Jump to content

Another blow for freedom of speech in Canada


blackbird

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. He’s not promoting misogyny or hate.   

2. Honesty requires bravery.  Bravery often requires sacrifice.  He is being sacrificed by the College to make a point to anyone who bucks the group think.

3. Do you really think the world is a better place without his voice ... 

4. Do you think the radical left should have greater sway?

5. You probably do because you, like Hardner, enjoy the cultural revolutionary messaging from elitists ...

6. Already we’re watching the false narratives about how Canada is systemically racist and genocidal get debunked, 

1. I would say calling an overweight woman 'ugly' on Twitter may not be 'hate' but it's hateful.
2. oh please... he breaks his contracts then whines on Twitter about it for months.  What sacrifice ?  He is richly rewarded for his views and I doubt he even practices now.  The amount of $ he's making for this sideshow is likely significant.  
3. The question is not whether he gets to speak... His opinion is shared to millions and even pushed to people who didn't ask for it via YouTube.
4. What *I* think is that serious discussions need to be made between experts who make responsible arguments, listen to each others' points and provide real information.
5. I stopped there... "revolutionary" and "elitists" in the same person ?  Nonsense.
6. No they're not "debunked" these are opinions and part of the public dialogue.  Do you want to shut them down ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I would say calling an overweight woman 'ugly' on Twitter may not be 'hate' but it's hateful.
2. oh please... he breaks his contracts then whines on Twitter about it for months.  What sacrifice ?  He is richly rewarded for his views and I doubt he even practices now.  The amount of $ he's making for this sideshow is likely significant.  
3. The question is not whether he gets to speak... His opinion is shared to millions and even pushed to people who didn't ask for it via YouTube.
4. What *I* think is that serious discussions need to be made between experts who make responsible arguments, listen to each others' points and provide real information.
5. I stopped there... "revolutionary" and "elitists" in the same person ?  Nonsense.
6. No they're not "debunked" these are opinions and part of the public dialogue.  Do you want to shut them down ?

1. He is allowed his opinion. You don't have to like it but even you say everybody can have an opinion.

2......

3. His opinions are "shared"? Meaning others are forwarding his opinions. As you say, he is allowed to have them and others are allowed to share them.

4. If you are waiting for "serious discussion need to be made between experts who make responsible arguments," you will have to wade through all the discussions. If you are waiting for agreement amongst them all, keep waiting.

5. ...

6. Yes, they are part of the public dialogue, but that certainly does not make them the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. He is allowed his opinion. You don't have to like it but even you say everybody can have an opinion.

2......

3. His opinions are "shared"? Meaning others are forwarding his opinions. As you say, he is allowed to have them and others are allowed to share them.

4. If you are waiting for "serious discussion need to be made between experts who make responsible arguments," you will have to wade through all the discussions. If you are waiting for agreement amongst them all, keep waiting.

5. ...

6. Yes, they are part of the public dialogue, but that certainly does not make them the truth.

1. You pivoted my point to another onez which I agree with.  He's allowed his opinion and allowed to express it also.

3. I was referring to the fact that he shows up every day multiple times in my YouTube feed.  Not from shares.  Far from being repressed, he's being promoted.

4. I agree with the wading.  I'm not looking for agreement but for the issues to be discussed intelligently and in the context of our Public Sphere.  That means that the results of the discussion have some impact even if it is minor.

6. Healthy dialogue is called "edifying" or constructive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You pivoted my point to another onez which I agree with.  He's allowed his opinion and allowed to express it also.

3. I was referring to the fact that he shows up every day multiple times in my YouTube feed.  Not from shares.  Far from being repressed, he's being promoted.

4. I agree with the wading.  I'm not looking for agreement but for the issues to be discussed intelligently and in the context of our Public Sphere.  That means that the results of the discussion have some impact even if it is minor.

6. Healthy dialogue is called "edifying" or constructive.  

1. I never pivoted anything. he has an opinion , as was being discussed, and he has that right.

3. If "he shows up every day multiple times in my YouTube feed.", then you need to set your youtube parameters. He does not show up on my youtube :)

4. Issues can be discussed. On this forum you are fully aware that not all discussions are intelligent or " in the context of our Public Sphere".  "Our Public Shere" is ours to choose so, mine will be different than yours.

6. Healthy dialogue does not need to be either edifying or constructive. It can be anything form pleasant to confrontational because opinions are as varied as the people expressing them.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. I never pivoted anything. he has an opinion , as was being discussed, and he has that right.

3. If "he shows up every day multiple times in my YouTube feed.", then you need to set your youtube parameters. He does not show up on my youtube :)

4. Issues can be discussed. On this forum you are fully aware that not all discussions are intelligent or " in the context of our Public Sphere".  "Our Public Shere" is ours to choose so, mine will be different than yours.

6. Healthy dialogue does not need to be either edifying or constructive. It can be anything form pleasant to confrontational because opinions are as varied as the people expressing them.

 

1. Yeah you did.  I was responding to the question of whether he posted 'haye' and you pivoted it to whether he's allowed his opinion. Not course he is.

3. I have never set that up, but again you're stepping past my point: he's not suppressed, he's promoted.

4. No, the Public Sphere is occupied by the Public by definition 

 6. I disagree, and also pleasant and or confrontational can also be edifying or constructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so Michael is fine with Justine sharing his opinions in public - no problems there, but not Peterson. It follows logically, that some of us have to be more qualified to express their opinions while others, threatened with losing their source of income. For the same or similar expression ("misogynists" and worse). Gotcha. Looks just like the coloring picture book.

... where though? In a first world democracy? Or in the China North?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

He’s not promoting misogyny or hate.  You don’t like that he tells it as it is because he doesn’t pander to the phoney woke ideologies that very few people actually believe in or want for their families or themselves.

TelLs it aS it is just another way of saying "He makes the noises that I LIKE".  

It's no surprise you like him though.  Peterson likes to write about dumb shit like "post-colonial neo-marxism" and you lap up that sort of meaningless word vomit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, myata said:

1. OK, so Michael is fine with Justine sharing his opinions in public - no problems there, but not Peterson.

2. It follows logically, that some of us have to be more qualified to express their opinions while others, threatened with losing their source of income.

3.  China North?

1. Deliberate misreading of what I said repeatedly.

2. It's not what I said and from all reports I read Peterson no longer practices anyway.  If anything this case helps his income.

3. There is it, you can count on it like the chocolate delivered to your pillow at the Radisson...  ?

 

Happy China North to you as well, friend...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

He’s not promoting misogyny or hate.  You don’t like that he tells it as it is because he doesn’t pander to the phoney woke ideologies that very few people actually believe in or want for their families or themselves.

People can't handle the truth anymore. It's insane. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Deliberate misreading of what I said repeatedly.

Do you call it "freedom" when someone like an arm of the government, is looking over your shoulder and checking your every word, threatening you to leave you without the source of your income?

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

China North to you

Why do you not like those words, it's exactly what they do, there. Only facts, nothing personal.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's more like people don't understand the lines between objective and subjective.

If "truths" conflict, there are well-used protocols in place to resolve the disputes, such as contracts.

If you must defend your argument on procedural grounds, that's a bad sign for your argument.

Petersen's comments by and large are neither radical nor historically controversial.  And he is able to defend all of his  positions with well reasoned and researched logic, Doesn't make him right but it does mean that dismissing him in the fashion you do is grossly inappropriate.

And he should be free to discuss his ideas without being attacked at a professional level unless he's actively working against his profession or the like - and that's not the claim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I would say calling an overweight woman 'ugly' on Twitter may not be 'hate' but it's hateful.
2. oh please... he breaks his contracts then whines on Twitter about it for months.  What sacrifice ?  He is richly rewarded for his views and I doubt he even practices now.  The amount of $ he's making for this sideshow is likely significant.  
3. The question is not whether he gets to speak... His opinion is shared to millions and even pushed to people who didn't ask for it via YouTube.
4. What *I* think is that serious discussions need to be made between experts who make responsible arguments, listen to each others' points and provide real information.
5. I stopped there... "revolutionary" and "elitists" in the same person ?  Nonsense.
6. No they're not "debunked" these are opinions and part of the public dialogue.  Do you want to shut them down ?

1.  Over sensitivity is no excuse for censorship.  I think that model’s self-esteem is probably pretty high  

2. He has as much right to complain as you do.

3. and 4. You don’t have to watch his videos, but he does interview many experts and the conversations are rigorous.

5.  The truth hurts.  Perhaps reconsider your cultural Marxism.

6.  I welcome dialogue.  Yes they are debunked.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's more like people don't understand the lines between objective and subjective.

There's a fine really obvious line between the truth and the deluded version of it known as leftist drivel.

For example, if you were born a dude you actually don't menstruate and you won't have babies, period, and I'm not playing along. It's not healthy to mislead young people. 

Some of us don't want dudes going into girls' bathrooms just because they're a bit confused, and it's not wrong for us to say that.  

I get that you hate the things that Dr Peterson says, but that doesn't make him wrong. 

Quote

If "truths" conflict

That's a leftist "truth", not a real truth, so just pick your favourite one and call everyone else a racist I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's more like people don't understand the lines between objective and subjective.

If "truths" conflict, there are well-used protocols in place to resolve the disputes, such as contracts.

If many truths conflict then there is still only one real truth. Therefore there can be no conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Legato said:

If many truths conflict then there is still only one real truth. Therefore there can be no conflict.

Except that all sides will claim to own it...

This seems to be a mind blower to many a poor Chud....

12 minutes ago, Legato said:

What seems odd to me is this mandatory coaching.

It's like having Einstein being sent for math coaching by a couple of 8th grade math teachers.

There's really only one problem with that analogy, and that is that Peterson is a spotty academic and general ldiot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's really only one problem with that analogy, and that is that Peterson is a spotty academic and general ldiot...

Not really, Peterson is the Einstein of the psychology world and the College of Psychologists is populated by the spotty academics. The fact that they would try to censure him in this manner shows that they are the general idi0ts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Legato said:

1. Peterson is the Einstein of the psychology world

2. ...and the College of Psychologists is populated by the spotty academics.

3. The fact that they would try to censure him in this manner shows that they are the general idi0ts.

1.  Hahaha.  OK without looking it up, who is #2 ?
2. They're practitioners not academics.  Peterson is/was a professor, which is a rarity among psychologists.
3. They're stupid because they enforced the rules after people complained ?  ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Hahaha.  OK without looking it up, who is #2 ?
2. They're practitioners not academics.  Peterson is/was a professor, which is a rarity among psychologists.
3. They're stupid because they enforced the rules after people complained ?  ?

#2 is in second place..... no, academics who are under the delusion they're practitioners.... they're stupid to listen to a couple of disgruntled also ran's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Legato said:

1. #2 is in second place.....

2. no, academics who are under the delusion they're practitioners....

3. They're stupid to listen to a couple of disgruntled also ran's.

1. Yeah but ... I'm thinking since you can't name a number two, your assessment of the psychology world might not be as comprehensive as you thought

2. Just a whole question. Is being able to seek patients, I don't see a point here.

3. They're also rans because they're not as good as Peterson. But you can't name them so... 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

This new power for professional regulatory bodies is the power to silence public speech, and then to require mandatory political re-education training. If you’re thinking shades of Mao’s re-education camps, you are right.

The main premise is that the offending individual is misinformed. The underlying theory is that, if he or she could just be educated better, that person would see things “our” way (or the “acceptable” way.) At a minimum, it whittles away at individual thought and free expression, the kind of debate that moves society forward and on which western democracy, from the time of Socrates to today, is based.

The College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) did not find Peterson’s conduct to be worthy of disciplinary action, but rather was “concerned” with the “manner” and “tone” of his comments. It called for Peterson — and, by extension, everyone else in his profession — to accept that the ideal clinical psychologist thinks in a defined, narrow way. Ideological hegemony is the goal. Groupthink, the outcome. Cancel culture, the symptom."

Joseph Chiummiento: Selection of judges in Jordan Peterson case raises troubling issues (msn.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yeah but ... I'm thinking since you can't name a number two, your assessment of the psychology world might not be as comprehensive as you thought

2. Just a whole question. Is being able to seek patients, I don't see a point here.

3. They're also rans because they're not as good as Peterson. But you can't name them so... 

 

 

 

That post is spinning so fast it's creating it's own event horizon. If needed I could provide a grappling hook to grab on to some reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Legato said:

That post is spinning so fast it's creating it's own event horizon. If needed I could provide a grappling hook to grab on to some reality.

Thanks for the metaphor.

Not sure how I'm spinning when I'm asking you mostly about your rating scale for Psychologists, and how you're looking at this overall... But ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yeah but ... I'm thinking since you can't name a number two, your assessment of the psychology world might not be as comprehensive as you thought

2. Just a whole question. Is being able to seek patients, I don't see a point here.

3. They're also rans because they're not as good as Peterson. But you can't name them so... 

 

 

 

Nobody remembers who placed second, thats not a realistic expectation, kind of like which liberal candidates did Justin beat out to become leader of the liberal party name them...., it is as if, your saying his comments do not count ....if you don't remember then your limited knowledge of Canadian politics makes most of your comments about these issues politics null and void...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,692
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Gator
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Gator went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Gator went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fracnsis Moore earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Gator went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • admined earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...