Shoutistics
242,299
Total Shouts
24
Last 24 Hours
Leaderboard
The Shoutbox
Change of subject... is it odd, cruel, funny or something else... that my usually noisy budgie goes extremely quiet when I cook chicken?
TLDR: Typically, unless you're inciting violence, you should be allowed to say anything, even if it makes you look like an a-hole.
Also, much more general thought, not directed at you specifically:
I think, if we actually value discourse, we need to allow people a lot more leeway to express and iterate ideas in public. This particular comment, when properly understood, is totally unobjectionable and closer to boringly obvious than dangerous, but anyone who talks and thinks a lot in public is going to say something a little off or ill-advised sometimes. That should be okay, at least to a point. A society which is specifically looking for misstatements to pounce on (particularly if everyone is only applying that level of scrutiny to people they disagree with) is being actively hostile to serious thought, because serious thought is the result of trial and error and correction.
I think, if we actually value discourse, we need to allow people a lot more leeway to express and iterate ideas in public. This particular comment, when properly understood, is totally unobjectionable and closer to boringly obvious than dangerous, but anyone who talks and thinks a lot in public is going to say something a little off or ill-advised sometimes. That should be okay, at least to a point. A society which is specifically looking for misstatements to pounce on (particularly if everyone is only applying that level of scrutiny to people they disagree with) is being actively hostile to serious thought, because serious thought is the result of trial and error and correction.
The main thing is that our opinions are our own and formed after hearing the best each side has to offer, as opposed to just being received from some clickbaity headline.
I don't understand how "he should know how it would sound" is supposed to be a meaningful intellectual critique, anyway. Kinda reminds me of when someone criticizes a politician not because they say or do something wrong, but because "it looks bad." Tell me why it is bad. If your supposed intellectual objection is about optics then it's no objection at all.
What's important is that this exchange isn't the only thing that matters
it doesn't help that the main times I hear about Peterson are less when he delivers some sage advice and more
suggesting "enforced monogamy" (which he admittedly walked back but still, for such an intellectual he ought to have known how that would sound to people)
Originally Posted by Yoda
Huh? That's a non-sequitur. As I just explained, the rhetorical question wasn't a complaint about waiting. It was a suggestion that the original opinion probably wasn't especially well-informed.
Originally Posted by Yoda
So, in this analogy, you're Jesus and you were off helping someone while I impertinently asked my rhetorical question?
In any case, it doesn't help that the main times I hear about Peterson are less when he delivers some sage advice and more when he says some notorious nonsense about suggesting "enforced monogamy" (which he admittedly walked back but still, for such an intellectual he ought to have known how that would sound to people). In that context, "at least he gets dudes to clean their rooms" is practically an afterthought.
Huh? That's a non-sequitur. As I just explained, the rhetorical question wasn't a complaint about waiting. It was a suggestion that the original opinion probably wasn't especially well-informed.
Originally Posted by Yoda
My question was obviously rhetorical, intended to point out that perhaps the earlier response was just kinda surface-level (is this person a conservative y/n) and the hints that there was any more nuance behind it than there was in the question was an implied feint.