Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Jun 24, 2019 02:27 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]All evidence to the contrary.

One of the standards required for actual malice is that the plaintiff must demonstrate that the author in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication, or acted with a high degree of awareness of probable falsity.

Have you listened to the tape?

Syne Wrote:As I've said many times before, I'm actually here to have my views challenged. You're the one trying to shut down dissenting opinions. And your little projection is as transparent as it is sad, that you actually seem to be that lacking on self-awareness.

Like I said, ignorance really must be bliss, considering how you cling to it.  

I wasn't talking about you.

(Jun 24, 2019 03:02 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 24, 2019 02:27 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]All evidence to the contrary.

One of the standards required for actual malice is that the plaintiff must demonstrate that the author in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication, or acted with a high degree of awareness of probable falsity.

Have you listened to the tape?

Wow, you can't even manage to respond to the actual context of what you quote.

And then you apparently ignore what I just cited...and you conveniently failed to quote.

What tape? Did you post a link to it? Or just a link to an article with a link buried somewhere? O_o

Quote:

Syne Wrote:As I've said many times before, I'm actually here to have my views challenged. You're the one trying to shut down dissenting opinions. And your little projection is as transparent as it is sad, that you actually seem to be that lacking on self-awareness.

Like I said, ignorance really must be bliss, considering how you cling to it.  

I wasn't talking about you.

Then maybe you shouldn't say "if you’re uncomfortable with controversial issues" without any other preceding reference to anyone but me.
But I really think you're just lying here...or actually don't know how simple English works. Take your pick.

Any more consideration of seeking some marriage counseling?

(Jun 24, 2019 03:20 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]What tape? Did you post a link to it? Or just a link to an article with a link buried somewhere? O_o

The recording that we're discussing, deary. I assumed that since you were defending his defamation claim that you would’ve listened to the recording.

Syne Wrote:Then maybe you shouldn't say "if you’re uncomfortable with controversial issues" without any other preceding reference to anyone but me.
But I really think you're just lying here...or actually don't know how simple English works. Take your pick.  

No, I’m not lying. It was something that I said to Carol in the discussion when she compared me to Hitler. It can easily be applied to Peterson, as well. He’s a public figure, whose livelihood, or windfall, I should say, transpired through controversy.

(Jun 24, 2019 09:13 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 24, 2019 03:20 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]What tape? Did you post a link to it? Or just a link to an article with a link buried somewhere? O_o

The recording that we're discussing, deary. I assumed that since you were defending his defamation claim that you would’ve listened to the recording.

Again, did you post a link to it?

I haven't once offered any opinion on whether it is or is not defamation, as that's a matter for the courts, according to the laws of the relevant jurisdiction.
I've been pointing out your nonsense of contrasting legal defamation with free speech, as if they're mutually exclusive.

Now, if you have some specific point about the actual content of such a tape, by all means, post and link and get around to making it already.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Then maybe you shouldn't say "if you’re uncomfortable with controversial issues" without any other preceding reference to anyone but me.
But I really think you're just lying here...or actually don't know how simple English works. Take your pick.  

No, I’m not lying. It was something that I said to Carol in the discussion when she compared me to Hitler. It can easily be applied to Peterson, as well. He’s a public figure, whose livelihood, or windfall, I should say, transpired through controversy.

Then you obviously don't understand how to communicate using basic English. That being the case, I can see why you have such trouble understanding simple concepts and I have no doubt anything further would be completely lost on you.

So you can just dredge up old grudges all you like, deary. Learn how to communicate, instead of typing female stream of consciousness, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

(Jun 25, 2019 02:20 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't once offered any opinion on whether it is or is not defamation, as that's a matter for the courts, according to the laws of the relevant jurisdiction.

I've been pointing out your nonsense of contrasting legal defamation with free speech, as if they're mutually exclusive.

I posted a link on public figures showing why it wouldn’t work here in the states. Peterson is a public figure and he’s benefitting enormously from his involvement in public controversies.

If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Syne Wrote:As I've said many times before, I'm actually here to have my views challenged. You're the one trying to shut down dissenting opinions.

I think you feel the same way about it as I do.

Syne Wrote:Learn how to communicate, instead of typing female stream of consciousness, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Well, "stream of consciousness" that term itself is so bloody complicated. It took me like three months of non-stop thought to figure this out. Take the word "stream" for example, it's used as the embodiment of flow, as such the term "consciousness" is used as the transcendent ideal of a thought, and-and, as such the typified aspect of consciousness is inexorably tied up with the word, and what-what does a conscious being do? Well, they think. Yeah, that’s right. They think. They provide conscious thought, which is tied to the thinking process itself. You know when Alexander Solzhenitsyn thought about consciousness, he didn’t think of it as a personal conscious being but the consciousness of the whole of humanity. You know, the world’s a funny place and it’s a lot more connected than we understand. Well, yeah-yeah, that’s-that’s about all I can say about that right now.

Ha-ha! Stream of consciousness; the epitome of that verbose little varmint. 

(Jun 25, 2019 01:18 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 25, 2019 02:20 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't once offered any opinion on whether it is or is not defamation, as that's a matter for the courts, according to the laws of the relevant jurisdiction.

I've been pointing out your nonsense of contrasting legal defamation with free speech, as if they're mutually exclusive.

I posted a link on public figures showing why it wouldn’t work here in the states. Peterson is a public figure and he’s benefitting enormously from his involvement in public controversies.

If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

And I cited the Supreme Court, showing how public figures can successfully sue for defamation in the US.

Apparently, if you can't refute something, you just pretend it didn't happen.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:As I've said many times before, I'm actually here to have my views challenged. You're the one trying to shut down dissenting opinions.

I think you feel the same way about it as I do.

Doubt it.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Learn how to communicate, instead of typing female stream of consciousness, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Well, "stream of consciousness" that term itself is so bloody complicated. It took me like three months of non-stop thought to figure this out. Take the word "stream" for example, it's used as the embodiment of flow, as such the term "consciousness" is used as the transcendent ideal of a thought, and-and, as such the typified aspect of consciousness is inexorably tied up with the word, and what-what does a conscious being do? Well, they think. Yeah, that’s right. They think. They provide conscious thought, which is tied to the thinking process itself. You know when Alexander Solzhenitsyn thought about consciousness, he didn’t think of it as a personal conscious being but the consciousness of the whole of humanity. You know, the world’s a funny place and it’s a lot more connected than we understand. Well, yeah-yeah, that’s-that’s about all I can say about that right now.

When talking to others, some people can manage to filter their thoughts through a modicum of communication skills.

(Jun 26, 2019 12:47 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I cited the Supreme Court, showing how public figures can successfully sue for defamation in the US.

Actual Malice is not measured by what a reasonable person would say. You have to prove the defendant’s actual state of mind. You have to present clear and convincing evidence that they actually knew that the information was false.

Thank goodness Canadian defamation judgments are not enforceable in the United States. [1]

Syne Wrote:As I've said many times before, I'm actually here to have my views challenged.

If that was true, you would challenge yourself. Instead of trying to convince yourself that you’re always right, you should tried to falsify it first.

Syne Wrote:When talking to others, some people can manage to filter their thoughts through a modicum of communication skills.

Yes, some, but not Jordan Peterson.

(Jun 20, 2019 01:22 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So an OP that's just ad hominem, without any real refute of anything quoted, and a reply that rides that bandwagon, while admitting to be speaking out of ignorance.

Yes, this whole thread seems to be SS's attempts to trash and demean Jordan Peterson. In other words, it seems to me to be motivated primarily by her hatred for the man. That hatred is what interests me, not the arcane ins and outs of Canadian defamation law.

It's ironic that Peterson's self-appointed enemies pose as the paragons of rationality and (inevitably) morality. Always assuming themselves to be the better ones, always the ones to talk down to other people and cast judgement. ("Rational Wiki"? Yeah, right.)

I already argued (in post #16) that the quoted excerpt in the OP doesn't seem to be half as foolish to me as it seemed to some anonymous writer on Rational Wiki. It actually makes sense and introduces interesting ideas in very compact form.

So what's wrong with Jordan Peterson? Why is he generating this response?

His writing style might arguably be obtuse and difficult to understand. (Much of academic writing suffers from the same defect.) His points might arguably be tied together more with allusion than with sound logical argument. (Try reading Nietzsche's aphorisms.) He might arguably have ideological biases. (Is there such a thing as a 'feminist' who doesn't?)

It typically isn't writing style that elicits this kind of hatred anyway. There seems to be something psychologically deeper at work.

Is the problem that he is perceived by left-wing (supposed) intellectuals as being one of the 'evil ones'? One of "them", and outsider daring to play on their turf, purporting to be an intellectual too. I see where Google insiders may have been caught referring to him and a couple of others (Ben Shapiro and PragerU) as a "Nazis using dogwhistles" and suggesting that they alter their algorithms so that he doesn't come up.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201...-jordan-p/

So if Peterson is supposedly a "Nazi" and anyone who takes him seriously is an easily manipulated "dog", then opposing Nazis and not being a dog is the only position for an intelligent and moral person to take, right?

Actually, I know very little about Jordan Peterson. Most of what I know about him is the hostility that he generates on the left. Which suggests to me that he might have valuable things to say that need saying. Which would seem to make him worth reading.

I just tried to find Peterson's new discussion site 'Thinkspot' and it didn't come up (at least on the first page of results) on a google search for 'thinkspot'. What I got instead was a bunch of sites containing (often hostile) opinions about it. But an article about it in another publication included a link.

I'll add that PragerU is well worth looking at too. It has hundreds of (admittedly conservative leaning but often pretty good) videos to watch for free.

Bottom line: SS's little jihad is having precisely the opposite of its intended effect in my case. I find myself more interested in and curious about Jordan Peterson than I was before I encountered this thread.

(Jun 26, 2019 04:54 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 20, 2019 01:22 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So an OP that's just ad hominem, without any real refute of anything quoted, and a reply that rides that bandwagon, while admitting to be speaking out of ignorance.

Yes, this whole thread seems to be SS's attempts to trash and demean Jordan Peterson. In other words, it seems to me to be motivated primarily by her hatred for the man. That hatred is what interests me, not the arcane ins and outs of Canadian defamation law.

It's ironic that Peterson's self-appointed enemies pose as the paragons of rationality and (inevitably) morality. Always assuming themselves to be the better ones, always the ones to talk down to other people. ("Rational Wiki"? Yeah, right.)

I already argued (in post #16) that the quoted excerpt in the OP doesn't seem to be half as foolish to me as it seemed to some anonymous writer on Rational Wiki. It actually makes sense and introduces interesting ideas in very compact form.

So what's wrong with Jordan Peterson? Why is he generating this response?

His writing style is often obtuse and difficult to understand. (Much of academic writing suffers from the same defect.) It's excessively stylistic and literary. (Try making sense of any of the trendy French theorists so popular in today's university Literature departments.) At first reading it doesn't make much sense. (Try reading Kant, Hegel or Heidegger.) His points are tied together more with allusion than with sound logical argument. (Try reading Nietzsche's aphorisms.) He's ideologically biased. (Is there such a thing as a 'feminist' who isn't?)

It typically isn't writing style that elicits this kind of hatred anyway. There seems to be something psychologically deeper at work.

Is the problem that he is perceived by the academic left as being one of the 'evil ones'? I see where Google insiders may have been caught referring to him as a "Nazi" and suggesting that they alter their algorithms so that he doesn't come up.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201...-jordan-p/

So if Peterson is supposedly a "Nazi", then opposing Nazis is the only position for a moral person to take, right?

No. His writing style is obtuse but it’s not difficult to understand. It’s his use of cherry picked studies and shallow interpretations of all of the literature that irks me.

I already offered to supply you with the links. I'll even transcribe the video lectures for you, if you want. 

Have you read his books or watched any of his lectures? 

(Jun 26, 2019 03:47 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 26, 2019 12:47 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I cited the Supreme Court, showing how public figures can successfully sue for defamation in the US.

Actual Malice is not measured by what a reasonable person would say. You have to prove the defendant’s actual state of mind. You have to present clear and convincing evidence that they actually knew that the information was false.

Who said otherwise? O_o
Just arguing points nobody has made again, huh? The voices in your head?

Quote:

Syne Wrote:As I've said many times before, I'm actually here to have my views challenged.

If that was true, you would challenge yourself. Instead of trying to convince yourself that you’re always right, you should tried to falsify it first.

I play devil's advocate with every opinion I argue. Too bad you're not capable of coming up with any arguments that are either challenging or I haven't thought of.
You're so sad and lazy, you're essentially asking me to make your arguments for you. Do your own homework.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:When talking to others, some people can manage to filter their thoughts through a modicum of communication skills.

Yes, some, but not Jordan Peterson.

Those who live in glass houses...

(Jun 26, 2019 04:54 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 20, 2019 01:22 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So an OP that's just ad hominem, without any real refute of anything quoted, and a reply that rides that bandwagon, while admitting to be speaking out of ignorance.

Yes, this whole thread seems to be SS's attempts to trash and demean Jordan Peterson. In other words, it seems to me to be motivated primarily by her hatred for the man. That hatred is what interests me, not the arcane ins and outs of Canadian defamation law.

...
Bottom line: SS's little jihad is having precisely the opposite of its intended effect in my case. I find myself more interested in and curious about Jordan Peterson than I was before I encountered this thread.

Yep, the Streisand Effect.

Personally, I think her beef is mostly with him being a man, trying to teach other guys to be responsible, productive men. Rubs her misandry the wrong

(Jun 26, 2019 05:10 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Jun 26, 2019 04:54 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]...

No. His writing style is obtuse but it’s not difficult to understand. It’s his use of cherry picked studies and shallow interpretations of all of the literature that irks me.

I already offered to supply you with the links. I'll even transcribe the video lectures for you, if you want. 

Have you read his books or watched any of his lectures? 

Peterson deals a lot in philosophy, which SS doesn't like. So like anyone who can't be bothered to learn a subject, she balks about it being obtuse...when many others obviously find it quite palatable. Then she does some hand waving about studies and interpretations she neither details nor refutes. Then she tries to convince herself that you'd think otherwise if you had watched/read more. It's the last ditch effort to avoid answering for her hatred and all the ad hominems in lieu of simple rebuttals.