Journalist Gloats Over Jordan Peterson's Troubles

[Zfetch]

4 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

You do realize that Jordan's claim that he was being censored was because he was denied funding in the form of a research grant? Ironic hey? 

 

He also launched a website listing professors and academic disciplines that he disagreed with, warning students and their parents to avoid them. 

 

Uhhh...are you making that up? Sounds like you're making it up. Give a reputable link to your claim in your first paragraph. 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, Zfetch said:

Uhhh...are you making that up? Sounds like you're making it up. Give a reputable link to your claim in your first paragraph. 

I already did, on page one. It was by the professor who got Peterson his job at the U of T despite the objection of his peers. 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Would/should we tolerate studies in our universities for courses with clear fascist/Nazi ideological influence as well under the guise of 'free speech'?

 

Marxism is also inherently anti free speech by its very nature, so it would seem pretty clear why he'd have thoughts on it being funded (or worthwhile).

Isn't that the premise of free speech? 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

Isn't that the premise of free speech? 

So your actually suggesting that we should have university courses heavily influenced by Nazi ideology...?

 

I might need to break out Jimmy's puzzle face here.

[Zfetch]

6 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

I already did, on page one. It was by the professor who got Peterson his job at the U of T despite the objection of his peers. 

An OPINION piece behind a paywall. Srsly man get real.

 

Find another link that I can actually read Einstein

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

So your actually suggesting that we should have university courses heavily influenced by Nazi ideology...?

 

I might need to break out Jimmy's puzzle face here.

Oh you were serious about that? I thought it was hyperbole. What courses are those? 

 

Are you saying we should censor courses based on Petersons ideologies? 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

6 minutes ago, Zfetch said:

An OPINION piece behind a paywall. Srsly man get real.

 

Find another link that I can actually read Einstein

I'll check and see if they have anything in the children's section for you. Hold on a sec.

[Zfetch]

2 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

I'll check and see if they have anything in the children's section for you. Hold on a sec.

You're too slow. I found an equivalent pdf of the article. In it there is nothing supporting your claim you made in the first paragraph.

 

Want to copy and paste it from the article?

[The Lock]

7 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

I'll check and see if they have anything in the children's section for you. Hold on a sec.

While you're in the children's section, could you get me "Go Back to Sleep?" I probably should be going to sleep instead of reading this forum.

[BoKnows]

8 hours ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

From Wikipedia 

 

"Peterson says "disciplines like women's studies should be defunded" and advises freshman students to avoid subjects like sociology, anthropology, English literature, ethnic studies, and racial studies, as well as other fields of study he believes are corrupted by the neo-Marxist ideology."

 

Wouldn't this be the opposite of free speech? 

 

 

Looking at this from another angle, one can argue that those are almost pointless degrees.  You don't need to go $50k+ in debt to only make $40k a year.

[Master Mind]

10 hours ago, Jester13 said:

Did I miss something? What is with all the confused emojis you're getting?

Surely you saw his take on the topic, going back to page 1.

 

I don't think it's surprising others would find it controversial and/or distasteful.

 

He's certainly allowed to have that opinion, but crying foul when others disagree doesn't do any favours.

[Jester13]

1 hour ago, Master Mind said:

Surely you saw his take on the topic, going back to page 1.

 

I don't think it's surprising others would find it controversial and/or distasteful.

 

He's certainly allowed to have that opinion, but crying foul when others disagree doesn't do any favours.

Well, he and I disagree on the "reap what you sow" thing, but at least he's been willing to discuss and debate in a respectful way rather than just hide behind an emoji. 

 

All the confused emojis are quite symbolic, actually, of the issue that JP has been up against, in that there's no room anymore for differing opinions. Instead, people decide not to discuss the differences in a constructive manner but rather try to shut down the differing opinions with insults or emojis. It's too bad, really, because being able to discuss things is how good rhetoricians can change hearts and minds, which is an unfortunate artform that is increasingly being lost to loud voices.

[Master Mind]

17 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Well, he and I disagree on the "reap what you sow" thing, but at least he's been willing to discuss and debate in a respectful way rather than just hide behind an emoji. 

 

All the confused emojis are quite symbolic, actually, of the issue that JP has been up against, in that there's no room anymore for differing opinions. Instead, people decide not to discuss the differences in a constructive manner but rather try to shut down the differing opinions with insults or emojis. It's too bad, really, because being able to discuss things is how good rhetoricians can change hearts and minds, which is an unfortunate artform that is increasingly being lost to loud voices.

Using emojis doesn't shut down an opinion, they're simply a reaction to a post.

 

It's offering feedback. If someone makes a post I agree with, I tend to give it a hydration react. Should I find the post questionable, I might give it a confuse. Pretty straight forward.

 

I would instead argue that trying to control how people react to posts is closer to shutting down an opinion and their freedom of expression.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Master Mind

[Jester13]

Just now, Master Mind said:

Using emojis doesn't shut down an opinion, they're simply a reaction to a post.

 

It's offering feedback. If someone makes a post I agree with, I tend to give it a hydration react. Should I find the post questionable, I might give it a confuse. Pretty straight forward.

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?

[Jester13]

10 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

Using emojis doesn't shut down an opinion, they're simply a reaction to a post.

 

It's offering feedback. If someone makes a post I agree with, I tend to give it a hydration react. Should I find the post questionable, I might give it a confuse. Pretty straight forward.

 

I would instead argue that trying to control how people react to posts is closer to shutting down an opinion and their freedom of expression.

If you would argue this, then argue it. Please expand on this idea as to how exactly this is encroaching on your freedom of expression. 

[BoKnows]

11 minutes 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?

I'm pretty sure the people who reacted with the "confused" emoji on his last post did it in good fun.  He did mention something about the confused faces in that post.  

[Jester13]

1 minute ago, BoKnows said:

I'm pretty sure the people who reacted with the "confused" emoji on his last post did it in good fun.  He did mention something about the confused faces in that post.  

I was wondering whether it was in good fun or whether it wasn't. Judging by some of the posters and the last reply I just got, tho, they may not be. If they are then that's great, but so far it seems more likely they weren't in good fun. But I could be wrong. 

[BoKnows]

4 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I was wondering whether it was in good fun or whether it wasn't. Judging by some of the posters and the last reply I just got, tho, they may not be. If they are then that's great, but so far it seems more likely they weren't in good fun. But I could be wrong. 

We'll never know their true intentions, we can speculate all we want but we'll end up with the same answer we already have.  I don't know.

[Jester13]

Just now, BoKnows said:

We'll never know their true intentions, we can speculate all we want but we'll end up with the same answer we already have.  I don't know.

Unless the confused posters actually post their true intentions 

[Master Mind]

21 minutes 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?

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

 

18 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

If you would argue this, then argue it. Please expand on this idea as to how exactly this is encroaching on your freedom of expression. 

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).