The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson • Hacker News Board

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#71

Post by gizmo » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 7:41 PM UTC

rendall wrote: post #70

gizmo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your summary of the centrist objection is that it's false. The Overton window isn't narrowing -- it's expanding. Look at the last presidential elections. You had Bernie Sanders expressing socialist ideas and opposition to the 1%. Expressing those ideas used to be political suicide, but not anymore. At the same time Trump expanded the Overton window enormously to the right. Look at the political disco…

"... A lot more harm can be done by calm speech than by a baseball bat" Then it should be easy for you to supply even one example where calm speech caused a grievous head injury. "...and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights" I cannot imagine a single right infringed by someone else's free speech. Again, perhaps you can supply an example?

Kids driven to suicide because of verbal bullying for example. Or religious leaders who call upon their flock to engage in horrific violence against the other.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#72

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 7:58 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #63

ghoststories wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, don't you know you should not otherize people? You better check your privilige! Sarcasm aside... they aren't getting more respect. You can't force people to respect anything. Here's what actually happens: People control their speech (but not their thoughts) around those "other" people for fear of social reprisal. They'll simply avoid socializing with those people for the rest of their lives. Will they h…

If an employer discriminates against gay/trans/black/Muslim job applicants because _other people_ did something they didn't like, then that employer is totally unreasonable. You can't blame anti-bigotry activists for that. This is the "anti-racists made me racist" argument. Non-racists don't turn into racists when their behavior is criticized. That's absurd.

[deleted]

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#73

Post by rendall » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 8:04 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #71

rendall wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... A lot more harm can be done by calm speech than by a baseball bat" Then it should be easy for you to supply even one example where calm speech caused a grievous head injury. "...and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights" I cannot imagine a single right infringed by someone else's free speech. Again, perhaps you can supply an example?

Kids driven to suicide because of verbal bullying for example. Or religious leaders who call upon their flock to engage in horrific violence against the other.

Indeed. I would argue those examples are not protected "free speech", since their intent is to cause imminent harm.

But point taken. I did misspeak when I said "Calmly stated ideas". I meant, specifically, any idea that is not intended to cause imminent harm. Imminent being the operative word, there. So, to my mind, "I think minorities should be turned into lampshades." is reprehensible and worthy of social sanction, but should not be suppressed. "You should kill yourself!" to a suicidal person is dangerous and potentially criminal.

Let's turn it around:

Imagine someone expresses a racist idea, and then the universe splits in two.

In one universe, the person gets a punch in the nose and their books are burned.

In the other universe, a centrist says, "that idea is reprehensible, and here's where you have failed..." and then outlines ethical, philosophical and scientific objections to the racist idea. There is a calm discussion.

In which universe is the racist more likely to consume an underground press of unchallenged racist ideas? In which universe is the racist more likely to change their mind? Which universe is more dangerous, more likely to lead to violence?

From a centrist point of view, the suppression of stupid ideas is more likely to be dangerous, than having them out in the open.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#74

Post by mercer » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 8:06 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #69

rendall wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say is generally true, full stop. However, the centrist objection to today's leftist critical theory post-modernist rhetoric is not (as is too often asserted) "well, a little anti-semitism / sexism / racism / homo- and transphobia / genocide advocacy is okay in the interests of compromise and harmony with Nazis". This is clearly absurd, and no one reasonably would believe this. Those who spout reprehensible…

The problem with your summary of the centrist objection is that it's false. The Overton window isn't narrowing -- it's expanding. Look at the last presidential elections. You had Bernie Sanders expressing socialist ideas and opposition to the 1%. Expressing those ideas used to be political suicide, but not anymore. At the same time Trump expanded the Overton window enormously to the right. Look at the political disco…

I think the Overton window might very well be expanding on a society scale, but that doesn't preclude it from narrowing on 'community scale'.

Anecdotally I do get the impression that engaging with others about politics ('community scale') is much more explosive these days, on both 'sides' of various issues. I get the same impression when I think about the publications that often come up in conversations. It's like two parallel universes while I know for a fact that not too long ago reading habits included much more 'mixed' publications (also generally of lower quality, but I'd say that's not entirely relevant to the overton window 'issue')

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#75

Post by Synaesthesia » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 8:50 PM UTC

ghoststories wrote: post #59

Synaesthesia wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really so oppressive though? I'm glad trans and other people are getting more respect.

First of all, don't you know you should not otherize people? You better check your privilige! Sarcasm aside... they aren't getting more respect. You can't force people to respect anything. Here's what actually happens: People control their speech (but not their thoughts) around those "other" people for fear of social reprisal. They'll simply avoid socializing with those people for the rest of their lives. Will they h…

Maybe I don't read the news but I haven't heard of this, being forced to address people in certain terms etc.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#76

Post by Synaesthesia » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 8:51 PM UTC

ghoststories wrote: post #61

Synaesthesia wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I mean is 50, 60 years ago, a university was mostly white males, wearing suits, hats, mostly deferential. These days it's women, people of all colours, they can say what they want, express themselves etc. That's what I mean by more inclusive.

"These days it's women, people of all colours, they can say what they want, express themselves etc." They can only say "what they want" on account of their "oppressed" status. Everybody else has to censor their speech, for fear of offending those groups. Of course, they can't really all say what they want, but opinion dissenters from the "oppressed" groups are merely written off as "sockpuppets" (i.e. victims ) with…

You don't think universities are more open than in the 50's? There's a lot more dissent these days. I don't know about oppression on campuses.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#77

Post by Synaesthesia » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 8:56 PM UTC

ghoststories wrote: post #52

Synaesthesia wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't see it - the universities being taken over by rabid leftists and such. From my point of view, things have changed, they're more inclusive, less deferential, more open and so on, all changes for the better, but obviously disturbing for those used to the old status quo.

What does "more inclusive" actually mean? People are being forced to be overly accommodating to the sensitivities of certain "oppressed" groups, for fear of being ostracized and branded as horrible people. For example, if as a Christian you don't like the idea of gay marriage, you better not mention it in a group, unless maybe if you're Muslim, in which case your oppressed religious status allows that. It's a social…

People are free to feel how they like, like not liking gay marriage, but if they actually act on those beliefs, they're infringing on the rights and freedoms of others and that's not ok. I don't care if you're Christian or Muslim.

You don't think Muslims are more oppressed than Christians? They're way more oppressed. It's Christians which get a free pass.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#78

Post by Synaesthesia » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 9:02 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #69

rendall wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say is generally true, full stop. However, the centrist objection to today's leftist critical theory post-modernist rhetoric is not (as is too often asserted) "well, a little anti-semitism / sexism / racism / homo- and transphobia / genocide advocacy is okay in the interests of compromise and harmony with Nazis". This is clearly absurd, and no one reasonably would believe this. Those who spout reprehensible…

The problem with your summary of the centrist objection is that it's false. The Overton window isn't narrowing -- it's expanding. Look at the last presidential elections. You had Bernie Sanders expressing socialist ideas and opposition to the 1%. Expressing those ideas used to be political suicide, but not anymore. At the same time Trump expanded the Overton window enormously to the right. Look at the political disco…

Bernie Sanders is no socialist, he’s basically a mainstream New Deal Democrat. His positions would not have surprised President Eisenhower, who said, in fact, that anyone who does not accept New Deal programs doesn’t belong in the American political system. That’s now considered very radical.

->https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1115/Was-Eisenho...

Trump for me wasn't that different to any of the other Republican candidates, they all don't believe in global warming and have pretty much the same agenda. He just didn't dress things up and speak smoothly, like most politicians, but says it as it is.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#79

Post by gizmo » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 9:23 PM UTC

rendall wrote: post #73

gizmo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids driven to suicide because of verbal bullying for example. Or religious leaders who call upon their flock to engage in horrific violence against the other.

Indeed. I would argue those examples are not protected "free speech", since their intent is to cause imminent harm. But point taken. I did misspeak when I said "Calmly stated ideas". I meant, specifically, any idea that is not intended to cause imminent harm. Imminent being the operative word, there. So, to my mind, "I think minorities should be turned into lampshades." is reprehensible and worthy of social sanction,…

We don't have to take your hypothetical as a hypothetical. After WW2 Germany banned books espousing Nazi ideology, and punished similar speech because they learned first-hand what happens when you let that ideology roam free. And free speech didn't die. Germany today is one of the freest countries in the world.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#80

Post by gizmo » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 9:39 PM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #78

gizmo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your summary of the centrist objection is that it's false. The Overton window isn't narrowing -- it's expanding. Look at the last presidential elections. You had Bernie Sanders expressing socialist ideas and opposition to the 1%. Expressing those ideas used to be political suicide, but not anymore. At the same time Trump expanded the Overton window enormously to the right. Look at the political disco…

Bernie Sanders is no socialist, he’s basically a mainstream New Deal Democrat. His positions would not have surprised President Eisenhower, who said, in fact, that anyone who does not accept New Deal programs doesn’t belong in the American political system. That’s now considered very radical. -> https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1115/Was-Eisenho... Trump for me wasn't that different to any of the other Repu…

I didn't say he was a socialist, I said he expressed socialist ideas. For example his calls for universal healthcare and free college.

As for Trump, the discussion was specifically about what people can _say_. Trump said things other politicians didn't dare say, and by doing so he made a big impact on the political discourse. As for his agenda, in a country of 325 million even small differences between republican candidates are really significant.