that you're a liar and thief and con artist. You might find it very hard to get work done. You may even wonder why someone can state complete lies about you and ruin your reputation for no good reason. Well the good news is they can't, as it's defamation. TLDR - defamation requires the guilty party knowingly fabricate or exaggerate a claim in such a way as to cause harm to your reputation and cause damages to your livelihood as a result. It is not being called some bad names by someone. Pretending that it's the latter to insult and dismiss Peterson is dishonest and ignorant.
1 Karlore473 2018-06-22
Can we ban this queer
1 hlary 2018-06-22
65% upvoted, man by the time we reach 80k subs we’re going to be right wing srd lol
1 KalebCS 2018-06-22
because it's a blatant agendapost, coming from a sub who openly despises jp, and op is sperging out like no tomorrow
1 TheHeroReditDeserves 2018-06-22
anyone that triggers memo memhouse and friends as much as professor Jordan 🅱 Memerson does can not be all bad.
1 tfdidido 2018-06-22
/u/completely-ineffable only a kid with 0 emotional intelligence uses comparations to hitler in political arguments, ironically or not
prove me wrong
1 completely-ineffable 2018-06-22
I like 99% agree with you. There is the rare occasion where a comparison to Hitler is warranted, but this was not one of them. Some of what the WLU faculty said in that meeting was pretty dumb, especially the Hitler thing. The same point could've been made in a better fashion.
But that doesn't warrant targeting WLU with a frivolous lawsuit.
1 tfdidido 2018-06-22
wait, i didnt know you were going to be this reasonable now what do i do
i dont like memerson either fam, i am jealous about the 90k per month though
1 tfdidido 2018-06-22
the only advice i want from peterson is how to get rich using patreon
1 captainpriapism 2018-06-22
fucking lol all the cb2 srd style weirdos come out to rage at peterson every time hes mentioned
turns out libel is a separate thing to free speech
1 SweatyGuarantee 2018-06-22
Y-you're just a JP fan
1 friend1y 2018-06-22
Last I checked JP makes 1.2 million a year. The point isn't that he is going to win a lawsuit. The point is that the college is going to have to defend it.
This will be settled out of court.
1 eyemun 2018-06-22
The anti-Peterson crowd are so fucking hilariously shit at everything they do. It's brilliant.