It is worth probing the extremes. Is any any extreme ok with you or is there a line you are not willing to cross?
So far you seem to be good with “anything goes”. There is nothing you would find too obscene or too offensive or too hateful. NAMBLA should be allowed to speak at universities. The KKK should be allowed to speak at universities. Take your pick…there is no reasonable limit in your view. All views should be allowed a respectable forum to spew their views.
You’d tell your own daughter (pretending you have one if you don’t) that she should abide her attacker in her home in the service of allowing all sides to have a forum.
I don’t really have a clue what post-modernism or Marxism are, so I guess it would be fair to call me a typical moron. I’d be willing to wager that Jordan Peterson is a lot smarter than you are though.
Do you go around spouting off your ideological analyses of your political opponents using words you don’t understand? If so, yeah, you’re a moron.
He goes where he goes with his conjecture because it allows him to avoid the most obvious explanation for the protestors: they find him an odious little shit and hate the shit he spews. If he said that instead of blathering about how they don’t believe in individuality, it’d put the focus back on his views, which isn’t where he wants the focus to be.
I don’t think this is true at all. He talks to people one on one and listens to what they have to say frequently. He is willing to debate people and is thoughtful and articulate. He is not afraid to have the focus be on his views and actually sees the positive in people shouting and making noise so that he can’t be heard. I don’t necessarily agree with his position but I don’t think he should be silenced. He seems to be very paranoid of authoritarianism, which I suppose time will reveal if he is a paranoid crankpot or not.
Actually, no. I caught the same thing. In the first hypothetical his daughter has escaped from a cult where she was abused, and her brothers want to have the cult leader as a guest speaker in their shared home. He agreed he would tell the daughter to deal.
The inverse is also true: Things that are very important to me and lots of other people aren’t important to you or lots of other people who aren’t either of us.
I probably wouldn’t have run it at all. 20 people talking about something on Facebook isn’t generally newsworthy, except for local issues.
I’ve done far more stories on leftist issues than conservative ones and my Red Pen comes out far more often for conservative issues than it does for leftist ones.
Local gay couple fundraising to pay for their trip in New Zealand to get married? Great story, I’d be happy to run that. Local greenie doing a collection of blankets for horses in winter? I personally am not all that interested in horses but lots of our readers love them so so yes, I’ll do that story; it will be nice.
Someone thinks there’s too many immigrants stealing local jobs? Proooobably not doing that story, unless that someone gets together with some other someones and they organise a Kick Out The Foreigners society - in which case the story I write isn’t likely to be particularly sympathetic to their views.
I know it’d be easy to paint me as this awful right-wing Imperialist who hates everything even slightly lefty and wishes it was 1912, but I’m afraid the situation’s a lot more nuanced than that.
You never said “deal,” true. You said that you would tell her “…So how about you treat your brothers and sisters the way you yourselves would like to be treated and let them listen to their speaker. Make your displeasure known, by all means, but don’t keep the guest from speaking.”
Jesus raventhief, you literally quoted me saying “In this ANALOGY, I represent the university”. You even bolder the very next line. How can you not see how dishonest you’re being?
No, I would not invite an actual rapey cult leader into my actual home to address my actual children. I was simply playing along with the terms of Whack-A-Mole’s stupid hypothetical, which, in retrospect, was clearly a mistake.
the hypothetical doesn’t specifically say that the cult leader is the one abused her. He was ultimately responsible for her abuse, as the leader, and let’s be honest, a lot of times it IS the leader who is abusive. But maybe the Guest Speaker wasn’t the abuser.
You know the really ugly part of all this discussion about banning certain speech is?
That the people advocating for that are the same that are quick to characterize you as in that last paragraph.
The real problem is not that they want awful people to be denied a voice, the problem is that they want to decide who are those people and time and time again they’ve shown themselves to be very poor and self-serving judges of character.
How am I being dishonest? I quoted the whole of YOUR posts, AND the analogies in question. Yes, you represent something else as you tell your daughter to just accept the fact that there is an abusive cult leader in her home. If you wanted to convey that you wouldn’t do that to your daughter, how about this?
“No, this analogy doesn’t work.I would never tell my daughter to just deal with that situation. But it’s not analogous because…”
Saying "OK, this is an analogy…YES I WOULD ABSOLUTELY TELL MY DAUGHTER THAT. I really don’t see how much more unequivocal I can be on this topic. "
Makes it sound like you understand how analogies work, and how hypotheticals work, and you are unequivocally saying you *would *give your daughter that speech in the weird situation where your sons invited rapey cult leader into your home.
Unlikely, inasmuch as he doesn’t have the slightest fucking clue what postmodernism and Marxism are, as evidenced by his 100%-reality-free explanations f them.
I mean, thinking they’re the same thing, thinking they’re at all compatible, is itself proof of a complete failure of understanding. The most salient characteristic of post-modern epistemological tendencies is that they completely reject the stability and immutability of the discursive categories and binary oppositions that are fundamental to Marxism.