Jordan Peterson's Ban & Rebuttal

[Larniavc]

When did conservatives "control it all"?

In the 50s

 

[renniks]

Yet he would probably blame single women for not giving unattractive men a "chance."

Probably? Unless you know that he actually said that you are just making up stuff.

 

[SilverBear]

Obviously, Peterson knew his post would be a violation of the rules of twitter when he made that post. But he went ahead and posted it anyway and since then has cashed in on the controversy he manufactured and milked it to put himself in the spotlight complaining about how he is the victim and how he doesn't care about the rules. I wonder if he remembers when pride was a sin.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In the 50s

On social issues, it's been an ongoing cycle of things moving further to the "left" on a variety of issues going back way further than the 1950's.

Just about every generation is more socially progressive than their predecessors as whole.

With a few exceptions, just about every generation of 20-30 somethings (regardless of party affiliation) is more socially liberal than the 50-60 somethings of their day.

For instance, take these two issues:

You're more likely to find a 2022 republican who support legal pot and same sex marriage than you would've been to find a democrat who supported those things in the year 2000, and in the grand scheme of things, 22 years is a drop in the bucket.

The same was true of attitudes toward interracial marriage in the 80's when compared to attitudes towards it in the 50-60's.


It's not so much that "conservatism lost control" (like it's some sort of football that got fumbled and picked up by the other team).

It's that we've always been in a pattern where the socially progressive people of the day hit the accelerator (to varying degrees), and the socially conservative people push the brake pedal (to varying degrees) in response to that, but it's always trending toward progressivism (as in "progressivism" within the current time's definition of it)

There's a few examples of it moving a notch or two back in the other direction, but it's few and far between, and almost never permanent.


If you really want to put it in some real world context. The most conservative justice on the supreme court is a black guy who's married to a white woman, and made a pubic hair joke. That would be considered wildly out of bounds for anyone who was a social conservative back in, say, the 1930's.

Same goes with Trump, he was regarded as being "far right" despite infidelity, multiple marriages, owning casinos, and using profanity...again, that would be unthinkable for the puritanical types of the 1930's.

As recently as the 1960's (in Chicago no less) Lenny Bruce was getting arrested for using profanity.

As recently as the 80's, Al Gore's wife was leading a crusade against "naughty words in music" putting her on the opposing side of Frank Zappa and Dee Snyder (whose lyrics would be "tame" by today's standards)

So it's all a matter of perspective. People tend to view issues through a narrow lens, and one that can't see more than 20 years into the past or future.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Obviously, Peterson knew his post would be a violation of the rules of twitter when he made that post. But he went ahead and posted it anyway and since then has cashed in on the controversy he manufactured and milked it to put himself in the spotlight complaining about how he is the victim and how he doesn't care about the rules. I wonder if he remembers when pride was a sin.

Well, there's no such thing as bad publicity as the saying goes...

Given that he's recently found himself employed by the DailyWire (the company Shapiro owns), it's not surprising that he'd be willing to "push some boundaries" to draw some attention to himself.

It's also not surprising that given his recent occupational endeavor, they'd be putting him under a microscope a lot more now.

I don't think it's any secret that conservative pundits get graded more harshly on Twitter than their liberal counterparts.

For instance, Ana Kasparian from the Young Turks recently posted a tirade saying "I don't care about your stupid bible, and I don't care about your __ ____ religion", it's still up and out there for anyone to view.

If Michael Knowles or Matt Walsh posted something like "I don't care about your stupid Quran and I don't care about your stupid prophet said" to critique Islam, they'd be getting a twitter suspension in a heartbeat and be made to take it down before they were allowed to make further posts.


Do I think Peterson's tweet was productive, no...do I put any special stock in what he says? No, as noted in my previous post, psychology is a soft science...a little better than philosophy, but not as refined as psychiatry...so his credentials don't impress me.

But fair is fair...controversial left leaning statements get a lot more leeway than controversial right leaning statements on twitter.

 

[SilverBear]

Yeah, nothing Jordan Peterson wrote in that tweet is promoting violence, threatening or harassment. But given how much a certain segment of the left have diluted words such as violence, I would not be surprised if stating that pride is a sin or misgendering are now considered promoting violence, threats and/or harassment.

In my opinion the worst thing he wrote was that he called the physician a criminal. I'm sure what the physician did was legal. So if my legal jargon is correct I think what Jordan Peterson wrote could be considered libel.

And if Jordan Peterson was able to be suspended for that tweet then this person openly calling for violence most definitely should be suspended. This tweet has been up for over a week and yet the person seems to be able to continue to tweet. It's not a good look for Twitter suspending JP but apparently giving this person a pass. I'll give it another week.

Spoiler: Promoting violence

https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1540398670658654208?cxt=HHwWgMC-kb-bzOAqAAAA

this is addressed in Twitter's rules on abusive behavior.

 

[MehGuy]

Wasn't Jordan Peterson a few years ago in a medically induced coma to weed himself off the withdrawal symptoms of some drug and ended up suffering brain damage from it? We might in some respects be dealing with a man who's mentally challenged.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Wasn't Jordan Peterson a few years ago in a medically induced coma to weed himself off the withdrawal symptoms of some drug and ended up suffering brain damage from it? We might in some respects be dealing with a man who's mentally challenged.

I had read somewhere that he was doing some "self medicating" with benzos I believe it was...but I could be mistaken about that last part.

But I don't necessarily know if that would mean a person's "mentally challenged" in the sense we typically think of it.

 

[MehGuy]

I had read somewhere that he was doing some "self medicating" with benzos I believe it was...but I could be mistaken about that last part.

But I don't necessarily know if that would mean a person's "mentally challenged" in the sense we typically think of it.

I heard he went to Russia to be sent to a medically induced coma for a month when he was quitting a drug because he didn't' want to be awake to deal with the horrible side effects. That he came out with extremely slurred speech. He seems better now, but mentally he might not be the same.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

this is addressed in Twitter's rules on abusive behavior.

They have rules on abusive behavior...but this particular subsection of the "rule book" doesn't necessarily get applied in the most consistent manner

The example I provided earlier, where the Young Turks posted Ana Kasparian's tirade against Christian people on the topic of abortion. ...far more inflammatory than anything Peterson said.

...and there's no doubt that if a Matt Walsh or a Charlie Kirk made an identical tirade, and targeted Islam with the same tone and identical language, there would be harsher consequences.

And I'm not saying that to condone anything those guys say either...I find Walsh to be a bit pretentious, and Kirk to be more-than-a-bit obnoxious...

But when the "town square" is basically moderated by a group that is self-admittedly heavily skewed to one side, it's not surprising the outcomes are what they are in terms of content moderation.

 

[MrMoe]

this is addressed in Twitter's rules on abusive behavior.

This just confirms that none of what JP wrote was promoting violence, threatening or harassment. Meanwhile the tweet I linked to which is openly promoting violence is still up and the user is still posting. Why?

 

[SilverBear]

This just confirms that none of what JP wrote was promoting violence, threatening or harassment.

according to the rules it becomes harassment when it singles out individuals

Meanwhile the tweet I linked to which is openly promoting violence is still up and the user is still posting. Why?

who exactly is being threatened with violence here? it could be anyone. further according to the rules: "Some Tweets may seem to be abusive when viewed in isolation, but may not be when viewed in the context of a larger conversation."

Twiter is a privately owned platform and can set rules for using their platform and people signing up for Twiter agree to those rules. Just like how the rules here on ChristianForms are set by the owners and posters agree to follow them when they sign up. If you don't like their rules, stop using Twitter

 

[MrMoe]

according to the rules it becomes harassment when it singles out individuals

This is false since the rules state in bold letters "or group of people".

And this still doesn't explain what part of JP tweet constitutes harassment. A vast number of tweets a day single out individuals. That doesn't automatically make all of them harassment.

who exactly is being threatened with violence here? it could be anyone.

The user himself said "fascists".

https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1540398670658654208?cxt=HHwWgMC-kb-bzOAqAAAA

To add context, his tweet was made right after Roe v Wade was overturned. Here's another one.

https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1540391062245629958?cxt=HHwWjICzhdDgyOAqAAAA

Here he makes it clear the "fascists" he is referring to are the Supreme Court.

further according to the rules: "Some Tweets may seem to be abusive when viewed in isolation, but may not be when viewed in the context of a larger conversation."

In this case the context makes it worse.

Twiter is a privately owned platform and can set rules for using their platform and people signing up for Twiter agree to those rules. Just like how the rules here on ChristianForms are set by the owners and posters agree to follow them when they sign up. If you don't like their rules, stop using Twitter

This is a strawman, since no one here is arguing against the fact Twitter has rules, just that they be applied correctly and consistently. Twitter is doing neither.

 

[FireDragon76]

Wasn't Jordan Peterson a few years ago in a medically induced coma to weed himself off the withdrawal symptoms of some drug and ended up suffering brain damage from it? We might in some respects be dealing with a man who's mentally challenged.

He's always been unhinged.

Years ago I followed him a little bit but I eventually realized he hides a great deal of personal issues behind philosophical gibberish.

 

[Larniavc]

again, that would be unthinkable for the puritanical types of the 1930's.

It unthinkable. It would be naive to think that that was not rife. It was just done behind very closed doors.

Trump just showed how it doesn’t really matter what you do if you are powerful enough.

 

[Larniavc]

But when the "town square" is basically moderated by a group that is self-admittedly heavily skewed to one side, it's not surprising the outcomes are what

But then that’s an indication of the attitude of the town. He should use his common sense.

You don’t walk into Smallville and start badmouthing farmers or miners.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But then that’s an indication of the attitude of the town. He should use his common sense.

You don’t walk into Smallville and start badmouthing farmers or miners.

...but the political composition of twitter's employees isn't reflective of "the town".

A stunning 99 percent of online political contributions made by Twitter employees in 2021 went to Democrats, according to Federal Election Commission data.

Twitter workers made 561 contributions through Actblue, the Democratic Party-linked payments processor, vs. just eight through its Republican counterpart, WinRed.

Jack Dorsey (when he was still the "captain of the ship") even acknowledged as much per a Vox article (Vox isn't exactly right-leaning)

the people who build Twitter are biased, Dorsey admitted in an interview last month, saying out loud what everyone already knew: Twitter, like most tech companies in Silicon Valley, has a lot more left-leaning employees than right-leaners.

Twitter is so liberal, in fact, that conservative employees “don’t feel safe to express their opinions” within the company, Dorsey told NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen in a new interview published today on Recode Media.


When the political makeup of the town is about a 50/50 split, and the people moderating the town square a 99/1 split, it's nearly impossible to get fair outcomes.


If Twitter wasn't such a prominent platform, it'd be a non-issue.

But social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook built their critical mass on the concept of being open speech platforms (so much so, that they became one of the primary vehicles by which politicians and candidates communicate with potential voters), and then adjusted the ToS to be heavily skewed to one side after they'd already built that critical mass and influence.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

He says a lot of things I agree with and isn't afraid to do so and I value that. I don't care about right or left.

I agree with you. I have just started watching a few of his videos and now into Maps of Meaning. I think he just wants honest discussion. And is not afraid what happens. He is challenging me. I do not always agree with him but I like his careful articulation. And I like when my beliefs are challenged in a thoughtful way.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree with you. I have just started watching a few of his videos and now into Maps of Meaning. I think he just wants honest discussion. And is not afraid what happens. He is challenging me. I do not always agree with him but I like his careful articulation. And I like when my beliefs are challenged in a thoughtful way.

He's all theory, no praxis.

 

[FireDragon76]

...but the political composition of twitter's employees isn't reflective of "the town".

A stunning 99 percent of online political contributions made by Twitter employees in 2021 went to Democrats, according to Federal Election Commission data.

Twitter workers made 561 contributions through Actblue, the Democratic Party-linked payments processor, vs. just eight through its Republican counterpart, WinRed.

Jack Dorsey (when he was still the "captain of the ship") even acknowledged as much per a Vox article (Vox isn't exactly right-leaning)

the people who build Twitter are biased, Dorsey admitted in an interview last month, saying out loud what everyone already knew: Twitter, like most tech companies in Silicon Valley, has a lot more left-leaning employees than right-leaners.

Twitter is so liberal, in fact, that conservative employees “don’t feel safe to express their opinions” within the company, Dorsey told NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen in a new interview published today on Recode Media.


When the political makeup of the town is about a 50/50 split, and the people moderating the town square a 99/1 split, it's nearly impossible to get fair outcomes.


If Twitter wasn't such a prominent platform, it'd be a non-issue.

But social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook built their critical mass on the concept of being open speech platforms (so much so, that they became one of the primary vehicles by which politicians and candidates communicate with potential voters), and then adjusted the ToS to be heavily skewed to one side after they'd already built that critical mass and influence.

America isn't a 50/50 split. Only about 1/3 of Americans are Republicans. Most Americans have nuanced views about a range of issues, including economics, and aren't religious extremists.