No, they're not. Wilfrid Laurier University is in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Kate Manne is a different issue; I think his standing there is much weaker.
Possibly so, but considering the seriousness of the alligation, as a professor of psychology, I'd be absolutely sure before I made such an alligation. If you're not sure, like she apparently isn't: don't make the alligation to begin with.
I do believe there's a bit of a difference between just anyone claiming that Dr. Peterson may have gaslit a patient or a professor of philosophy making such a claim. It is a pretty serious accusation to make, and her position gives her a certain amount of credibility in this regard. While I still think this lawsuit is misguided, I do notice that Dr. Peterson has been called a lot of things by a lot of people, and he's only filed a few very specific defamation lawsuits. It's not like he's trying to silence everybody who disagrees with him.
I think the question is not so much whether he can sue under Canadian defamation laws, but whether he should. These lawsuits appear more focused on teaching university professors to be a tad more honest in their opinions due to their standing than on compensating for actual harm. Though that may be a legal course of action under Canadian law, I do think someone who portrays himself as a free speech advocate should consider whether doing so might impact his credibility.
That said, I am curious as to where the draw the line between speech one should let slide, and cases of libel or slander where legal action is needed. IMHO, there should be some limits on knowingly expressing falsehoods. Is adding "I think" or "in my opinion" sufficient in all cases? Can I avoid any legal blame by doing that?
You raise a very valid point, and if that is all he said during that interview then I would absolutely agree with you. I wonder if that is the case though.
According to the article, Nellie Bowles spent 2 days interviewing him, resulting in an article with relatively few quotes, and a lot of descriptive language and alternative view points. I truly wonder if that's all he said about the matter or if that's what she took home from it.
Again though: if that's truly all he said, then I completely agree with you that he could have done a LOT better.
You know? I'm actually sorry you truly feel this way (because I do believe you're being honest about your feelings here). I've been an avid Techdirt reader for about 18 years now, and I think this is the first time I've actually gone against the popular opinion here. Though it's been lots of fun, I can't say it has been easy. I realize that this was probably a very bad time to forget the password to my https://www.techdirt.com/user/phulshof account, which makes it seem like I only created an account here to partake in this discussion. I did mention that early in this discussion, but considering that I wrote about 25% of the posts in this discussion I can't really blame people for missing that one. Perhaps I was a bit too enthusiastic in my participation as well. I've spent many hours (re)reading articles and watching videos in order to get my answers correct (and certainly failed at times), so I'm sorry I couldn't find the time to find the name of every source I used.
I'll leave the decision of whether or not I'm a troll to the individual reader. I've tried to put forth several arguments, but either some people are so blinded by the fact that I support some of professor Peterson's arguments or I need to learn how to articulate my arguments in a prescriptive matter. Somehow even the name of Jordan Peterson seems to work like a red flag on a bull on some people.
I read this critique article on him today at https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-jordan-peterson-tour-comes-to-aspen/563813/ with a quote that struck me: "A critique I frequently hear from Peterson’s critics is that everything he says is either obvious or wrong. I think that critique fails insofar as I sometimes see some critics calling one of his statements obvious even as others insist it is obviously wrong." I've seen that same situation here. Apparently what's obvious to some is completely wrong to somebody else, which is probably one of the main reasons he's currently so loved and loathed at the same time.
For the most part, what professor Peterson says is indeed nothing special. He uses research results from various fields to prove that some ideas and arguments are invalid, but doesn't claim to hold all the answers either. His main focus is to help individuals find meaning in their lives, because to him having meaning is the base everyone needs. His popularity stems from him actually saying it (which is considered bigotry, misogyny, homophobic, racist, etc. to some to the extend that any attempt to even utter such things must be prevented even if it requires violence), and offering an alternative view of life. He's probably improved more people's lives than any of us here could ever hope for.
I don't always agree with professor Peterson. For starters, I'm certainly more left-wing in my political views than he is. I also feel that he's so worried about extreme left- and right=wing views that he even sees their hand in places they probably aren't, like e.g. the plot of the movie Frozen. While I think that the situation at US schools and certain companies is more dire than Mike believes, I don't think they're as dire as professor Peterson thinks they are. I do think things are getting worse based on the number of articles from many news sources (left as well as right) that are appearing lately.
I think my discussion with Wendy Cockcroft is a good example of what Uriel-238 was talking about:
Wendy Cockcroft stated that professor Peterson was a 'misogynous git' for claiming that 'men in stable relationships are less likely to be violent'.
I described why that argument is incorrect, since professor Peterson is merely stating a fact based on anthropoly research, and backed that with a reference to such research.
Wendy Cockcroft claimed that the implication of that fact would be that women have an obligation to act on this.
I deny that implication, since there are many more factors that come into play here. I merely refute that stating that fact is misogyny.
You claim that I have nothing to say, since I deny the implication.
Your reaction reminds me of the Cathy Newman interview, where she kept asking "so you're saying ...", and professor Peterson kept answering "no, I'm not saying that at all". Is it my fault that you draw the wrong conclusions regarding what I actually said? Perhaps it is, and I'm not explaining myself sufficiently, but I get the feeling that in some cases you simply don't want to or don't try to understand. Uriel-238's post gave a very good explanation of why that may be.
You know, this is the first reaction where you've actually written some arguments rather than just ad hominem attacks. I guess you deserve some credit for that.
I think your preposition that I'm arguing in bad faith blinds you from actually seeing when I talk about how I think professor Peterson sees something, and when I talk about how I see something. Other people I've argued with here seem to have fewer problems with that. In the later parts of the discussions here I've spoken much more regarding my own views.
I think Uriel-238 described the problem very accurately when he said: "I think you're encountering one of the common problems that occurs in political parlance, that some of us are inclined towards description, that is, talking about how things are. But in the meantime many people talk about and expect to hear prescription, that is, how things should be."
I tend to argue descriptively, I (try to) state things the way they are, and how certain arguments may be invalid and how certain policies may be a bad idea based on statistical evidence on that.
I try to research a position from multiple (often conflicting) views, and draw a conclusion from that. That doesn't mean I'm always right. When was the last time you read the HRA?
For someone who doesn't want to listen to me, you spend an awful lot of time reading my posts, and reacting.
Why do I? Rule 9 by professor Peterson: Assume that the other person knows something you don't. I'm not afraid to have my views corrected by thoughtful counter arguments. Some people have provided some during these discussions, and I have somewhat adjusted my views accordingly. Unfortunately, you're not one of those people.
Some were (or claimed) to be lawyers, in online discussions regarding this topic. With legal scholars I meant the professors of law that sided with professor Peterson on this matter.
It seems the site has a bit of trouble putting this comment where it belongs... ---- I think that's an excellent explanation of what we're seeing here. Mark me down for an insightful point. :)
I think that's also what professor Peterson is encountering. As a clinical psychiatrist he generally uses description in these discussions. He's stating statistics, but is incredibly careful to draw solutions from that. He merely uses it to counter statements that aren't true. That's how you get miscommunication like the Cathy Newman interview, where she's drawing conclusions from what she hears him describing.
I think that's an excellent explanation of what we're seeing here. Mark me down for an insightful point. :)
I think that's also what professor Peterson is encountering. As a clinical psychiatrist he generally uses description in these discussions. He's stating statistics, but is incredibly careful to draw solutions from that. He merely uses it to counter statements that aren't true. That's how you get miscommunication like the Cathy Newman interview, where she's drawing conclusions from what she hears him describing.
Are you familiar with the story of Joshua Sutcliffe? Granted, that was in the UK, and not in Canada, but he was indeed fired over an accidental misgendering, which he immediately corrected when it was pointed out. When it comes to law, you may be correct. The court case he started against Oxfordshire school will tell.
As was pointed out to me: the HRA does make a distinction between discrimination and harassment. I've so far heard conflicting legal theories about this from multiple lawyers, but I must admit that it would reflect really bad on a judge if an accidental misgendering would be considered harassment.
I do worry about whether personal views will be taken into account here. Would someone who questions the validity of gender be fined sooner of an accidental misgender than someone who does not?
Re:
No, they're not. Wilfrid Laurier University is in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Kate Manne is a different issue; I think his standing there is much weaker.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're correct; I was a bit too quick in pressing submit there. :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That remains to be seen. I'm not familiar enough with Canadian law to make an educated guess here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Possibly so, but considering the seriousness of the alligation, as a professor of psychology, I'd be absolutely sure before I made such an alligation. If you're not sure, like she apparently isn't: don't make the alligation to begin with.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I might agree with you on most, but I have my doubts regarding point f.
Re: Re:
I do believe there's a bit of a difference between just anyone claiming that Dr. Peterson may have gaslit a patient or a professor of philosophy making such a claim. It is a pretty serious accusation to make, and her position gives her a certain amount of credibility in this regard. While I still think this lawsuit is misguided, I do notice that Dr. Peterson has been called a lot of things by a lot of people, and he's only filed a few very specific defamation lawsuits. It's not like he's trying to silence everybody who disagrees with him.
Re:
I think the question is not so much whether he can sue under Canadian defamation laws, but whether he should. These lawsuits appear more focused on teaching university professors to be a tad more honest in their opinions due to their standing than on compensating for actual harm. Though that may be a legal course of action under Canadian law, I do think someone who portrays himself as a free speech advocate should consider whether doing so might impact his credibility.
That said, I am curious as to where the draw the line between speech one should let slide, and cases of libel or slander where legal action is needed. IMHO, there should be some limits on knowingly expressing falsehoods. Is adding "I think" or "in my opinion" sufficient in all cases? Can I avoid any legal blame by doing that?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
Here's what the man himself had to say about the matter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44VQuirxQ_I
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
You raise a very valid point, and if that is all he said during that interview then I would absolutely agree with you. I wonder if that is the case though.
According to the article, Nellie Bowles spent 2 days interviewing him, resulting in an article with relatively few quotes, and a lot of descriptive language and alternative view points. I truly wonder if that's all he said about the matter or if that's what she took home from it.
Again though: if that's truly all he said, then I completely agree with you that he could have done a LOT better.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
You know? I'm actually sorry you truly feel this way (because I do believe you're being honest about your feelings here). I've been an avid Techdirt reader for about 18 years now, and I think this is the first time I've actually gone against the popular opinion here. Though it's been lots of fun, I can't say it has been easy. I realize that this was probably a very bad time to forget the password to my https://www.techdirt.com/user/phulshof account, which makes it seem like I only created an account here to partake in this discussion. I did mention that early in this discussion, but considering that I wrote about 25% of the posts in this discussion I can't really blame people for missing that one. Perhaps I was a bit too enthusiastic in my participation as well. I've spent many hours (re)reading articles and watching videos in order to get my answers correct (and certainly failed at times), so I'm sorry I couldn't find the time to find the name of every source I used. I'll leave the decision of whether or not I'm a troll to the individual reader. I've tried to put forth several arguments, but either some people are so blinded by the fact that I support some of professor Peterson's arguments or I need to learn how to articulate my arguments in a prescriptive matter. Somehow even the name of Jordan Peterson seems to work like a red flag on a bull on some people. I read this critique article on him today at https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-jordan-peterson-tour-comes-to-aspen/563813/ with a quote that struck me: "A critique I frequently hear from Peterson’s critics is that everything he says is either obvious or wrong. I think that critique fails insofar as I sometimes see some critics calling one of his statements obvious even as others insist it is obviously wrong." I've seen that same situation here. Apparently what's obvious to some is completely wrong to somebody else, which is probably one of the main reasons he's currently so loved and loathed at the same time. For the most part, what professor Peterson says is indeed nothing special. He uses research results from various fields to prove that some ideas and arguments are invalid, but doesn't claim to hold all the answers either. His main focus is to help individuals find meaning in their lives, because to him having meaning is the base everyone needs. His popularity stems from him actually saying it (which is considered bigotry, misogyny, homophobic, racist, etc. to some to the extend that any attempt to even utter such things must be prevented even if it requires violence), and offering an alternative view of life. He's probably improved more people's lives than any of us here could ever hope for. I don't always agree with professor Peterson. For starters, I'm certainly more left-wing in my political views than he is. I also feel that he's so worried about extreme left- and right=wing views that he even sees their hand in places they probably aren't, like e.g. the plot of the movie Frozen. While I think that the situation at US schools and certain companies is more dire than Mike believes, I don't think they're as dire as professor Peterson thinks they are. I do think things are getting worse based on the number of articles from many news sources (left as well as right) that are appearing lately.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
I think my discussion with Wendy Cockcroft is a good example of what Uriel-238 was talking about:
Wendy Cockcroft stated that professor Peterson was a 'misogynous git' for claiming that 'men in stable relationships are less likely to be violent'.
I described why that argument is incorrect, since professor Peterson is merely stating a fact based on anthropoly research, and backed that with a reference to such research.
Wendy Cockcroft claimed that the implication of that fact would be that women have an obligation to act on this.
I deny that implication, since there are many more factors that come into play here. I merely refute that stating that fact is misogyny.
You claim that I have nothing to say, since I deny the implication.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your reaction reminds me of the Cathy Newman interview, where she kept asking "so you're saying ...", and professor Peterson kept answering "no, I'm not saying that at all". Is it my fault that you draw the wrong conclusions regarding what I actually said? Perhaps it is, and I'm not explaining myself sufficiently, but I get the feeling that in some cases you simply don't want to or don't try to understand. Uriel-238's post gave a very good explanation of why that may be.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
You know, this is the first reaction where you've actually written some arguments rather than just ad hominem attacks. I guess you deserve some credit for that. I think your preposition that I'm arguing in bad faith blinds you from actually seeing when I talk about how I think professor Peterson sees something, and when I talk about how I see something. Other people I've argued with here seem to have fewer problems with that. In the later parts of the discussions here I've spoken much more regarding my own views. I think Uriel-238 described the problem very accurately when he said: "I think you're encountering one of the common problems that occurs in political parlance, that some of us are inclined towards description, that is, talking about how things are. But in the meantime many people talk about and expect to hear prescription, that is, how things should be." I tend to argue descriptively, I (try to) state things the way they are, and how certain arguments may be invalid and how certain policies may be a bad idea based on statistical evidence on that.
Re: Re: Re: FFS...
I try to research a position from multiple (often conflicting) views, and draw a conclusion from that. That doesn't mean I'm always right. When was the last time you read the HRA?
For someone who doesn't want to listen to me, you spend an awful lot of time reading my posts, and reacting.
Why do I? Rule 9 by professor Peterson: Assume that the other person knows something you don't. I'm not afraid to have my views corrected by thoughtful counter arguments. Some people have provided some during these discussions, and I have somewhat adjusted my views accordingly. Unfortunately, you're not one of those people.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
Some were (or claimed) to be lawyers, in online discussions regarding this topic. With legal scholars I meant the professors of law that sided with professor Peterson on this matter.
Re: Description vs. Prescription
It seems the site has a bit of trouble putting this comment where it belongs...
----
I think that's an excellent explanation of what we're seeing here. Mark me down for an insightful point. :)
I think that's also what professor Peterson is encountering. As a clinical psychiatrist he generally uses description in these discussions. He's stating statistics, but is incredibly careful to draw solutions from that. He merely uses it to counter statements that aren't true. That's how you get miscommunication like the Cathy Newman interview, where she's drawing conclusions from what she hears him describing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
Site hickup; this comment was supposed to be in response to Uriel-238 's post...
Re: Re: Re: Re: FFS...
I think that's an excellent explanation of what we're seeing here. Mark me down for an insightful point. :)
I think that's also what professor Peterson is encountering. As a clinical psychiatrist he generally uses description in these discussions. He's stating statistics, but is incredibly careful to draw solutions from that. He merely uses it to counter statements that aren't true. That's how you get miscommunication like the Cathy Newman interview, where she's drawing conclusions from what she hears him describing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great way to counter my arguments. :)
Oh, and what vile ideologies would that be exactly?
Re: Re: Re: FFS...
Are you familiar with the story of Joshua Sutcliffe? Granted, that was in the UK, and not in Canada, but he was indeed fired over an accidental misgendering, which he immediately corrected when it was pointed out. When it comes to law, you may be correct. The court case he started against Oxfordshire school will tell.
As was pointed out to me: the HRA does make a distinction between discrimination and harassment. I've so far heard conflicting legal theories about this from multiple lawyers, but I must admit that it would reflect really bad on a judge if an accidental misgendering would be considered harassment.
I do worry about whether personal views will be taken into account here. Would someone who questions the validity of gender be fined sooner of an accidental misgender than someone who does not?