Yes, and? His objection was to a law that could be interpreted as criminalizing mundane speech acts.
-
-
I owe you a more in depth response when I have a few more minutes available.
-
I'll be honest, I sat on the fence for a long time w/ Peterson but I saw him doing some Kekistan song and dance on Twitter and immediately lost all interest.
-
Plus I'm not really in the market for that kind of figure at this stage in my life. Rogan did the job pretty well for several years, along with Duncan Trussell, Daniele Bolelli and Ari Shaffir to varying degrees.
-
alright, a few minutes available now. You asked if Peterson ought to be considered exclusionary and pointed to his opposition to bill C-16 as evidence of that. I think that's worth addressing.
-
The specific objections to that bill was that it was 1) legally ambiguous and 2) could be interpreted in such a way that mundane speech acts could be considered human rights violations, which carries a VERY stiff legal penalty.
-
there is a conflict of values involved here and I want to discuss that separately only after I discuss whether or not Peterson's position ought to be interpreted as exclusionary
-
is it exclusionary to unintentionally insult someone? and if intentional? what does it mean to exclude? is it reasonable to expect it's a persons right to not be offended? if that is their right, then how do we determine which offenses are legitimate and which aren't?
-
you can see how problematic these questions become. it's a deep rabbit hole and there are no good answers down there. lots of booby traps though. that's the reason Peterson objected to it. He saw the bill as creating a perverse law enforcement environment prone to abuse.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.