Comments on: Free speech on campus: Shepherd, Peterson, and sticks and stones

By: Gary D G

Gary D G — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:42:37 +0000

It’s been said so many times in so many different ways:
“Sticks and stones…” that the mind is numb – but still people are unable to grasp its meaning.
You want to call me, what in in your mind is, an epithet – go ahead – I don’t care. I’m comfortable and confident in my own skin; I know who I am and what I’m capable of.
The problem arises, however, when speech becomes a harbinger to future, usually violent, actions.
You don’t want me a member of your golf club: fine, I’ll build my own.
You don’t want to accept me in your school: fine, I’ll find one that will allow me to matriculate or I’ll self-educate.
You want to prevent me from earning a living (Berufsbeamtengesetz): not so fine; I’m leaving before I find myself in a work/re-education camp.
It became obvious during the last century that the restrictions on freedom of speech, no matter how well-intentioned, lead to further restrictions on other freedoms.
Hateful/inciteful speech, with freedom to rebut without fear of reprisal, is essential to the healthy functioning of our country.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 21:28:47 +0000

Liberty Wolf:

Yes, free speech is definitely the issue for Peterson, and for me.

It’s interesting that Orwell was well aware, when he coined Newspeak, of the important of language and governmentally compelled and/or prohibited speech.

The number of terms has been proliferating, hasn’t it? It is indeed getting pretty weird.

By: Liberty Wolf

Liberty Wolf — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 20:50:07 +0000

Sonny Wayze is right that the view of Dr. Peterson is not to be compelled to use third gender or other gender pronouns. Compelled by the government or even the university. It is interesting that he does use and will use conventional pronouns like “he” or “she” with actual transsexual people who are in the process medically, legally and socially or who have completed the process — of changing their sex. What he objects to is the compelled use of new fangled and outright weird pronouns like “ze”, “x/x/x/” and of course the notorious “they”. Many of these are used by people who have never done anything medically at all to change their sex or alter their biological sex and who never intend to Being “non-binary” is the rage now in some circles and many of these folks are apparently, anti-transition or medical transition.

Peterson has gotten a lot of support from people who have done medical transition. They write him to tell him that they are afraid of being lumped in with the nut brigade of “they” folks that is very leftist and highly politicized and has nothing to do with their lives. I am one of these people — of course. One of the trans people now not necessarily as much “trans” as “truscum”. That’s the term for people who do medical transition among the anti-binary crowd. Yes, weird! I am watching this new parade with some fascination and shock. There are even people who claim that “trans” now no longer means people who do medical transition since we are “binary” but — I have to say that is a fringe group. There are others who claim that having gender dysphoria is a “privilege” and that you don’t need gender dysphoria to be transgender. So again, traditional transsexual folks are marginalized. Total insanity has not yet been established but it is going in that direction. Yes it is getting weirder out there from my observation.

But that’s digressing from the core issue of free speech here. I have been following this free speech/hate speech controversy like you Neo for at least a decade now and it is one of the main things that took me outside the left. The problem is getting better and not worse. The good news is that many privately believe in free speech. Though liberty is a fragile thing.

By: Sonny Wayze

Sonny Wayze — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 18:26:30 +0000

“few minutes of a Jordan Peterson video (as one view among many that she showed) in which he took a stand for free speech and the right to not call transgendered people by their preferred pronouns”

IIRC, his POV is not to be *compelled* to use the ‘personal pronoun of the day’ by the Star Chambers of the Human Rights Commisions. Compulsion is the issue.

By: ErisGuy

ErisGuy — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 10:18:27 +0000

Hire traitors, live under tyranny. Duh.

For reasons I can’t understand, throughout my life, organizations–like universities—have hired people who simply don’t believe in the organization’s goals to run them.

By: Cycle Cyril

Cycle Cyril — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 23:04:16 +0000

Sorry for the delay but I was at a family celebration.

Most hate crime legislation carries an “enhanced” penalty for the offense. If you want an enhanced penalty enhance the penalty but do not have different penalties for same offense in the law. I am not opposed to a judge having the ability to determine the exact sentencing (most criminal penalties are ranges) based on the circumstances of the crime and the motivation.

But the potential for a second charge is real. Not too long ago George Zimmerman after his acquittal in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin was at risk of being charged in Federal court of essentially the same charge as he was subject to in state court with the added “enhancement” of a hate crime. This would have most likely been brought up under the Matthew Shepard Bill (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009).

While there are some provisions to prevent double jeopardy under this bill it is a thin reed and depends, as too much in our bloated government, on the good graces of personnel who are anonymous and immune to any argument.

Zimmerman lucked out, in my opinion, due to the publicity of his case and the ‘in your face facts’ which the media tried to literally cover up (his head injuries).

Thus I think that the potential for double jeopardy of someone acquitted of a crime in a state court and then charged in Federal court for the same offense but as a hate crime is great and should be eliminated.

By: The Other Gary

The Other Gary — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 21:52:30 +0000

huxley wrote (quoting Herbert Marcuse):

[Repressive] tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery…

That’s interesting, because implementation of “repressive tolerance” would would impede, if not destroy, “the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery…”

A self-negating concept.

By: huxley

huxley — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 21:24:12 +0000

Suppose those offended by these notions had had the power to shut down arguments in favor of those things?

OBloodyHell: Comrade, I refer you to H. Marcuse’s landmark essay, “Repressive Tolerance”:
_________________________________________________

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm
_________________________________________________

You see, it’s quite simple. Tolerance of the Wrong Things gets in the way of the Right Things, therefore such tolerance is repressive and must not be tolerated.

Eyes on the prize!

By: OBloodyHell

OBloodyHell — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 20:39:16 +0000

To me, Canadians, and most other liberals, are idiots.

There was a time when the notions of blacks or women having full rights, or the idea of interracial sex, much less marriages, or… much more recently, gay and trans ANYTHING, was considered by many to be “offensive”.

Suppose those offended by these notions had had the power to shut down arguments in favor of those things?

Where would these ideas be, NOW?

If it isn’t direct and overt threats, as in “I’m going to kill you right now!!” then it has no business being restricted BY LAW.

By: Tom G

Tom G — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 19:54:27 +0000

Did Rambukkana or the president resign?
No?

They have NOT really apologized.

Apology is when you resign. No resign, no apology.

Those are the rules from the Democrats. I don’t like them, but they’re like that, and Reps & conservatives need to use the same rules against the Dems that the Dems use – until Dems change the rules back.

No double standards.