As a kid we had a saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never harm me" - I'd love to hear Jordan unpack the psychology of people "being offended"
You see, when it will come to "stick and stones", it's usually too late for debate. When angry mob coming for you, because you happened to be the "wrong" kind of people, it won't matter whether you're offended or not.
You see, when it will come to "stick and stones", it's usually too late for debate. When angry mob coming for you, because you happened to be the "wrong" kind of people, it won't matter whether you're offended or not.
@@leonidfro8302 I hear you. I meant it in the context of being easily offended, that said, I also get that words can be a precursor to intent and action, and so we need to pay attention.
A state premier in Australia recently updated the public holidays list by identifying the day, but not the label, eg Dec 25th is a public holiday but the amended bill did not call it Christmas Day. The outrage that it was not officially recognised as Xmas day was interpreted as an attack on all Christian values. No-one but no-one is easiest to offend and with so little justification than your self righteous conservative. The difference between progressives and conservatives is that the relationship between hate speech and violence is actually measurable. That is where the offence is generated. That is why conservatives get angry. The avenue to act out their hatred is denied them, and quite rightly. Jordan Peterson is a hack.
Jordan is a smart man, but saying he is a master communicator is a bit of a stretch. You have to work pretty hard to figure out what he is getting at sometimes, especially if you don't already agree with his position, which is why he is so frequently misunderstood.
We can't precisely define "reasonable doubt", either, or "s*xual assault", or "harrassment" or... Whatever- pick a law you agree with and you'll find a word in there somewhere that needs a human in a courtroom to interpret it. You can't have a legal system without human interpretation. It's not possible.
@@lkyuvsad Well that's a corner stone of corruption when the laws are so vague that everything depends on interpretation by one person in power. That's how laws "work" in all post-Soviet countries where every judge and prosecutor is a multi-millionaire.
Why is Elon Musk facing all this injustice in order to embrace the disciplined freedom of expression under the law⁉️👇👇 1. The White House issued a depling statement 2. EU denounced Musk’s stance 3. Major international companies have boycotted platform X. And we don’t know, he could face trials and more harm.
@Kee485 being polite and ‘human’ is exactly what Peterson is - only someone seriously anti-social could possibly see wrong in his opinions. I suggest you read his work before you parrot opinions of NPCs like yourself.
@@andersdottir1111 People need only look at Alex Jones, and his fan-base, to understand that when speech leads to illegal actions, there NEEDS to be severe consequences.
Jordan Peterson is a brilliant man that speaks words of truth, I agree with him and worry not enough people will push back against those whom wish to cancel free speech.
@Kee485 really? Based on what actual evidence? I've never seen Dr Peterson be hateful or rude. Have you? Of course not. What you're relying on in your specious attack, is for the person reading it to have never watched enough of his talks to have a valid opinion of it, and to take your word and that of others. You have nothing to rely on but slander.
He keeps changing the argument from hate speech to what is merely offensive and so do you. Now you are defending the first amendment which does and should have limits when it calls for or results in harm to others. Yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre and “Gas the Jews” are two examples that come to mind. Rwanda had no such limitations and look what happened.
ts 164 Add a comment… @ianmclaughlin8987 8 hours ago Jordan Peterson is a brilliant man that speaks words of truth, I agree with him and worry not enough people will push back against those whom wish to cancel free speech. 59 6 @Kee485 5 hours ago being polite is too complicated for peterson and his fans, we should feel sorry for them because being human is a little bit too difficult for them. @oldgoat142 5 hours ago @Kee485 Aw, poor baby. Were you offended? Pitiful. 8 @wstavis3135 4 hours ago @Kee485 really? Based on what actual evidence? I've never seen Dr Peterson be hateful or rude. Have you? Of course not. What you're relying on in your specious attack, is for the person reading it to have never watched enough of his talks to have a valid opinion of it, and to take your word and that of others. You have nothing to rely on but slander. 6 @gertrudewest4535 1 hour ago He keeps changing the argument from hate speech to what is merely offensive and so do you. Now you are defending the first amendment which does and should have limits when it calls for or results in harm to others. Yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre and “Gas the Jews” are two examples that come to mind. Rwanda had no such limitations and look what happened. @gertrudewest4535 No he is not, and hate speech is actually very offensive to its intented victims and inciteful to its intended audience. Jordan Peterson is merely pointing out the dangers of not properly defining hate speech or worse allowing power hungry politicians to do so. The likely result being almost anything remotely offensive could be considered hate speech.
Too many these days can’t distinguish between censure and censorship. So they whine that they’re being “censored” when they’re only being censured. This goes for both the left and the right, btw. You have a right to say what you wish, but nobody else has an obligation to let you use their bullhorn.
@Kee485 This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with being polite. Get off your high donkey and TRY to understand what he's talking about, which you obviously don't or can't do
The language of other people is important, if people get super offended, they should stay away from those people and not intereact. Freedom of speech is important, freedom of expression.
@Kee485He wasn't talking about being polite which is a given in most situations. But being offended by somethings is personal to the person who takes offence. Other people hearing same thing may not be offended. What happens then? Who decides what is offensive and what isn't ? in order to prosecute for offending someone. Can you define what it is? And its not just about swear words. Its anything that goes against what you or i believe. Its opinions that we all have about something.
@@anthonymorris5084 I tell them "so what?". They think that means they have power over you, but it's actually meaningless, just vapid emotional blather.
The word hate has changed its meaning, and means different things to different people. It used to mean having a very strong dislike of somebody or something. Now if you make a mild negative comment it’s called hate, or if you say you like player A more than player B, then you are hating player B - apparently.
The problem with regulating hate speech is that some ideas and some people deserve to be hated, and the future of society depends upon people knowing why they deserve to be hated.
Absolutely, I am so sick of the extreme left telling me I am not allowed to hate cultures that want to upend our humanist society and replace it with a barbaric dystopia.
@@MichaelJames-lz7ni so should there be different sets of rules for people standing up on a platform speaking and people who are using online platforms?
It's a excellent encapsulation of the issue. When I heard he "got" Cathy Newman when she said "Why should your right to free speech outweigh someone's right not to be offended." I immediately thought he was going to say "Since when does ANYONE have a RIGHT not to be offended?!!". He did get her with his logic but I was really disappointed. If there are people that think they have a right not to be offended they need to be humiliated immediately for all the reasons he just excellently pointed out.
@@yt.damian If I understand your reply, yes. As I mentioned he describes it perfectly here. I wish he had with Cathy Newman. Or I don't understand your point which is extremely possible.
Its very interesting that you post this on a comment about the Peterson and Newman interview when it was Newman who spent the whole interview straw manning Peterson and attempting to trap him or trick him. Her behavior was very impolite at the very least. Peterson was a complete gentleman. @Kee485
"Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth." @@thanksfernuthin
I agree. The more people you reach, the more people you offend. It's a numbers game. So, what to do? Do you not say anything? Most people will not say or do something because they can't bear being judged by others.
@Kee485 Yes, and you're very polite. There's nothing like a human calling another person human. Don't get too carried away... you may reach ten people one day. Bless you.
Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin and the folks at The Daily Wire need to take this to heart...AGAIN !! "I abhor what you say, yet I will defend to the death your RIGHT to say it !"
What they really want is to be able to tell you what to feel and unfortunately it is possible to tell people how they should feel and make them feel that way. I went to a lecture one time where the first thing the speaker did was tell us how to feel about something in the news. I walked out immediately but not many people did. Being told how to feel does not bring up instant disgust like it should. The people who define hate speech can make you hate.
in the 60-70's we all had "Pet" names for all the various ethnic group including my own. no one ever took it too seriously and freely mixed. Was the era of peace and love man...
It astounds me that today in the public domain, that hate needs to be defined, which it clearly does. If you had asked that question 50 years ago it would have been nonsensical.
Truth is offensive to tyrants, the woke brigade, and liars. So do we stop sharing the truth? Or do we have the courage to call their bluff and refuse to bow to their emotional blackmail? I opt for the latter.
The next question is: Who defines or determines what’s offensive? How do we make something that is subjective, like being offended, objective? What’s the criteria that should be used? This seems like an exercise in futility.
As soon as you try to define hate speech, then immediately the manipulative liars who "behave" the most offended are always the ones allowed to set the terms.
I don't assume people will never be offended. In a healthy society however chronically offended people would be recognized for what they truly are ... immature.
I was having lunch and when Jordan Peterson spoke I stopped just to listen to him. He makes a lot of sense. I don't know any other intellectual who can match his precision.
Same problem is with definition of discrimination. Canada now has gender identification in the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. So if I refuse to hire a human who identifies as a wolf I am in violation of law and can be jailed. If a well-hung hairy 7ft monster who identifies as a 11y.o. girl is refused access to a female only spa, locker room or swimming competition the authorities can be prosecuted. Isn't it a bit crazy?
Jordan is correctly pointing out the difference between hate and hateful……. Whether it’s speech or crime….it’s subjective and the last thing you want is for it to be somehow regulated by government.
The problem isn't even just the subjective nature of hate speech. And make no mistake but subjective ideas written into law is a real problem. But throughout history the biggest cause of conflict within populations is unequal application of rules. And hate speech laws aren't applied blindly or equally.😊
@@rowanaforrest9792 interesting…my reply has been deleted. To sum up and not type everything over again. Ireland is proposing a law to be able to charge and convict people of “hate speech” based on even the possession of digital material on their phones such as memes. So one could be thrown in jail for possession, or distribution, of a meme that is considered offensive and “harmful” as deemed so by the government.
@@mattwilliams3427 Yikes! Talk about thought police! That's something I'd expect China or North Korea to do -- not Ireland. They should know better than to even entertain such an idea.
Not only that, people keep saying far more physical things cannot be defined. If you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, how can you tell the difference between hate/nonhate? Why is an emotion so much easier to define than gender? Woke people just say something can't be defined when they want not to define it.
What some consider as "hate speech", is nothing but an inseparable part of free speech. But by no means does that suggest that one personally agrees with beliefs held by another. If "hate speech" is to be dealt with at all, it must first be confronted with dialogue, before anything else. Therefore, if we think of it as such, how many nations truly have free speech?
Hate speech? Depending on who you ask there are 25 different emotions. Example adoration, calmness, interest. Is there "calmness speech" What about trust. That's an emotion. Is there "trust speech" What about sadness? Have you ever thought you were listening to "sadness speech" IMO there is only speech.
The best defense is a good offence. To become offended is for most just a defensive posture. The strategy is to become so indignant as to appear to be right. Being offended doesn't make you right. Just saying...
Are you listening Irish politicians, Leo and Mehole Martin, Helen McKinty justice minister, Drew Harris Garda chief, RTE state media. NO? Didn't think so😢
Surely arguing that any particular category of people, eg unborn people, do not have a right to life and may be killed (usually in horrifying pain) is the ultimate in hate speech and should be banned.
I find the idea that "nobody should be allowed to offend you" offensive. FWIW: that's not just a logic bomb for people who want to outlaw offensive speech, but it's also the literal truth. OTOH I also think that being offended isn't something that should just be dismissed. Rather I think offensive words and actions should fall in the gap between where things become totally socially acceptable on one side and where they become legally unacceptable on the other. And there needs to be that gap.
"This guy often comes across as angry, seemingly disliking it when things don't go his way. If someone who doesn't speak English were to hear him, might mistake his frustration for hateful speech against the world."
He's right. Someone will ALWAYS be "offended". As an example: "God Exists" would offend those that do not believe in God. "God Doesn't Exist" would offend those that do believe in God. Neither side has any concrete proof, and that statement would offend both groups.
German established hate speech regulation since ww2 to prevent clear incitment of violence towards a race, group or religion is working pretty well, as it does in Austria. It is forbidden to wear/show swasticas, use nazi slogans etc. And now chanting from the river to the sea ... Is forbidden because of its antisemetic use.
You can take any example to that absolute extreme to prove your point, but that's absurd. You can reasonably limit hate speech without passing a ban on speaking all together. JP is an expert commutator and I agree with him on most things, then he says stuff like this... People need to be able to have hard conversations without being easily offended, and we need to stop thinking in absolutes.
In my book Divine Projection: How and Why Humans Created God", the very first chapter "The RIght to offend" is devoted to this topic. One of the examples I use is the right for women to vote. Once upon a time, women's suffrage was a very offensive topic to many. Censortship of opinions because they may offend always leads to a society stagnating instead of progressing. You only need to take a look at the kind if freedom of expression they have in Muslim countries.
You may not have noticed that one side feels free to say all kinds of offensive things, but tries to prohibit the other side from countering. I think we know which side is which. If not, I'll be happy to educate you.
The problem with regulating hate speech is that it's regulating speech, which is unconstitutional in the United States of America. It's sticky enough to define "incitement to riot".
I could not agree more, in fact I would go as far to say that during a discussion involving firmly held and differing ideas I would expect to be offended as part of the discussion, how else can we learn from each other while debating topics on which we may very well be diametrically opposed, the point is to understand the offence is held by you, and see through this to the rationale for the point being made. Also hate speech as I believe has been mentioned before is already covered under the law covering incitement, may be wrong about that not a lawyer. Off to watch the full interview later.
Offense is so subjective. Some just have thicker skin than others. But...verbal attacks can & often does result in greater lasting damage than physical attacks. What to do? 🤔
It’s not pathological naive imo. It’s intentional by academics, whom know the evil consequences exactly and push in that direction with their grinding compassion- masks
threats yes but hate no, i don't think hate is illegal, you shouldn't hate because its bad for you and not good for others but people don't have to like you
I hate practices like the lobotomy, expressing a dislike for that. It's up to the censors whether to consider that hate speech. Imagine criticizing the lobotomy and getting muted for it.
Why is Elon Musk facing all this injustice in order to embrace the disciplined freedom of expression under the law⁉️👇👇 1. The White House issued a depling statement 2. EU denounced Musk’s stance 3. Major international companies have boycotted platform X. And we don’t know, he could face trials and more harm.
Hate speech is the wrong target. False accusations are the right target. Including the special case of group accusations, where people are accused of something simply because they are part of a group.
Every accusation should be freely allowed. How does one determine which is the false accusation? The person in power? The person making the false accusation? Free speech enables dialogue which will allow the truth to come out.
What’s offensive is relative. If you want to see a liberal get offended, tell them that “assault weapon bans” are worthless feel-good measures. If you want to offend a conservative, tell him that white privilege is real.
How do you measure it? With your digital turbo-charged spectrum analyzing environmentally safe hate meter. In other words it’s based on how the person judging feels or he just pulls it out of his arse.
Oh Mr Peterson does of course. Blocked me on twitter, just because I dared questioning what Israel is doing in Gaza right now. No explanation, nothing. Very thoughtful indeed, extremely helpful and constructive too (...) He has such a lack of self-control, which is really irritating, when you compare it to what he teaches
@@anthonymorris5084 Did I speak of my importance anywhere ? You should learn to accept that Peterson is a flawed individual as we all are. He followed me by the way.
You will always cause offence to people who are determined to be offended since (irrespective of the truth) outrage is the very currency they use to leverage power and build their portfolio of virtue. The irony is that if any consequent suppression of free speech causes you offence and you speak out - then your offence is automatically labelled as "hate" and you (and by extension the dialogue to truth) gets shut down.
I say hateful and racists things including the n-wors all day long every day but my speech impediment makes my words come out only as indecipherable grunts and groans. I say these things and mean it but no one is hurt by it.
![ILLSLICK X YOUNGOHM - We're The same [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yUJNkobYR0E/mqdefault.jpg)
As a kid we had a saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never harm me" - I'd love to hear Jordan unpack the psychology of people "being offended"
You see, when it will come to "stick and stones", it's usually too late for debate. When angry mob coming for you, because you happened to be the "wrong" kind of people, it won't matter whether you're offended or not.
You see, when it will come to "stick and stones", it's usually too late for debate. When angry mob coming for you, because you happened to be the "wrong" kind of people, it won't matter whether you're offended or not.
They mostly act „as if offended“
Being an azzhole is now confused with being a 'patriot'.
@@leonidfro8302 I hear you. I meant it in the context of being easily offended, that said, I also get that words can be a precursor to intent and action, and so we need to pay attention.
Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles. ❤️✌️
This has been the case since the 2010s. I am shadow banned btw because I'm so evil and hateful
@skaldsyn759
Only love from here kid ❤️ 😎
"Pathologically naive"... I've never heard a more succinct and accurate description of Liberals. Jordan is a master communicator.
The same people can be hyper aggressive when you question their vision of utopia. That is not liberalism.
Nothing liberal about Liberals in Canada. Utopian ideals always lead to illiberal authoritarianism
A state premier in Australia recently updated the public holidays list by identifying the day, but not the label, eg Dec 25th is a public holiday but the amended bill did not call it Christmas Day.
The outrage that it was not officially recognised as Xmas day was interpreted as an attack on all Christian values.
No-one but no-one is easiest to offend and with so little justification than your self righteous conservative.
The difference between progressives and conservatives is that the relationship between hate speech and violence is actually measurable. That is where the offence is generated. That is why conservatives get angry. The avenue to act out their hatred is denied them, and quite rightly.
Jordan Peterson is a hack.
Pathological naive represents some kinda disease, does it?
Jordan is a smart man, but saying he is a master communicator is a bit of a stretch. You have to work pretty hard to figure out what he is getting at sometimes, especially if you don't already agree with his position, which is why he is so frequently misunderstood.
Exactly. No individual, institution, or government is in a position to define the definitively indefinite, private nature of "hate".
We can't precisely define "reasonable doubt", either, or "s*xual assault", or "harrassment" or... Whatever- pick a law you agree with and you'll find a word in there somewhere that needs a human in a courtroom to interpret it. You can't have a legal system without human interpretation. It's not possible.
I may not be a smart man but I know what love is
@@lkyuvsad Well that's a corner stone of corruption when the laws are so vague that everything depends on interpretation by one person in power. That's how laws "work" in all post-Soviet countries where every judge and prosecutor is a multi-millionaire.
@@lkyuvsad How can one person know which ideas inspired the words of another? "Hate speech" criminalizes thought rather than action.
@@m.chumakov1033 I need this job for me ❤
Exactly- what one person denounced as ‘hate’ another says it’s common sense.
And vice versa
@@deanmccrorie3461usually common sense is defined as hate if you're weak minded or have an infantile mentality.
Why is Elon Musk facing all this injustice in order to embrace the disciplined freedom of expression under the law⁉️👇👇
1. The White House issued a depling statement
2. EU denounced Musk’s stance
3. Major international companies have boycotted platform X.
And we don’t know, he could face trials and more harm.
@Kee485 being polite and ‘human’ is exactly what Peterson is - only someone seriously anti-social could possibly see wrong in his opinions.
I suggest you read his work before you parrot opinions of NPCs like yourself.
@@andersdottir1111 People need only look at Alex Jones, and his fan-base, to understand that when speech leads to illegal actions, there NEEDS to be severe consequences.
Jordan Peterson is a brilliant man that speaks words of truth, I agree with him and worry not enough people will push back against those whom wish to cancel free speech.
@Kee485 Aw, poor baby. Were you offended? Pitiful.
@Kee485 really? Based on what actual evidence? I've never seen Dr Peterson be hateful or rude. Have you? Of course not. What you're relying on in your specious attack, is for the person reading it to have never watched enough of his talks to have a valid opinion of it, and to take your word and that of others. You have nothing to rely on but slander.
He keeps changing the argument from hate speech to what is merely offensive and so do you. Now you are defending the first amendment which does and should have limits when it calls for or results in harm to others. Yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre and “Gas the Jews” are two examples that come to mind. Rwanda had no such limitations and look what happened.
ts
164
Add a comment…
@ianmclaughlin8987
8 hours ago
Jordan Peterson is a brilliant man that speaks words of truth, I agree with him and worry not enough people will push back against those whom wish to cancel free speech.
59
6
@Kee485
5 hours ago
being polite is too complicated for peterson and his fans, we should feel sorry for them because being human is a little bit too difficult for them.
@oldgoat142
5 hours ago
@Kee485 Aw, poor baby. Were you offended? Pitiful.
8
@wstavis3135
4 hours ago
@Kee485 really? Based on what actual evidence? I've never seen Dr Peterson be hateful or rude. Have you? Of course not. What you're relying on in your specious attack, is for the person reading it to have never watched enough of his talks to have a valid opinion of it, and to take your word and that of others. You have nothing to rely on but slander.
6
@gertrudewest4535
1 hour ago
He keeps changing the argument from hate speech to what is merely offensive and so do you. Now you are defending the first amendment which does and should have limits when it calls for or results in harm to others. Yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre and “Gas the Jews” are two examples that come to mind. Rwanda had no such limitations and look what happened.
@gertrudewest4535 No he is not, and hate speech is actually very offensive to its intented victims and inciteful to its intended audience. Jordan Peterson is merely pointing out the dangers of not properly defining hate speech or worse allowing power hungry politicians to do so. The likely result being almost anything remotely offensive could be considered hate speech.
Too many these days can’t distinguish between censure and censorship. So they whine that they’re being “censored” when they’re only being censured.
This goes for both the left and the right, btw.
You have a right to say what you wish, but nobody else has an obligation to let you use their bullhorn.
Jordan thinks everything through to its conclusion - if only more people did we would not be in this mess.
@Kee485Well that's rather rude of you to dehumanize people. Should your speech perhaps be regulated? 😁
@Kee485 This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with being polite. Get off your high donkey and TRY to understand what he's talking about, which you obviously don't or can't do
Beautifully spoken. 👏
@Kee485 At this point I am wondering if you are a bot.
@@mykelessien3373 If not a bot, certainly a sociopath lacking even basic empathy.
Free speech is a million times more important than the content of speech. ❤️✌️
The language of other people is important, if people get super offended, they should stay away from those people and not intereact. Freedom of speech is important, freedom of expression.
They ARE human, thats why its so difficult for the programmable neck bulb clones to understand such "complicated" assessments and conversations!!!!
This is such a non-comment. Added nothing of value. @Kee485
@Kee485He wasn't talking about being polite which is a given in most situations. But being offended by somethings is personal to the person who takes offence. Other people hearing same thing may not be offended. What happens then? Who decides what is offensive and what isn't ? in order to prosecute for offending someone. Can you define what it is? And its not just about swear words. Its anything that goes against what you or i believe. Its opinions that we all have about something.
@Kee485I find your words offensive
My standard response to anyone who says to me "What you just did/said offends me" is:
"Why are you giving me so much power over you?"
I just tell them they have the right to be offended.
@@anthonymorris5084 I tell them "so what?". They think that means they have power over you, but it's actually meaningless, just vapid emotional blather.
@@paulw5039 Another good response is "That's none of my business".
The word hate has changed its meaning, and means different things to different people. It used to mean having a very strong dislike of somebody or something. Now if you make a mild negative comment it’s called hate, or if you say you like player A more than player B, then you are hating player B - apparently.
Spot on. Keep putting the truth out there!
@Kee485 Thanks for the polite response.
Emotions cannot be legislated against.
@Kee485what would a bot, like you, know about being human?
@Kee485that's offensive.
The problem with regulating hate speech is that some ideas and some people deserve to be hated, and the future of society depends upon people knowing why they deserve to be hated.
Absolutely, I am so sick of the extreme left telling me I am not allowed to hate cultures that want to upend our humanist society and replace it with a barbaric dystopia.
The problem with this is that the internet allows for so much anonymity that people often are NOT held accountable for their speech.
@@MichaelJames-lz7ni so should there be different sets of rules for people standing up on a platform speaking and people who are using online platforms?
The future does depend on it. Now, criticizing an idea is twisted to say that you hate the actual people that fall for it.
@@MichaelJames-lz7ni is their right
Just as you cannot tax your way to prosperity, you cannot legislate your way to morality.
Exactly. I say all the time…”You can’t legislate kindness.”
They don't think that nobody should be offended. They think that some people should never be offended and it's open season on other people.
It's a excellent encapsulation of the issue. When I heard he "got" Cathy Newman when she said "Why should your right to free speech outweigh someone's right not to be offended." I immediately thought he was going to say "Since when does ANYONE have a RIGHT not to be offended?!!". He did get her with his logic but I was really disappointed. If there are people that think they have a right not to be offended they need to be humiliated immediately for all the reasons he just excellently pointed out.
He pretty much says it in the lead up.
@@yt.damian If I understand your reply, yes. As I mentioned he describes it perfectly here. I wish he had with Cathy Newman. Or I don't understand your point which is extremely possible.
Peterson is polite unless the message requires some uncomfortable truths. What *precisely* is it you object to? @Kee485
Its very interesting that you post this on a comment about the Peterson and Newman interview when it was Newman who spent the whole interview straw manning Peterson and attempting to trap him or trick him. Her behavior was very impolite at the very least. Peterson was a complete gentleman. @Kee485
"Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth." @@thanksfernuthin
I agree. The more people you reach, the more people you offend. It's a numbers game. So, what to do? Do you not say anything? Most people will not say or do something because they can't bear being judged by others.
@Kee485 Yes, and you're very polite. There's nothing like a human calling another person human. Don't get too carried away... you may reach ten people one day. Bless you.
Every politician in the Western world needs to see this.
This is happening in Ireland now. And this nonsense is becoming so very prevalent in so many western countries. Scary times.
Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin and the folks at The Daily Wire need to take this to heart...AGAIN !!
"I abhor what you say, yet I will defend to the death your RIGHT to say it !"
What they really want is to be able to tell you what to feel and unfortunately it is possible to tell people how they should feel and make them feel that way. I went to a lecture one time where the first thing the speaker did was tell us how to feel about something in the news. I walked out immediately but not many people did. Being told how to feel does not bring up instant disgust like it should. The people who define hate speech can make you hate.
0:02 - No there is not. It's still just speech.
in the 60-70's we all had "Pet" names for all the various ethnic group including my own. no one ever took it too seriously and freely mixed. Was the era of peace and love man...
It astounds me that today in the public domain, that hate needs to be defined, which it clearly does. If you had asked that question 50 years ago it would have been nonsensical.
Truth is offensive to tyrants, the woke brigade, and liars. So do we stop sharing the truth? Or do we have the courage to call their bluff and refuse to bow to their emotional blackmail? I opt for the latter.
The next question is: Who defines or determines what’s offensive? How do we make something that is subjective, like being offended, objective? What’s the criteria that should be used? This seems like an exercise in futility.
Yes, Mr Peterson you are right. Who defines hate is really the issue.
Only in liberty do we have the right to be offended...
As soon as you try to define hate speech, then immediately the manipulative liars who "behave" the most offended are always the ones allowed to set the terms.
I don't assume people will never be offended. In a healthy society however chronically offended people would be recognized for what they truly are ... immature.
@Kee485as a bot, you're insanely childish and uninteresting.
@Kee485There's a whole lot of background context missing from your statement. There was nothing rude in this video clip.
@Kee485 And yet you're being the rude one here. Zero self-awareness.
He recognizes the true essence of humanity to its core. That is why he knows a subjective idea will face objectivity. A brilliant man
I was having lunch and when Jordan Peterson spoke I stopped just to listen to him. He makes a lot of sense. I don't know any other intellectual who can match his precision.
Same problem is with definition of discrimination. Canada now has gender identification in the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. So if I refuse to hire a human who identifies as a wolf I am in violation of law and can be jailed. If a well-hung hairy 7ft monster who identifies as a 11y.o. girl is refused access to a female only spa, locker room or swimming competition the authorities can be prosecuted. Isn't it a bit crazy?
For short.. RICH PEOPLES NONSENSE KICKING POOR PEOPLES DAILY LIFE. 💯👌
Jordan is correctly pointing out the difference between hate and hateful……. Whether it’s speech or crime….it’s subjective and the last thing you want is for it to be somehow regulated by government.
This guy in 3 minutes makes more sense than a thousand politicians in 30 years.
*We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us."*
- Vladimir Lenin
All of the deputies in Dail Eireann (the Irish parliament) should be forced to watch this clip.
"hate speech" is often that speech that those in charge hate to hear.
The problem isn't even just the subjective nature of hate speech. And make no mistake but subjective ideas written into law is a real problem. But throughout history the biggest cause of conflict within populations is unequal application of rules. And hate speech laws aren't applied blindly or equally.😊
That's the best speech i've ever listened about that matter.
When someone in authority define *_"HATE SPEECH,"_* they truly mean "speech that THEY hate."
Well said. Very well said.
Ireland is demonstrating just how tyrannical this idea can become.
What's happening about "hate speech" in Ireland? I'm genuinely curious.
@@rowanaforrest9792 interesting…my reply has been deleted.
To sum up and not type everything over again. Ireland is proposing a law to be able to charge and convict people of “hate speech” based on even the possession of digital material on their phones such as memes. So one could be thrown in jail for possession, or distribution, of a meme that is considered offensive and “harmful” as deemed so by the government.
@@mattwilliams3427 Yikes! Talk about thought police! That's something I'd expect China or North Korea to do -- not Ireland. They should know better than to even entertain such an idea.
@@rowanaforrest9792 agreed. These are troubling times.
I’ve honestly been saying this for years. Thanks JP.
hate is a human emotion. how does anyone regulate "hate speech"? how can you police an emotion?
Not only that, people keep saying far more physical things cannot be defined. If you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, how can you tell the difference between hate/nonhate? Why is an emotion so much easier to define than gender? Woke people just say something can't be defined when they want not to define it.
It’s happening in Ireland right now 🤦♂️
All those who hate this video should recognize the truth in what he's saying.
Hate is a form of love.
What some consider as "hate speech", is nothing but an inseparable part of free speech. But by no means does that suggest that one personally agrees with beliefs held by another. If "hate speech" is to be dealt with at all, it must first be confronted with dialogue, before anything else. Therefore, if we think of it as such, how many nations truly have free speech?
What a wonderful condemnation of the censors here on TH-cam!
Hate speech? Depending on who you ask there are 25 different emotions. Example adoration, calmness, interest. Is there "calmness speech" What about trust. That's an emotion. Is there "trust speech" What about sadness? Have you ever thought you were listening to "sadness speech" IMO there is only speech.
Why, the Ministry of Truth, of course!
I've been waiting for someone to ask this question. Now explain why it is wrong.
The best defense is a good offence. To become offended is for most just a defensive posture. The strategy is to become so indignant as to appear to be right. Being offended doesn't make you right. Just saying...
Ughhh....just love this man's intellect and wisdom 👌🏼🇿🇦
Are you listening Irish politicians, Leo and Mehole Martin, Helen McKinty justice minister, Drew Harris Garda chief, RTE state media. NO? Didn't think so😢
Surely arguing that any particular category of people, eg unborn people, do not have a right to life and may be killed (usually in horrifying pain) is the ultimate in hate speech and should be banned.
I find the idea that "nobody should be allowed to offend you" offensive.
FWIW: that's not just a logic bomb for people who want to outlaw offensive speech, but it's also the literal truth. OTOH I also think that being offended isn't something that should just be dismissed. Rather I think offensive words and actions should fall in the gap between where things become totally socially acceptable on one side and where they become legally unacceptable on the other. And there needs to be that gap.
Somepeople deserve to be offended!
"This guy often comes across as angry, seemingly disliking it when things don't go his way. If someone who doesn't speak English were to hear him, might mistake his frustration for hateful speech against the world."
He's right. Someone will ALWAYS be "offended". As an example: "God Exists" would offend those that do not believe in God. "God Doesn't Exist" would offend those that do believe in God. Neither side has any concrete proof, and that statement would offend both groups.
German established hate speech regulation since ww2 to prevent clear incitment of violence towards a race, group or religion is working pretty well, as it does in Austria. It is forbidden to wear/show swasticas, use nazi slogans etc. And now chanting from the river to the sea ... Is forbidden because of its antisemetic use.
Hahaha I brought this up to my friend yesterday 😂😂
Couldn't agree more
Thank you dr Jordan…….
Hate = verb
Hatred = noun
Expands my horizons👅
You can take any example to that absolute extreme to prove your point, but that's absurd. You can reasonably limit hate speech without passing a ban on speaking all together. JP is an expert commutator and I agree with him on most things, then he says stuff like this... People need to be able to have hard conversations without being easily offended, and we need to stop thinking in absolutes.
In my book Divine Projection: How and Why Humans Created God", the very first chapter "The RIght to offend" is devoted to this topic. One of the examples I use is the right for women to vote. Once upon a time, women's suffrage was a very offensive topic to many. Censortship of opinions because they may offend always leads to a society stagnating instead of progressing. You only need to take a look at the kind if freedom of expression they have in Muslim countries.
You may not have noticed that one side feels free to say all kinds of offensive things, but tries to prohibit the other side from countering. I think we know which side is which. If not, I'll be happy to educate you.
@Kee485so how is your bot set up? This inane spam comment is on almost every post, even one like this where it makes no sense whatsoever.
The problem with regulating hate speech is that it's regulating speech, which is unconstitutional in the United States of America. It's sticky enough to define "incitement to riot".
I could not agree more, in fact I would go as far to say that during a discussion involving firmly held and differing ideas I would expect to be offended as part of the discussion, how else can we learn from each other while debating topics on which we may very well be diametrically opposed, the point is to understand the offence is held by you, and see through this to the rationale for the point being made. Also hate speech as I believe has been mentioned before is already covered under the law covering incitement, may be wrong about that not a lawyer. Off to watch the full interview later.
Agreed. People want to control speech solely because they don't like what you're saying and wish to silence your opinion.
Offense is so subjective. Some just have thicker skin than others. But...verbal attacks can & often does result in greater lasting damage than physical attacks. What to do? 🤔
Walk away.
It’s not pathological naive imo.
It’s intentional by academics, whom know the evil consequences exactly and push in that direction with their grinding compassion- masks
Hear hear!
threats yes but hate no, i don't think hate is illegal, you shouldn't hate because its bad for you and not good for others but people don't have to like you
I hate practices like the lobotomy, expressing a dislike for that. It's up to the censors whether to consider that hate speech.
Imagine criticizing the lobotomy and getting muted for it.
Why is Elon Musk facing all this injustice in order to embrace the disciplined freedom of expression under the law⁉️👇👇
1. The White House issued a depling statement
2. EU denounced Musk’s stance
3. Major international companies have boycotted platform X.
And we don’t know, he could face trials and more harm.
totally agree with him on this point.
Hate speech is the wrong target. False accusations are the right target. Including the special case of group accusations, where people are accused of something simply because they are part of a group.
Every accusation should be freely allowed. How does one determine which is the false accusation? The person in power? The person making the false accusation? Free speech enables dialogue which will allow the truth to come out.
@@anthonymorris5084 I think the one making the accusation has the responsibility to come up with evidence. If not, you open the door to slander.
@@petersteenkamp How can a person express the evidence if you won't let them talk?
What’s offensive is relative.
If you want to see a liberal get offended, tell them that “assault weapon bans” are worthless feel-good measures.
If you want to offend a conservative, tell him that white privilege is real.
Since when is there such a thing as a "right to not be offended"?
People being offended is so annoying.
How about we make rules for those who have new ideas instead?
How do you measure it? With your digital turbo-charged spectrum analyzing environmentally safe hate meter. In other words it’s based on how the person judging feels or he just pulls it out of his arse.
Oh Mr Peterson does of course.
Blocked me on twitter, just because I dared questioning what Israel is doing in Gaza right now. No explanation, nothing.
Very thoughtful indeed, extremely helpful and constructive too (...)
He has such a lack of self-control, which is really irritating, when you compare it to what he teaches
Wow, you mean this incredibly busy guy didn't recognize your importance? Unbelievable.
@@anthonymorris5084 Did I speak of my importance anywhere ? You should learn to accept that Peterson is a flawed individual as we all are.
He followed me by the way.
Sheer brilliance
And to have leaders of society forcing such destructive brain mush on us all. Just Say No.
You will always cause offence to people who are determined to be offended since (irrespective of the truth) outrage is the very currency they use to leverage power and build their portfolio of virtue.
The irony is that if any consequent suppression of free speech causes you offence and you speak out - then your offence is automatically labelled as "hate" and you (and by extension the dialogue to truth) gets shut down.
very very wise
Exactly. .....
No one has the right to not be offended.
Yup 👍
Defining hate requires defining someones intent which requires reading their mind which is difficult.
It would be easier to intentionally offend everyone
I say hateful and racists things including the n-wors all day long every day but my speech impediment makes my words come out only as indecipherable grunts and groans. I say these things and mean it but no one is hurt by it.
That is very true if I saw Trudeau’s walking down the street that would offend me so I guess walking down the street will offend some people
Well said Jordan
Frustrustratingly true.
We live in a world of miserable boring depressing jealous haters losers
Now you have offended me!
@@gbone7581 cheers
That about sums it up,and it all stems from a neo Marxist view of the oppressed and the oppressor