Jordan Peterson Hates Free Speech
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
LOL!!
Yeah.
You're just like the guy that accused Peterson of being just like Donald Trump.
Ben Shapiro said "Peterson writes 800 page widely acclaimed and deeply philosophical books on the "Maps of Meaning" within biblical stories. Yep, he's just like Donald Trump"
In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.
this is correct, most people don't understand this. they also don't understand jordan peterson regurgitates ruling class propaganda.
The Left's Mischaracterizations of Jordan Peterson Will Make His Followers Turn Right
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/20...n-peterson-will-make-his-followers-turn-right
LOL, 'Nuff said.
Peterson got it wrong this time and Laurier is quite correct. Laurier did not release the recording. What they called him in private is not libel/slander/defamation. The fact the comments became public and ended up on Youtube via Ms Shepherd is NOT on Laurier.
Having said that, it's pretty goddam sad when university administrators call someone Hitler who has a problem with pseudo-science and the university's obvious ALT-left bent. Really shows not just a lack of maturity on their part, but that they're just a bunch of feckless c*nts. I mean c'mon, these are university admins and the best they can come up with is calling him Hitler? Even in acedamia the ALT-left are continually proving they are as f*cking dumb as rocks.
Having said that, it's pretty goddam sad when university administrators call someone Hitler who has a problem with pseudo-science and the university's obvious ALT-left bent. Really shows not just a lack of maturity on their part, but that they're just a bunch of feckless c*nts. I mean c'mon, these are university admins and the best they can come up with is calling him Hitler? Even in acedamia the ALT-left are continually proving they are as f*cking dumb as rocks.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, that's not correct. It needs only a single third person to be defamation, an audience of one, if you will. Assuming there were more than Dr. Peterson and the speaker in the room, the allegedly defamatory statements were "published," for the purpose of defamation.
The internet posting was a second defamation, and while that is not directly on Laurier, it may be responsible under respondeat superior.
There are a number of problems with Dr. Peterson's action, but publication is not one of them.
Quite uncreative. A better comparison would have been Kipling or some of the cowboy philosophers of early-20th-century America. Or perhaps Oliver North in his later years.
I would say Peterson has been standing against some of the state's decisions. Still, I have little doubt HarperCons would say that the state is not the ruling class.
He'd be right in that.
*ugh* Peterson wasn't even there. This was a dressing down buy the Laurier administration on Ms. Shepherd for showing a video of a Peterson speech. She recorded the conversation. She released the conversation to the public with Peterson's apparent consent. There's no defamation there no matter how hard Peterson looks for it.
Since you assumed something, I'm going to assume that for legal purposes, the university administration would be considered one body and therefore there was no third party privy to the conversation, until Shepherd released it.
If the person doing the dressing-down said disparaging things about Peterson to Ms. Shepherd, that's defamation.
But the suit can only succeed if Peterson can show that he was harmed (financially) by the disparaging statement(s).