• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Jordan Peterson thread

ankitj

International Coach
You guys are making the point on behalf of others and asking them to defend it. Then when it is argued it isn't the position they hold, you don't listen to the reasoning. That is essentially where much of the discussion Sam and Jordan had broke down (although, generally, still enjoyable). I get that a lot of religious people hold these views but it is really a reflection that even many religious people haven't really wrestled with religion in an intelligible way that they can defend to themselves.

Generally, the reason why religion isn't "lol sky fairy" can't be summed up in one sentence if you want to truly convince someone. You have to actually engage with people like Peterson, and many, many others (some even atheists), to appreciate what is actually being argued or shared. I made the point earlier that perspective matters so much in these debates that it is more about willingness to listen and delve deep into a discussion than about being smart. It's why Sam, who is definitely a smart man, just doesn't get it because he keeps whittling it down to absurdism. I can say it is why myself, and many people who have re-wrestled can see Sam making these mistakes even if he is a more intelligent person than us.

When you read a lot of history and religious texts - without the perspective of reducing it to absurd literalism - you will come to appreciate why the word god itself means such a great deal - it's what all these ancient people were trying to decode in their own way. These people were not some lower level of human, we have not evolved that much, we just know more about the world now, and these ideas have come down from truly brilliant sentient beings.

I'm sure you're familiar that some even define god as something akin to gravity or some other force in nature. In some ways it is an organising mechanism for values and/or of matter. It is really hard to just sum it up as a fictional being in the sky.



It all makes much more sense when you view these stories for the metaphorical lessons they really are (IMO). I used to convince myself with "religion is just the opiate for the masses", "these people just need something to believe in", "lol, they really think Muhammad talked to god and wrote the qu'aran when he was illiterate", etc. it is only now I realise much of the dogmatism of atheism is no different to the dogmatism even in religious people.

Like all ideas we use to conceptualise our world, it is hard to keep yourself accountable because you become too accustomed to the perspective you have and what works for you. I've suggested it before but I think Peterson's biblical lecture series is a good starting point. I have heard of many of these interpretations and arguments before but it wasn't until I started listening to a lot of Peterson (and I am not suggesting he is the inventor or best proponent for these arguments) that I realised there really is a parallel between the religious truths and those truths of the natural world we reveal via science.

They're both in the pursuit of truth of a different kind and it requires intellectual and moral honesty in both realms to get to transcendental truths that last. They may never be resolved like quantum physics and classical physics, much like how we don't know where consciousness comes from, but it let's you view the world from a far more accurate perspective. I know this has started to sound preachy but I am telling you, it can help a lot in your own personal life.
Thanks for responding at great lengths. I appreciate it. I am open to reading and learning about this kind of stuff. Let me check out the bolded reference. We can then have a conversation. But let me make a clarification that I am going to force anyone engaging with me to logically reconcile their views of Christianity with the supposed "low hanging fruits". I don't think it is intellectually honest to escape doing this reconciliation.

PS. And yes, I agree that religions have played a significant role in shaping and progressing societies in entire history of humankind. Historical relevance of religions is not the point of my contention.
 
Last edited:

Spark

Global Moderator
And you are, no one can stop you and defamatory law suits do not stop you from having your say. That's why the distinction between the state and individuals matters.
And who exactly is encharge of enforcing defamation lawsuits?

Justice isn't perfect and it isn't straightforward. You have managed to utilise an example where the threat of lawsuit may have scared some from defamatory lawsuits - but those people still could have done so if they were inclined for their moral persuasions. In fact, you could argue that those who did not do the right thing were culpable to an extent as well, morally at least.
Morally, yes. There's still the fact that those lawsuits had a chilling effect on much-needed speech. And not everyone has the resources to sustain a legal defence against even spurious defamation claims.

But to flip that: imagine a situation where anyone could defame you and ruin your reputation without any threat of civil suit? That is not fair either, which is why this is a case-by-case consideration.
And such cases should be highly restricted to well-defined wilfully false statements of fact.

Particularly in the ultra-PC world we are living in, statements on your character attributed by others can have a real effect on your life and job prospects. If not for Peterson's strong support, it would be very easily to outcast him from the conversation by these nutjobs. That's why alternate media sources have become so important. We are not living in 1990s where a single hit-job would shut you up, now people are investigating things for themselves and crowd-source funding (Peterson is raking it in on Patreon) allows these voices to be heard in defence of themselves.
You are staggeringly naive if you think this started with "PC gone mad".

I think at the moment we are only talking about a threat of a lawsuit - although, I wouldn't be surprised if Peterson went through with it.
Even the threat of the lawsuit can be chilling, because they can deter people from exercising their right to speech because they feel they will be fleeced by the courts for doing so.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Not necessarily though. Having said inclinations, so far as I know, is not actually a criminal offence... It's acting on them in some way that gives rise to criminal wrongdoing.

Edit: And yeah, if statements have been published somewhere fairly widely and this has led to your friend's reputations demonstrably being damaged, I don't see why not. Sounds perfectly plausible.
Yeah I was being kind of facetious tbf, but there's no doubt that trying to injure the reputations of gay people en masse by saying they're pedophiles is and was a thing, I still see it now.

The example you give is an interesting grey area tbf, I'd have to think about it more.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
And who exactly is encharge of enforcing defamation lawsuits?
You said: 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.

I said: you can, defamation law suits don't stop you from doing so. They just cost you if the claim succeeds.

Generally, I don't see much evidence for judges wanting to expand this so they succeed a lot, they generally don't. Most lawyers won't even engage with you if you bring up defamation suits.

Morally, yes. There's still the fact that those lawsuits had a chilling effect on much-needed speech. And not everyone has the resources to sustain a legal defence against even spurious defamation claims.
This isn't a problem restricted to speech. The threat of all law suits do this. We don't stop people from suing, we hear cases and decide on a case-by-case basis.

And such cases should be highly restricted to well-defined wilfully false statements of fact.
It's not about statements of fact strictly. Two people can state the same fact and have wildly different interpretations. Defamatory statements are opinions. If they are made on things which strictly are facts but a ridiculous interpretation of them, it should not be free from a claim.

You are staggeringly naive if you think this started with "PC gone mad".
I'm not sure what the ad hominem is for...but I didn't say it started, I said it is even worse now. We are in the other thread talking about Kavanaugh. For some, because of #metoo, it doesn't matter if there is any proof or not, they will now call him a rapist if he gets confirmed and destroy him even more if he isn't.

Even the threat of the lawsuit can be chilling, because they can deter people from exercising their right to speech because they feel they will be fleeced by the courts for doing so.
As I said in the above, this isn't anything new: This isn't a problem restricted to speech. The threat of all law suits do this. We don't stop people from suing, we hear cases and decide on a case-by-case basis.
 
Last edited:

Spark

Global Moderator
We don't stop people from suing, we hear cases and decide on a case-by-case basis.
Yes we do, or at least people are strongly deterred from raising frivolous lawsuits:

https://www.courthousenews.com/1-3-million-in-anti-slapp-sanctions/

Defamatory statements are opinions.
No, not under US law they aren't.

I'm not sure what the ad hominem is for...but I didn't say it started, I said it is even worse now. We are in the other thread talking about Kavanaugh. For some, because of #metoo, it doesn't matter if there is any proof or not, they will now call him a rapist if he gets confirmed and destroy him even more if he isn't.
And, for some, it doesn't matter if it actually happened because the political opinions of the accuser disqualify her from ever seeking redress. Swings and roundabouts.
 
Last edited:

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Even if they are not defamatory, you can sue someone under the tort of "publicity that casts someone in a false light", which may be broad enough to encompass opinions, just ftr.
 

Ausage

Cricketer Of The Year
I see where Spark's coming from here. I want the maximum amount of speech in the world and defamation suits tend to run contrary to that. In Peterson's case I think articles and videos countering their claims do enough to counter his reputational damage, in fact you could make a strong case that they help him more than perhaps any other factor. It is however not the same as state sanctions on speech however hard Peterson's detractors try to make the equivalence. I also don't think this makes Peterson a hypocrite, mostly because I don't think most of these articles are being written in good faith.

That said, it kind of feels like how I imagine most here felt when Spencer got punched. Regardless of anything else, I'll be damned if I'm not going to enjoy watching liars like these cop material losses for the production of their money grubbing, clickbait bull****.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
I see where Spark's coming from here. I want the maximum amount of speech in the world and defamation suits tend to run contrary to that. In Peterson's case I think articles and videos countering their claims do enough to counter his reputational damage, in fact you could make a strong case that they help him more than perhaps any other factor. It is however not the same as state sanctions on speech however hard Peterson's detractors try to make the equivalence. I also don't think this makes Peterson a hypocrite, mostly because I don't think most of these articles are being written in good faith.

That said, it kind of feels like how I imagine most here felt when Spencer got punched. Regardless of anything else, I'll be damned if I'm not going to enjoy watching liars like these cop material losses for the production of their money grubbing, clickbait bull****.
Yeah I should be clear that I don't think this is a Jordan Peterson thing per se, I think as long as the option exists people will use it and in a sense they would be negligent not to (don't blame the players for the rules etc). But I do think that defamation law in Australia and thus I guess by extension other common law jurisdictions is too broad, and too easily used by powerful interests to shut down dissent and scrutiny. Perhaps I went too far in basically saying it should be abolished, but it certainly should be significantly curbed in the sense that more vigilance is needed against vexation lawsuits designed to deter speech, not claim compensatation for genuine reputational damage done out of malice.

I agree that good faith is the good standard that people should be using when responding to all sorts of complaints (I've posted here a lot saying exactly that). I would like to see that consistently and broadly applied, though, and I don't think it is (humans are tribal, shock)
 
Last edited:

Redbacks

International Captain
What are Peterson's thoughts on the restaurant getting lobsters high before boiling them?...and is there implications for capital punishment
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I see where Spark's coming from here. I want the maximum amount of speech in the world and defamation suits tend to run contrary to that. In Peterson's case I think articles and videos countering their claims do enough to counter his reputational damage, in fact you could make a strong case that they help him more than perhaps any other factor. It is however not the same as state sanctions on speech however hard Peterson's detractors try to make the equivalence. I also don't think this makes Peterson a hypocrite, mostly because I don't think most of these articles are being written in good faith.

That said, it kind of feels like how I imagine most here felt when Spencer got punched. Regardless of anything else, I'll be damned if I'm not going to enjoy watching liars like these cop material losses for the production of their money grubbing, clickbait bull****.
The Vox article that Spark posted is very obviously written in good faith tbf.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Dara Lind. She writes mostly about immigration on Vox which is what brought her to a libertarian conference, but her opinions on most things (immigration included) are very much in line with Spark's.
Ah, makes sense. That's a compliment imo, she's very good.

Writing style is too Vox-y to resemble anyone who isn't another Vox writer though.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Ah, makes sense. That's a compliment imo, she's very good.

Writing style is too Vox-y to resemble anyone who isn't another Vox writer though.
Yeah it never struck me when reading her articles, but her spoken turn of phrase is quite similar to Spark's written one, if that makes sense, even beyond the similarities of opinion.

I've never seen them in the same room together either.:ph34r:
 

Top