Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 3 of 38 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 566
Like Tree229Likes

Thread: The Jordan Peterson thread

  1. #31
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,550
    https://www.vox.com/conversations/20...ism-philosophy

    I believe this is the passage in question here:

    I also suspect that for many of Peterson’s readers, the sexism on display above is one tool among many to make forceful, domineering moves that are typical of misogyny. And I define misogyny as hostility certain women face because they are women in a man’s world, rather than the hatred men harbor in their hearts toward all or even most women.
    I have a really, really, really hard time believing that this is defamatory, sorry. Harsh, certainly; cruel, probably; defamatory, no.

    In any case if Peterson genuinely believes he has a case then he should take it to court.
    citoyens, vouliez-vous une révolution sans révolution?

  2. #32
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    I guess in theory, but in practice I disagree. Defamation lawsuits are mostly bad and chilling IMO. Like, if Peterson can prove that the writer (idr her name) knowingly and wilfully put out information she knew was false, as opposed to being mistaken or having a low opinion of him, that was designed to do material injury to his reputation, then sure. Otherwise it's chilling.
    They're generally hard to establish. They're more about PR in some senses, giving a warning to those who have continually tried to smear him.

    For me it's not a general rule I have that I will apply to every case, it is literally case-by-case. Peterson being a misogynist is ignorant and malicious - and if you opine without knowing enough about the man then you will open yourself up to suits.

    This is aside from the fact that Shri is referring to him as a hypocrite when previously he came to the public sphere for defending his rights against compelled speech. He isn't, the distinction is there, and if some people don't get it then lord help us all.
    Last edited by Ikki; 24-09-2018 at 01:05 AM.
    ★★★★★

  3. #33
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    They're generally hard to establish. They're more about PR in some senses, giving a warning to those who have continually tried to smear him.
    Yes, and it is this use of them that I regard as chilling to free speech. If you have a case, take it to court and actually win it.

    For me it's not a general rule I have that I will apply to every case, it is literally case-by-case. Peterson being a misogynist is ignorant and malicious - and if you opine without knowing enough about the man then you will open yourself up to suits.
    "Ignorant and malicious" does not mean you should be able to use the legal system to enforce your will on other people for writing bad things.

    This is aside from the fact that Shri is referring to him as a hypocrite when previously he came to the public sphere for defending his rights against compelled speech. He isn't, the distinction is there, and if some people don't get it then lord help us all.
    How is "take this article down or I will make you pay me millions of dollars" not compelling speech?
    Last edited by Spark; 24-09-2018 at 01:07 AM.

  4. #34
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,550
    I don't know what Canadian defamation law and precendent looks like so maybe he does have a case in the other defamation lawsuits he's threatened/launched. But from what I know about American law he would have zero chance in any American court, and furthermore any findings in his favour on this regard wouldn't be enforcable in America (which is where Vox is published).


  5. #35
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Elm, he do brood. And Oak, he do hate. But the Willow-man goes walking, If you stays out late.
    Posts
    47,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Right but defamation lawsuits are another matter, especially high profile ones. Many of them come down to "shut up and stop saying mean things about me or I'll wreck your life"
    This sounds a bit like conjecture tbh. I mean yeah I'm sure what you say can or does happen, but to suggest it's the norm... I don't see any evidence for that, at all

  6. #36
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,550
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    This sounds a bit like conjecture tbh. I mean yeah I'm sure what you say can or does happen, but to suggest it's the norm... I don't see any evidence for that, at all
    Yeah maybe I'm just restricting to those subset that are reported extensively in the media.
    sledger likes this.

  7. #37
    International Coach ankitj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    11,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan View Post
    Not entirely sure why I'm bothering to respond (breaking my own crude screening rule here), but this only holds if you think the grand summation of all thinking ever about mainstream religion can be reduced to 'lol sky fairy' though. And I think that does an incredible disservice to mainstream religion and mainstream religious thinkers, whether one agrees with them or not.

    (Just as an aside, when I use 'mainstream' in this context I'm referring to the big religions themselves, rather than popular churches etc. I am not referring to those grifters as mainstream religious thinkers.)

    Like, don't get me wrong, feel free to think that the big religions (or any religions) are a load of rubbish. I take zero issue with that. What I do take issue with is the bad faith, reductio ad absurdum that comes out of Harris and the like in these discussions. If you're going to have the discussion about it, at least critically engage rather than just lobbing the Leviticus 20:13 grenade over the fence and covering your ears. But then again, nuance and critical engagement don't get you that sweet, sweet Patreon cash.

    (Aside number two - this is not intended as an endorsement of Jordan Peterson whatsoever.)
    All you folks keep saying grand summation of all thinking ever about mainstream religion can be reduced to 'lol sky fairy' is wrong and people who do that are pathetic. But none of you make an attempt, not in this short thread at least, to explain why mainstream religion can't be reduced to that. Make an attempt on articulating those positions and we can have a conversation. Why keep condemning people?

    To clarify my viewpoint a bit. I am sure 'lol sky fairy' is not what Abrahamic religions can be reduced to. But to a large extent that is the part that remains relevant because that's what billions of people live by. Nevertheless I am happy to hear what else interpretations of Abrahamic religions you have in your minds (non-Abrahamic religions are a different discussion altogether).
    RIP Phil Hughes. Forever 63*

  8. #38
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Yes, and it is this use of them that I regard as chilling to free speech. If you have a case, take it to court and actually win it.
    Calling him a misogynist is definitely hurting his reputation. Awarding damages however is a different consideration, which is why they tend to be more about PR. It's not that damage isn't suffered but it isn't easily calculable. Just because the law is exacting it shouldn't be used as a shield for people defaming others.

    This isn't a unique thing either. If you find a con man who cheats you out of $2000, and you find said con man is doing the rounds on others, you can sue them even though you know you're likely going to lose more money pursuing it in court. Or you use the threat of legal action so they stop.

    "Ignorant and malicious" does not mean you should be able to use the legal system to enforce your will on other people for writing bad things.
    Eh, why shouldn't it? Do you really think there is a widespread danger of people wanting to lose money in court to defend themselves from defamation? It seems to follow you don't want these laws to exist at all. If Peterson doesn't have a case all he'd have made is some noise. But that may be enough to stop said person writing "ignorant and malicious" things, which is the point here.

    Peterson isn't suing someone just because they don't have a favourable opinion about him, it is because they are purposefully trying to defame him - Vox et al have been doing it consistently. As I said, I'd take this case-by-case, I am not going to suggest everybody engages in these suits but at the same time I am not going to pretend they're not necessary in some instances.

  9. #39
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,550
    I and anyone else should be able to call him a misogynist and racist whatever I damn well like and for whatever reason I like. It's protected speech.

    To kind of exaggerate for effect, how long did Harvey Weinstein go unexposed and unpunished because of the threat of defamation lawsuits hanging over anyone who published those allegations? And that's with near best-in-world jurisprudence in the area.

    Kate Manne and Vox should be absolutely free to call his writing and statements misogynist if they believe it to be so.

    It seems to follow you don't want these laws to exist at all.
    You aren't totally wrong here tbh. But I do think the very narrow range which, say, Nevada law allows defamation lawsuits is... acceptable, I suppose.
    Last edited by Spark; 24-09-2018 at 01:23 AM.

  10. #40
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Elm, he do brood. And Oak, he do hate. But the Willow-man goes walking, If you stays out late.
    Posts
    47,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    I and anyone else should be able to call him a misogynist and racist whatever I damn well like and for whatever reason I like. It's protected speech.
    In the same way you smashing someone's car window is a protected action, yeah.

    Edit: No, tha's not quite right actually, I take that back.

    Agree with Ikki's point though. Defamation does not necessarily stop free speech, it's used to compensate people whose reputations are damaged by people saying things about them that are inaccurate or untrue.

    Similar principle to breaking a contract. You absolutely 100% have the right to break any contract you are a party to, but you will likely have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
    Last edited by sledger; 24-09-2018 at 01:25 AM.

  11. #41
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,550
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    In the same way you smashing someone's car window is a protected action, yeah.

    Edit: No, tha's not quite right actually, I take that back.
    Haha I was confused for a second there

  12. #42
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,550
    https://www.popehat.com/2018/04/24/a...lee-stranahan/

    This is basically my understanding of US defamation law:

    Only false statements of provable fact are potentially defamatory. The First Amendment absolutely protects opinion when that opinion is based on disclosed facts, however ludicrous and evil the opinion is.
    So unless Manne literally made up quotes to make Peterson sound awful, I don't see how her characterisation of accurate quotes as one thing or another can be defamatory. And it certainly shouldn't be intimidated out of existence using the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    In the same way you smashing someone's car window is a protected action, yeah.

    Edit: No, tha's not quite right actually, I take that back.

    Agree with Ikki's point though. Defamation does not necessarily stop free speech, it's used to compensate people whose reputations are damaged by people saying things about them that are inaccurate or untrue.

    Similar principle to breaking a contract. You absolutely 100% have the right to break any contract you are a party to, but you will likely have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
    What constitutes "people saying them that are inaccurate or untrue" and whether that raises to the level of legal liability is another question though, and varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Like I said I don't know how Canadian law works so idk whether Peterson's other lawsuits hold merit under those laws. My personal opinion is that US law (specifically the modern interpretation of the 1st Amendment) + Anti-SLAPP legislation should be the standard.
    Last edited by Spark; 24-09-2018 at 01:30 AM.

  13. #43
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Elm, he do brood. And Oak, he do hate. But the Willow-man goes walking, If you stays out late.
    Posts
    47,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    I don't know what Canadian defamation law and precendent looks like so maybe he does have a case in the other defamation lawsuits he's threatened/launched. But from what I know about American law he would have zero chance in any American court, and furthermore any findings in his favour on this regard wouldn't be enforcable in America (which is where Vox is published).
    He could pursue a claim in any jurisdiction where the article was published (either offline or online) just ftr.

  14. #44
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,550
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    He could pursue a claim in any jurisdiction where the article was published (either offline or online) just ftr.
    It wouldn't be enforcable in the US, though, as of 2013. I guess Vox would have to block access to the article elsewhere...?

  15. #45
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Elm, he do brood. And Oak, he do hate. But the Willow-man goes walking, If you stays out late.
    Posts
    47,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    https://www.popehat.com/2018/04/24/a...lee-stranahan/

    This is basically my understanding of US defamation law:



    So unless Manne literally made up quotes to make Peterson sound awful, I don't see how her characterisation of accurate quotes as one thing or another can be defamatory. And it certainly shouldn't be intimidated out of existence using the law.



    What constitutes "people saying them that are inaccurate or untrue" and whether that raises to the level of legal liability is another question though, and varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Like I said I don't know how Canadian law works so idk whether Peterson's other lawsuits hold merit under those laws. My personal opinion is that US law (specifically the modern interpretation of the 1st Amendment) + Anti-SLAPP legislation should be the standard.
    Yeah but generally speaking just showing that something said is untrue is not enough to establish liability, you'd normally be required to demonstrate that the untrue statement was injurious to your reputation as well. I agree that just saying a bad thing is not enough. But saying bad things leading to someone suffering, possibly irreparable, reputational damage, and all of the economic and social consequences that come fromt that, should definitely be legally actionable. Saying bad things about people can ruin lives. Like stains on your shirts that never come out.

Page 3 of 38 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 27-01-2019, 09:47 PM
  2. Chris Jordan Fan Club/Apprection Thread
    By sledger in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 22-06-2014, 06:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •