Kareem's statements are provably false, which typically isn't the case with these vague allegations.
'Much of Peterson’s fame and infamy is the result of YouTube debates he does with other YouTubers, mostly with people that agree with him'
Actually no, Peterson was drawing interest specifically criticizing proposed laws in Canada and then he exploded when he partook in a contentious interview with Cathy Newman. This is easy to see in the Google search results for his name, https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=jordan%20peterson
Abdul-Jabbar's takedown of Peterson's and Shapiro's "debate tactics" seems awfully malleable.
name-drop famous writers and thinkers = incorporate the relevant wisdom of intellectual giants into your argument
keep changing the subject so he never has to fully defend his position = not allowing your debate opponent to mischaracterize your argument or defame you (e.g. "I'm not going to defend myself against baseless accusations of racism as my thesis clearly has nothing to do with race so let's just leave it at that")
throw out irrelevant facts and studies so he sounds smart = fortify your argument with objective data rather than rely solely on appeals to emotion
Well done, Kareem. Poor Plato himself would not survive such incisive criticism.
As regards Substack, it's interesting that despite all their talent and resources it is still taking them forever to come out with an app for Android (they have one for iOS). I wonder what that's all about. Almost certainly not technical, so maybe issues with making a deal with Google? Curious.
As for their approach via desktop and mobile web, it is kind of a disappointing and frustrating experience where there is obviously lots (too much) stuff going on in the background, and as far as I can tell, there isn't even an option to look at a page like a classic blog post with the original post and all comments fully expanded.
Re: Damodoran: All of his NYU lectures in corporate finance and business valuation are available for free onine, as are his exams. They are outstanding.
I'll never understand the pass/respect many other people I typically find agreement with still seem to afford Peterson.
For what few good points he's ever made about aspiring to a dignified life, whatever that is, he more often totally embarrasses himself and undermines his own credibility with the way he's consumed by the culture war, and is every bit as incendiary and deep in bad faith mud as his opponents.
I would say similar things about Shapiro, or someone like James Lindsay. Having points at times but so high on their own supply they have seemingly lost the plot entirely in regards to actually ever hoping to change a mind where they are right, or have their own changed where they are wrong.
I'd prefer way fewer of people like them and more like Arnold, who might hold that there is a better way to live (like be a grandparent) and feel no shortage of skepticism/concern toward much of the troubling dogmatism these days… but not be so militant and overtly disgusted/disrespectful such that they couldn't have a hope in the world of reaching anyone who might disagree.
The law has better definitions of what speech is illegal and what isn't. Under Kareem's definition, if I say "we should sell more rocket launchers to Ukraine to kill more Russians" or vice versa "we should end sanctions against Russia so that they can mop up the Ukrainians" those statements should be illegal per se as hate speech. Thankfully in the US such statements aren't illegal.
Threats and incitement can be illegal, but they have to be a bit more directed, immediate, and realistic to be actionable. "Every East Timorese must die" is not really incitement or a threat. "Every East Timorese must die, and I want you to join me tomorrow morning in killing my neighbor who is from East Timor; please bring your own gun" -- that's illegal and for good reason. "All Cops Are Bastards" is not illegal, but "All Cops are Bastards, we're burning down the precinct tomorrow, bring your own gas" is incitement.
The "hate speech" discourse is really more about figuring out a way to maintain peace in a society that tries to integrate everyone under conditions of equality with no limitations. Hate speech is any speech that threatens that idealized conception of harmony and respect across groups, irrespective of any tensions or real diversity which makes integration across those groups challenging. Hate speech can be true or it can be false, but what matters most to the prospective policers of hate speech is that it threatens the appearance of perfect harmony. It is any badthought which could be perceived as Anti-Party.
It's about coming up with a category that it can blame for the failures of that social model without admitting that it is failing to integrate everyone. It's "we would be integrating successfully, if not for the wicked haters, who are sabotaging our perfect society of magical equality, delaying the inevitable arrival of Sugar Candy Mountain on earth."
Kareem's statements are provably false, which typically isn't the case with these vague allegations.
'Much of Peterson’s fame and infamy is the result of YouTube debates he does with other YouTubers, mostly with people that agree with him'
Actually no, Peterson was drawing interest specifically criticizing proposed laws in Canada and then he exploded when he partook in a contentious interview with Cathy Newman. This is easy to see in the Google search results for his name, https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=jordan%20peterson
Abdul-Jabbar's takedown of Peterson's and Shapiro's "debate tactics" seems awfully malleable.
name-drop famous writers and thinkers = incorporate the relevant wisdom of intellectual giants into your argument
keep changing the subject so he never has to fully defend his position = not allowing your debate opponent to mischaracterize your argument or defame you (e.g. "I'm not going to defend myself against baseless accusations of racism as my thesis clearly has nothing to do with race so let's just leave it at that")
throw out irrelevant facts and studies so he sounds smart = fortify your argument with objective data rather than rely solely on appeals to emotion
Well done, Kareem. Poor Plato himself would not survive such incisive criticism.
As regards Substack, it's interesting that despite all their talent and resources it is still taking them forever to come out with an app for Android (they have one for iOS). I wonder what that's all about. Almost certainly not technical, so maybe issues with making a deal with Google? Curious.
As for their approach via desktop and mobile web, it is kind of a disappointing and frustrating experience where there is obviously lots (too much) stuff going on in the background, and as far as I can tell, there isn't even an option to look at a page like a classic blog post with the original post and all comments fully expanded.
I have never READ anything from Peterson that was controversial or interesting.
Re: Damodoran: All of his NYU lectures in corporate finance and business valuation are available for free onine, as are his exams. They are outstanding.
I'll never understand the pass/respect many other people I typically find agreement with still seem to afford Peterson.
For what few good points he's ever made about aspiring to a dignified life, whatever that is, he more often totally embarrasses himself and undermines his own credibility with the way he's consumed by the culture war, and is every bit as incendiary and deep in bad faith mud as his opponents.
I would say similar things about Shapiro, or someone like James Lindsay. Having points at times but so high on their own supply they have seemingly lost the plot entirely in regards to actually ever hoping to change a mind where they are right, or have their own changed where they are wrong.
I'd prefer way fewer of people like them and more like Arnold, who might hold that there is a better way to live (like be a grandparent) and feel no shortage of skepticism/concern toward much of the troubling dogmatism these days… but not be so militant and overtly disgusted/disrespectful such that they couldn't have a hope in the world of reaching anyone who might disagree.
The law has better definitions of what speech is illegal and what isn't. Under Kareem's definition, if I say "we should sell more rocket launchers to Ukraine to kill more Russians" or vice versa "we should end sanctions against Russia so that they can mop up the Ukrainians" those statements should be illegal per se as hate speech. Thankfully in the US such statements aren't illegal.
Threats and incitement can be illegal, but they have to be a bit more directed, immediate, and realistic to be actionable. "Every East Timorese must die" is not really incitement or a threat. "Every East Timorese must die, and I want you to join me tomorrow morning in killing my neighbor who is from East Timor; please bring your own gun" -- that's illegal and for good reason. "All Cops Are Bastards" is not illegal, but "All Cops are Bastards, we're burning down the precinct tomorrow, bring your own gas" is incitement.
The "hate speech" discourse is really more about figuring out a way to maintain peace in a society that tries to integrate everyone under conditions of equality with no limitations. Hate speech is any speech that threatens that idealized conception of harmony and respect across groups, irrespective of any tensions or real diversity which makes integration across those groups challenging. Hate speech can be true or it can be false, but what matters most to the prospective policers of hate speech is that it threatens the appearance of perfect harmony. It is any badthought which could be perceived as Anti-Party.
It's about coming up with a category that it can blame for the failures of that social model without admitting that it is failing to integrate everyone. It's "we would be integrating successfully, if not for the wicked haters, who are sabotaging our perfect society of magical equality, delaying the inevitable arrival of Sugar Candy Mountain on earth."