Jordan Peterson or something whatever thread.

[Global Warming]

By misgender someone you mean printing thousands of fliers directly disparaging their identity, right?

It's Canada boyo, we fine people for denying the holocaust and being racist shit heads, deal with it lol

So you've just moved the goalposts from "Jordan Peterson is paranoid, compelled speech is an objectively false concern" to "this is Canada and we take great pride in compelling certain speech". Nice.

If you want to argue over whether it's moral to compel speech, just make that argument from the start.

 

[Realm]

So you've just moved the goalposts from "Jordan Peterson is paranoid, compelled speech is an objectively false concern" to "this is Canada and we take great pride in compelling certain speech". Nice.

If you want to argue over whether it's moral to compel speech, just make that argument from the start.

Compelled speech is when you don't get to print out thousands of flyers directly attacking a specific person and spreading them around town?

Which part is the compelled one again, the one where you're not supposed to print them? Not supposed to drive around handing them out?

Changing the goal posts, come on now, at least learn what you're arguing about.

Or if you refuse to wax the balls of a pedophile vexatious litigant.

Dang that's harsh, tho I do agree it would be funny to be able to discriminate clientele and ban everyone who isn't willing to pledge the destruction of the west and the eternal valorization of Satan

 

[Global Warming]

Compelled speech is when you don't get to print out thousands of flyers directly attacking a specific person and spreading them around town?

Which part is the compelled one again, the one where you're not supposed to print them? Not supposed to drive around handing them out?

Changing the goal posts, come on now, at least learn what you're arguing about.

Uh, you're absolutely allowed to print out thousands of flyers attacking a specific person, especially when they're running for national political office. There's even a whole industry built around it!

I'm not an expert on Canadian law, but I'm pretty sure it would be perfectly legal even if they were just John Q. Public, as long as the allegations made were true. If they were false and damaging to the person's reputation, they could sue for defamation, but they wouldn't get special privileges and a free lawyer via a Canadian kangaroo court.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Dang that's harsh, tho I do agree it would be funny to be able to discriminate clientele and ban everyone who isn't willing to pledge the destruction of the west and the eternal valorization of Satan

Women should not be required to be exposed to the male organ. If Yaniv wants into female spaces, let Yaniv remove it first. We'll see how much of a transsexual they really are...

This is the discriminatory act: Taking women, who you have killed and had at your leisure for ten thousand years of the Kali Yuga, and demanding that we bow to your democracy, your equality, and your fraternity, and sacrifice our own dignity and womanhood in the process.

 

[Realm]

Uh, you're absolutely allowed to print out thousands of flyers attacking a specific person, especially when they're running for national political office. There's even a whole industry built around it!

I'm not expert on Canadian law, but I'm pretty sure it would be perfectly legal even if they were just John Q. Public, as long as the allegations made were true. If they were false and damaging to the person's reputation, they could sue for defamation, but they wouldn't get special privileges and a free lawyer via a Canadian kangaroo court.

Seeing as the human rights tribunals existed before trans people got added on, and presumably like, did stuff before then rather than waiting in wait for decades in a nefarious plot to engage trans kangaroo justice, that's quite a big reach and a lot of hysterics.

Almost like it's an ideological concern focused on trans people rather than a good faith critique of the system.

hmmmmmm

 

[FriedCFour]

Seeing as the human rights tribunals existed before trans people got added on, and presumably like, did stuff before then rather than waiting in wait for decades in a nefarious plot to engage trans kangaroo justice, that's quite a big reach and a lot of hysterics.

Almost like it's an ideological concern focused on trans people rather than a good faith critique of the system.

The system is a vexatious litigants wet dream and an awful court that has also done shit like fine a comedian for a joke that wasnt even that offensive, not racist or hateful in the slightest.

 

[Realm]

The system is a vexatious litigants wet dream and an awful court that has also done shit like fine a comedian for a joke that wasnt even that offensive, not racist or hateful in the slightest.

Sure, and I think your entire nations focus on free speech is insane and a weak cover for out and out Nazis.

I'll take that trade.

 

[Big Steve]

Seeing as the human rights tribunals existed before trans people got added on, and presumably like, did stuff before then rather than waiting in wait for decades in a nefarious plot to engage trans kangaroo justice, that's quite a big reach and a lot of hysterics.

Almost like it's an ideological concern focused on trans people rather than a good faith critique of the system.

hmmmmmm

Well, that, or the law was similarly abused before it applied to transsexuals as well. I can get the logic of providing legal support in the court for the complainant given that it would enable poor persons to deal with discrimination against them, though.

 

[FriedCFour]

Sure, and I think your entire nations focus on free speech is insane and a weak cover for out and out Nazis.

I'll take that trade.

We wrote the bill of rights to provide cover for a group that wouldnt exist till near 200 years later?

 

[Big Steve]

Sure, and I think your entire nations focus on free speech is insane and a weak cover for out and out Nazis.

I'll take that trade.

The entire point of it is that even Nazis would be allowed to express their ideas in the open air, without repression, so that Truth and Error can have their face-off and we can see the Nazis are evil sons-of-bitches who don't deserve another moment of our time. Or to laugh at.



Sorry, but that came to mind, I had to do it.

Anyway, I get the idea that nobody should be forced to defend their right to live in political speech. And they shouldn't, I agree. But I think some of the attitudes about free speech regarding extreme ideologies comes from a misconception of what debate's supposed to be, that the outcome is meant to be a "middle of the road" compromise (aka the golden mean fallacy). One side saying "genocide is wrong" and the other "Genocide is okay" doesn't have to result in "some genocide can be okay" or "Murder" (as one comic strip I saw put it), indeed its result should be "genocide's not fucking okay, it's evil, piss off", and everyone else booing the genocide advocate and completely rejecting their position. People who don't... well, they're already diseased minds, do you really think censoring the genocide advocate's going to stop them from developing such ideas?

 

[Realm]

We wrote the bill of rights to provide cover for a group that wouldnt exist till near 200 years later?

Ya know, I could point out that original intent and current practice are different, but instead I'm going to out and out say that the bill of rights was ghost written by time traveling Hitler, because that seems a lot funnier.

It would explain all the racism, as well.

 

[inawarminister]

Ya know, I could point out that original intent and current practice are different, but instead I'm going to out and out say that the bill of rights was ghost written by time traveling Hitler, because that seems a lot funnier.

It would explain all the racism, as well.

If Hitler can time travel, why doesn't he went back to 1830s and smother baby Karl Marx in his crib?
That would be a decent rightful action in his mental framework after all


Also, we can't have a JP thread without the new hotness:
Notjordanpeterson.net , an AI-powered voice clone of JP himself

And here's the reaction from the guy:

I Didn’t Say That – Jordan Peterson

www.jordanbpeterson.com

This week, however, a company called notjordanpeterson.com put an AI engine online that allows anyone to type anything and have it reproduced in my voice. It’s hard to get access to or use the site, at the moment, presumably because it is currently attracting more traffic than its servers can handle. A variety of sites that pass themselves off as news portals—and sometimes are—have either reported this story straight (Sputnik News) or had a field day (Gizmodo) having me read, for example, the SCUM manifesto (hypothetically an acronym for Society for Cutting Up Men), a radical feminist rant by Valerie Solanos published in 1967. Solanos, by the way, later shot the artist Andy Warhol, an act, driven by her developing paranoia. He was seriously wounded, requiring a surgical corset to hold his organs in place for the rest of his life. TNW takes a middle path, reporting the facts of the situation with little bias but using the system to have me voice very vulgar phrases.

[SNIPPED]

Most interesting is his suggestions for outlawing any similar actions, pirating voices from public personalities (celebrities, politicians et al.)

And what of the legality of this process? It seems to me that active and aware lawmakers would take immediate steps to make the unauthorized production of AI Deep Fakes a felony offense, at least in the case where the fake is being used to defame, damage or deceive. And it seems to be that we should perhaps throw caution to the wind, and make this an exceptionally wide-ranging law. We need to seriously consider the idea that someone’s voice is an integral part of their identity, of their reality, of their person—and that stealing that voice is a genuinely criminal act, regardless (perhaps) of intent. What’s the alternative? Are we entering a future where the only credible source of information will be direct personal contact? What’s that going to do to mass media, of all types? Why should we not assume that the noise to signal ratio will creep so high that all political and economic information disseminated broadly will be rendered completely untrustworthy?
I can tell you from personal experience, for what that’s worth, that it is far from comforting to discover an entire website devoted to allowing whoever is inspired to do so produce audio clips imitating my voice delivering whatever content the user chooses—for serious, comic or malevolent purposes. I can’t imagine what the world will be like when we will truly be unable to distinguish the real from the unreal, or exercise any control whatsoever on what videos reveal about behaviors we never engaged in, or audio avatars broadcasting any opinion at all about anything at all. I see no defense, and a tremendously expanded opportunity for unscrupulous troublemakers to warp our personal and collective reality in any manner they see fit.
Wake up. The sanctity of your voice, and your image, is at serious risk. It’s hard to imagine a more serious challenge to the sense of shared, reliable reality that keeps us linked together in relative peace. The Deep Fake artists need to be stopped, using whatever legal means are necessary, as soon as possible.

 

[Realm]

If Hitler can time travel, why doesn't he went back to 1830s and smother baby Karl Marx in his crib?
That would be a decent rightful action in his mental framework after all

Please, Marx, even babby form, would smoke his ass

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Sure, and I think your entire nations focus on free speech is insane and a weak cover for out and out Nazis.

I'll take that trade.

I'd rather a system that lets the guilty free, than wrongfully punishes the innocent. So I would gladly trade for theirs.

 

[Comrade Clod]

I'd rather a system that lets the guilty free, than wrongfully punishes the innocent. So I would gladly trade for theirs.

The Guilty must be punished, every time someone is let away for expediancy it only encourages the others.

 

[Deleted member 1]

The Guilty must be punished, every time someone is let away for expediancy it only encourages the others.

There is no more perfect expression of totalitarianism than that.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

There is no more perfect expression of totalitarianism than that.

There Is a sort of idealism in that, give people huge amounts of power and expect them to be "Philosopher Kings"

It's sorta why I think it'd be a wonderful idea for whoever wins the Iron Throne of the Seven Kingdoms to establish a Royal Army/Legion and NEVER allow Vassals the power to rebel or make war with one another, the ONLY ones doing security or killing bandits and pirates would be said Royal Army/Legion.

What? You think that would be too much power? Well, better in one hand or a select group of hands than allowing so many more the freedom to arm themselves. They might hurt each other, or worse rebel and destroy the order made, if bandits and pirates are a problem they only have to run away and wait for the Royal Army/Legion who'll always be there just in-time and will always win

 

[Deleted member 1]

There Is a sort of idealism in that, give people huge amounts of power and expect them to be "Philosopher Kings"

It's sorta why I think it'd be a wonderful idea for whoever wins the Iron Throne of the Seven Kingdoms to establish a Royal Army/Legion and NEVER allow Vassals the power to rebel or make war with one another, the ONLY ones doing security or killing bandits and pirates would be said Royal Army/Legion.

What? You think that would be too much power? Well, better in one hand or a select group of hands than allowing so many more the freedom to arm themselves. They might hurt each other, or worse rebel and destroy the order made, if bandits and pirates are a problem they only have to run away and wait for the Royal Army/Legion who'll always be there just in-time and will always win

That idealism is the idealism of tyrants and slaves who deserve prisons and graves. Feudalism contains all the necessary customs to preserve the rights and liberties of people and absolutism was descent from that. Not a totalitarian one, though, because absolutist sovereigns were still constrained by custom, and still prepared to let people go according to the customs of the law. Your “idealistic” vision is nothing less than making all of society into a prison.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

That idealism is the idealism of tyrants and slaves who deserve prisons and graves. Feudalism contains all the necessary customs to preserve the rights and liberties of people and absolutism was descent from that. Not a totalitarian one, though, because absolutist sovereigns were still constrained by custom, and still prepared to let people go according to the customs of the law. Your “idealistic” vision is nothing less than making all of society into a prison.

Freedom From Choice For The Greater/Common Good/For Others, Is The Greatest Freedom Of All



Money? Threats of Violence? Starvation? Those aren't the best way to rule people

Also, to clarify "For Others" I mean ONLY the greater society as a whole, friends&family are second to the Greater Good, having them is too personal, too easy to sway them to something wrong just because they care more about them specifically than simply the Greater Good

 

[Deleted member 1]

Freedom From Choice For The Greater/Common Good/For Others, Is The Greatest Freedom Of All

There is a strong distinction between rejecting individualism to uphold communal bonds and endorsing totalitarian tyranny. Your words are a blatant endorsement of totalitarian tyranny. A system which denies exceptions and differences and ignores collaborative decisionmaking of social communities of interest, land and profession is nothing less than the system of prisons and graves.