Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles

[BoKnows]

1 minute ago, Master Mind said:

In a perfect world, everyone would be more descriptive as to why they agree/disagree. But not everyone has the time to do that.

I think a lot of people (including myself) have a hard time articulating how they feel about a polarizing person such as JP.

[Master Mind]

6 minutes ago, BoKnows said:

I think a lot of people (including myself) have a hard time articulating how they feel about a polarizing person such as JP.

Perhaps, but I still don't think that's important to this topic.

 

You can dislike someone and still feel empathy for the family related struggles they've endured.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Master Mind

[Timbermen]

How is that difficult to figure out, you defend a reporters right to smear a person over his life threatening sickness and wife's battle with terminal cancer and you get a couple of dozen confused smileys. The sole reason i posted this thread is to expose social justice warriors for what they are. No thought, no meaning, just indignation at someone that ruffled the featherers of their marxist ideology. If you can't figure that out, you don't know what's going on. Peterson is exposing the phoney extreme left for what thy are. A bunch of weasels running around calling themselves 'antifascist' because they don't have the courage or honesty to call themselves the Marxist/communist/party hiding behind victimhood like feminism. You're always the victim and have the right to tear down someone's career because he offended your fragile victimized feelings. Who are victimized ones? Social justice warriors or Jordan Peterson/Don Cherry or the other people's career's they've managed to destroy. Maybe the marxist professor that was caught jumping out behind some woman and cracking right leaning students in the head with a bike lock. These are the weasels that are behind Antifa, Gutless cowardly professors that are devout Marxists, indoctrinating children to put their lives at risk while they hide behind some feminists with a bike lock. Pa- %$#^ing- thetic. 

[Jester13]

2 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

In a perfect world, everyone would be more descriptive as to why they agree/disagree. But not everyone has the time to do that.

 

I was PM'ed being asked to stop confuse reacting. That feels like a mild attempt at censorship to me, in trying to control the way I react to a post. I use or don't use an emoji accordingly based on how I view that idea, there's nothing personal about it. Imagine if you PM'ed aGent asking him to not use the hydration on your post, instead to please reply to your post. Seems like a little much, no?

 

I've tried to engage in the conversation, and it would appear many agree with what I've said. However those who have disagreed, I've found that they will often ignore key points, or steer the conversation towards Peterson's faults (something I don't find relevant to the discussion, and therefore a confusing stance).

Could someone say the same thing of the constant use of a confused emoji face, that it's a mild attempt at controlling the poster's opinion?

 

Adding to that a little deeper, is there not more of an implied meaning behind the constant use of the emoji that not only does a poster disagree but also they want to, in a sense, bully the poster with the more-than-usual use of the emoji, especially when the receiving poster so obviously felt unnecessarily attacked from the ostensibly more-than-usual use when he was merely trying his best to discuss? Maybe that's what drove the PM with the request to stop such use of the expression. 

 

And, fair enough on the challenge of discussing with some posters, as it certainly is tough to keep people on track within a discussion, especially when there are disagreements; I mean, often when getting into a discussion - especially a contentious discussion - when someone switches the conversation onto another point or refuses to address key points it's a sign of the person not fully knowing their stance and they instead subconsciously - or sometimes consciously - dodge so they don't have to admit/concede fault in their own reasoning.

 

The Trial and Death of Socrates, anyone? 

 

Just now, BoKnows said:

I think a lot of people (including myself) have a hard time articulating how they feel about a polarizing person such as JP.

I don't mean this to offend, and this is not fully in response to you: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

 

In this context, this is to say that lots of people do have feelings either for or against JP, but that many (most?) people on both sides haven't taken the time to try and fully understand and/or formulate their feelings/opinions/beliefs on the guy or topic, so instead we get lots of emotions back and forth that don't really help the situation much and instead do more harm. 

 

Granted, not everyone has the training on how to properly formulate thought(s) and then express said thought(s), but this is all the more reason society needs the dialectic reintroduced into discussion, because otherwise we end up throwing emojis or emotions or words, or what have you, around without regard for the damage it all does to all of us within our social contact, or we lurk and stay silent. 

 

Let's put it this way, imagine if someone felt the freedom to express within a post without any fear of being called out or reprimanded that they are having a hard time articulating what they're feeling towards the subject, and then said poster tries their best to express their feelings, and then a discussion begins with other posters trying to help formulate those feelings into something more tangible; or, imagine said poster keeps those feelings bottled up and never expresses them. Which would be the more ideal outcome? 

 

I'm betting the former is a better form of freedom of expression for everyone involved, as it negates the need for dodging or emojis or silence and instead celebrates the act of the dialectic. 

 

Isn't philosophy fun?

 

[Jester13]

13 minutes ago, Timbermen said:

How is that difficult to figure out, you defend a reporters right to smear a person over his life threatening sickness and wife's battle with terminal cancer and you get a couple of dozen confused smileys. The sole reason i posted this thread is to expose social justice warriors for what they are. No thought, no meaning, just indignation at someone that ruffled the featherers of their marxist ideology. If you can't figure that out, you don't know what's going on. Peterson is exposing the phoney extreme left for what thy are. A bunch of weasels running around calling themselves 'antifascist' because they don't have the courage or honesty to call themselves the Marxist/communist/party hiding behind victimhood like feminism. You're always the victim and have the right to tear down someone's career because he offended your fragile victimized feelings. Who are victimized ones? Social justice warriors or Jordan Peterson/Don Cherry or the other people's career's they've managed to destroy. Maybe the marxist professor that was caught jumping out behind some woman and cracking right leaning students in the head with a bike lock. These are the weasels that are behind Antifa, Gutless cowardly professors that are devout Marxists, indoctrinating children to put their lives at risk while they hide behind some feminists with a bike lock. Pa- %$#^ing- thetic. 

It sounds like you agree that there's a societal war going on between the SJWs and the opposite side of the spectrum, so I ask you: how are you adding to the solution? 

[aGENT]

15 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Adding to that a little deeper, is there not more of an implied meaning behind the constant use of the emoji that not only does a poster disagree but also they want to, in a sense, bully the poster with the more-than-usual use of the emoji, especially when the receiving poster so obviously felt unnecessarily attacked from the ostensibly more-than-usual use when he was merely trying his best to discuss? Maybe that's what drove the PM with the request to stop such use of the expression. 

Veering in to 'micro aggressions' territory here, which IMO, are a load of codswallop 

 

As Freud said, sometimes an emoji is just an emoji 

 

But I do agree it's far preferable for people to actually discuss what they object to/disagree with.

[Timbermen]

3 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

It sounds like you agree that there's a societal war going on between the SJWs and the opposite side of the spectrum, so I ask you: how are you adding to the solution? 

 By exposing their lack of knowledge on who they want to tear down and prove they're doing it in an emotional knee jerk reaction way. That was illustrated in the first two videos. There probably would have been droves of people commenting but maybe the pushback with emoji's stopped people and made them think,' yeah, this is pretty low. Maybe it isn't the time to go on the all out offensive like the lowly journalist.' Social justice warriors already destroyed Don Cherry based on two words ' You People'.   

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

It sounds like you agree that there's a societal war going on between the SJWs and the opposite side of the spectrum, so I ask you: how are you adding to the solution? 

I think it's more the case that we've allowed a minority of increasingly extreme people (on both sides) to dictate the greater societal conversation. The cancel culture is poisonous and extreme left political stances extremely dangerous and deadly. They're also directly responsible for the equally dangerous and mirror response from the extreme right.

 

Us poor, centrist silent majority need to take the conversation back.

[BoKnows]

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I think it's more the case that we've allowed a minority of increasingly extreme people (on both sides) to dictate the greater societal conversation. The cancel culture is poisonous and extreme left political stances extremely dangerous and deadly. They're also directly responsible for the equally dangerous and mirror response from the extreme right.

 

Us poor, centrist silent majority need to take the conversation back.

I don't know it's just me but it seems like the extreme right and left are very similar.  They do the same types of things just with different motives.

[Master Mind]

19 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Could someone say the same thing of the constant use of a confused emoji face, that it's a mild attempt at controlling the poster's opinion?

 

Adding to that a little deeper, is there not more of an implied meaning behind the constant use of the emoji that not only does a poster disagree but also they want to, in a sense, bully the poster with the more-than-usual use of the emoji, especially when the receiving poster so obviously felt unnecessarily attacked from the ostensibly more-than-usual use when he was merely trying his best to discuss? Maybe that's what drove the PM with the request to stop such use of the expression. 

 

I'd have to disagree with you there. An emoji's just an emoji as far as I'm concerned. To get worked up over one is, dare I say, confusing haha

 

27 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

And, fair enough on the challenge of discussing with some posters, as it certainly is tough to keep people on track within a discussion, especially when there are disagreements; I mean, often when getting into a discussion - especially a contentious discussion - when someone switches the conversation onto another point or refuses to address key points it's a sign of the person not fully knowing their stance and they instead subconsciously - or sometimes consciously - dodge so they don't have to admit/concede fault in their own reasoning.

 

Agreed.

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, BoKnows said:

I don't know it's just me but it seems like the extreme right and left are very similar.  They do the same types of things just with different motives.

Opposite sides of the same coin and both poisonous to freedom and rights of individuals.

[Jester13]

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Veering in to 'micro aggressions' territory here, which IMO, are a load of codswallop 

 

As Freud said, sometimes an emoji is just an emoji 

 

But I do agree it's far preferable for people to actually discuss what they object to/disagree with.

Was there something provocative about saying that?  

 

Although I think we would likely agree quite a lot on the whole microaggression topic, I personally think there's some validity within the idea. However, I consider myself to have a high emotional IQ, so I don't agree with the more-than-often response towards such covert expressions of prejudice. I often say of the SJWs that they're well-intentioned but misguided in their actions.

 

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I think it's more the case that we've allowed a minority of increasingly extreme people (on both sides) to dictate the greater societal conversation. The cancel culture is poisonous and extreme left political stances extremely dangerous and deadly. They're also directly responsible for the equally dangerous and mirror response from the extreme right.

 

Us poor, centrist silent majority need to take the conversation back.

Amen to the bolded, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that the far left is directly responsible for the equally dangerous response from the far right but rather they have merely given the far right more justification for voicing and acting on their already-held dangerous ideology(ies). 

 

3 minutes ago, Timbermen said:

 By exposing their lack of knowledge on who they want to tear down and prove they're doing it in an emotional knee jerk reaction way. That was illustrated in the first two videos. There probably would have been droves of people commenting but maybe the pushback with emoji's stopped people and made them think,' yeah, this is pretty low. Maybe it isn't the time to go on the all out offensive like the lowly journalist.' Social justice warriors already destroyed Don Cherry based on two words ' You People'.   

I would argue that the journalist and Cherry represent the root cause of the major divide in society right now: one is incredibly offensive and the other is incredibly fragile. Both, in my opinion, are wrong in their beliefs and actions. 

 

1 minute ago, Master Mind said:

I'd have to disagree with you there. An emoji's just an emoji as far as I'm concerned. To get worked up over one is, dare I say, confusing haha

 

Agreed.

That's easy to say until you're on the receiving end of all of it. Sure, some people have thicker skin than others, but the empathy that people are asking for towards JP can go both ways, no? 

[Blue Jay 22]

2 hours ago, Jester13 said:

The incessant use of confused emojis by the same posters over and over every time he makes a post, even one when he says how he appreciates those who discussed with him in a constructive manner and that he enjoys learning from others, is more than just "offering feedback". It's a sign that not only do posters disagree with him but they also (more so) don't have the ability to just discuss with someone they disagree with in a constructive way for an extended period of time. No?

You are over thinking it.

[Toews]

9 minutes ago, Timbermen said:

 By exposing their lack of knowledge on who they want to tear down and prove they're doing it in an emotional knee jerk reaction way. That was illustrated in the first two videos. There probably would have been droves of people commenting but maybe the pushback with emoji's stopped people and made them think,' yeah, this is pretty low. Maybe it isn't the time to go on the all out offensive like the lowly journalist.' Social justice warriors already destroyed Don Cherry based on two words ' You People'.   

Are you not mirroring their behaviour? Partisanship is looking away from the facts and sticking to anecdotes that support your view of the world. Saying that Don Cherry got in trouble for 2 words is patently false. This is what got him in trouble.

Quote

“You people love... you people that come here … whatever it is, you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you could pay a couple of bucks for a poppy.

You people that come here = immigrants and included with the context of "our way of life", "our milk and honey". Cherry is implying that immigrants are a bunch of ungrateful people who don't care for the sacrifices made by our veterans & military families. Do you think it is appropriate to single out immigrants for not wearing poppies? 

 

As far as the subject matter of this thread, my condolences to Jordan Peterson for his loss. I don't have sympathy towards him for his drug problems, those are of his own doing and as someone who champions personal responsibility I think JP wouldn't take issue with this view like his supporters seem to be doing. 

[Jester13]

Just now, Blue Jay 22 said:

You are over thinking it.

Maybe, or maybe not. Maybe I'm attempting to provoke thought in others within a contentious and divisive discussion. 

 

I see the war all the time going on between the journalist-type and the Cherry-type, and I see a way to bridge the gap between the two. I prefer to try and be part of the solution rather than the problem. 

 

And I'd bet that @Jimmy McGill has likely, in some way at least, updated his opinion on his original statement. I've encountered him before and he's shown the ability to have opinions, strong ones as well, and learn from the discussion. This has only happened because he's willing to talk and learn rather than just hold opinions, stay silent, and use emojis in place of words.

[bishopshodan]

I think this topic turning to an emoji storm discussion is interesting. Maybe fitting.

Freedom of speech, just watch what you say. 

My wife told me about Beyonce's Beyhive, they swarm opinions with emojis in defence of the singer.  I'm not saying that is what exactly happened here, but it reminded me of it.

 

 

 

[Jester13]

4 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

I think this topic turning to an emoji storm discussion is interesting. Maybe fitting.

Freedom of speech, just watch what you say. 

My wife told me about Beyonce's Beyhive, they swarm opinions with emojis in defence of the singer.  I'm not saying that is what exactly happened here, but it reminded me of it.

 

 

 

It is definitely an interesting phenomenon, the group use of emojis to express displeasure or control over a person, and I think it directly relates to this thread. It's why I asked a poster how pointing it out is a threat of control over someone's freedom of expression, as it seems to me like the use of the group emoji is more of a threat of control over Jimmy's freedom of expression in this context, same as it is in the context of the Beyhive. 

[aGENT]

14 minutes ago, Toews said:

Are you not mirroring their behaviour? Partisanship is looking away from the facts and sticking to anecdotes that support your view of the world. Saying that Don Cherry got in trouble for 2 words is patently false. This is what got him in trouble.

You people that come here = immigrants and included with the context of "our way of life", "our milk and honey". Cherry is implying that immigrants are a bunch of ungrateful people who don't care for the sacrifices made by our veterans & military families. Do you think it is appropriate to single out immigrants for not wearing poppies? 

 

As far as the subject matter of this thread, my condolences to Jordan Peterson for his loss. I don't have sympathy towards him for his drug problems, those are of his own doing and as someone who champions personal responsibility I think JP wouldn't take issue with this view like his supporters seem to be doing. 

Fwiw, the addiction AFAIK, was from prescribed, pharmaceutical anxiety meds. Anxiety caused by his wife having terminal cancer (no doubt also compounded by the stresses of his recent notoriety etc as well).

 

And to be fair, regardless of what the addiction is, people in general deserve our sympathy when dealing their respective illness IMO.

[bishopshodan]

3 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

It is definitely an interesting phenomenon, the group use of emojis to express displeasure or control over a person, and I think it directly relates to this thread. It's why I asked a poster how pointing it out is a threat of control over someone's freedom of expression, as it seems to me like the use of the group emoji is more of a threat of control over Jimmy's freedom of expression in this context, same as it is in the context of the Beyhive. 

I've really enjoyed your input to this thread. Thank you.

 

I'm interested in how people treat each other and with JP being a champion of free speech, its cool this thread has turned into some really good core convos regarding that.

 

 

[Toews]

3 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

It is definitely an interesting phenomenon, the group use of emojis to express displeasure or control over a person, and I think it directly relates to this thread. It's why I asked a poster how pointing it out is a threat of control over someone's freedom of expression, as it seems to me like the use of the group emoji is more of a threat of control over Jimmy's freedom of expression in this context, same as it is in the context of the Beyhive. 

Any time you allow one-click approval or disapproval you cheapen the conversation. That's just how I see it. That is why the internet was much better for discourse before we could like/upvote something.