Boris Johnson as the new PM? Christ, no.

Spitting cider.

I've already seen this social experiment

Jordan Peterson recently threatened to sue Cornell philosophy professor Kate Manne for defamation for referring to some of his work as misogynistic in an interview she gave to Vox about a review she had written of Peterson's latest book. I'll note that Manne recently published a well-reviewed book on misogyny, so presumably is making this claim regarding Peterson's work on the basis of her own academic work.

Peterson's threatened lawsuit seems to me clearly in opposition to the basic principles of academic freedom and the responsibility of academics to engage with other academics intellectually rather than legally. These kind of frivolous lawsuits also make people less willing to speak their minds honestly about their own views, leading to the kind of narrow speech environment Peterson otherwise opposes.

Until this week I had no exposure to Peterson. I watched about 5 hours of debate between him and Harris and it left the strong impression Peterson is not impressive. He cloaked an old school god in the gaps argument inside psychological jargon and double speak. He got pretty thoroughly taken apart by Harris. I can see why he would be popular with the right. He gives them the cover of science for thier belief in an imaginary bff who is the source of thier morality.

You would be perfectly right in the USA. But in canada misoginy, as all hate speech, is a crime.

Promoting hatred toward groups, minorities, etc is a crime in canada.

So if somebody tells you your book is misogynist, he/she is saying that you are a criminal.

And that's defamation in most countries if it is not true. If it is true it's an accusation to the government that they didn't apprehend a criminal.

So either peterson is a criminal under canadian law, and the government is complicit in letting him free while he publishes misogynist books, or he is being defamed.

Of course this if peterson intended to sue under canadian law, as it appears on the link you provided.

The heck is wrong with you?

Something tells me the above interpretation of Canadian defamation law may elide some of the more relevant nuances, so to speak.

In unrelated news:

https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/...634456065?s=19

This is wildly incorrect.

Pls elaborate on what i said that is incorrect so i can either learn, or answer properly so you learn.

Here is the Canadian hate speech statute.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...ction-319.html

Please explain why this

//

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

//

Doesn't apply to misogyny in your opinion.

I guess you agree that women are a "identifiable group".

Misogyny in many english dictionary is defined as "hatred , contempt for women".

Merriam-webster

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

Definition of Misogyny
: a hatred of women

Cambridge

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...glish/misogyny

feelings of hating women, or the belief that men are much better than women

If a book is truly misogynistic, then it contains promotion of hatred toward women. Then it is a crime in canada.

What am i getting wrong?

hes got you there ao. see also all the ppl arrested and fined and jailed for hate speak in canadia. and see also all the ppl who win cases of defamation when they arent hating.

its just logic.

I mean it's clear to me where the issue is: the person criticizing peterson work applies the misogyny label with too much ease.

Which, wouldn't be a problem in a free speech country. She can keep having very low standards to define misogyny, and other people can tell her she is wrong with that, and that's a normal conversation.

But, the moment your characterization of some other people speech touches criminal aspects, then it's like saying a person is a criminal. Which, normally (not 100% sure about canada, but that's pretty normal in most countries) , is libel and not free speech for basic reputational issues.

You can dislike some content being produced by some1, but calling him/her literally a criminal is something else.

Now, of course this is one of the many horrendous consequences of hate speech laws. When they exist, they LIMIT the capacity of critics to describe content, unless they want to go to court with their assertions.

In a completly obvious for free-speech supporters, but seemingly paradoxical way for naive people who like to "protect" others through hate speech laws, one of the most serious effect of hate speech laws is to reduce the scope of the critique you can do to content that maybe borders hatred, but doesn't go over the line (a line which has to be decided case by case by a judge).

So every time you read or watch something that makes you unease because you think it maybe has some negative effect on some group, you have to be extremely careful in the words you choose to describe it.

Hate speech laws literally help people who push the boundaries of speech, because they can't be described as hateful without legal consequences for the person that critics that content.

He consulted a dictionary, yet still has no idea how basic ****ing words work.

I am not sure why you are angered by this conversation.

But we have a similar case going on in italy.

We had a black female minister in a previous government. She was insulted an incredible amount of times by our local alt-right. She was compared to a monkey and all the classical racial slur, by many people in the Lega party.

Now, some time after the government she was part of went away, she called Salvini (leader of the Lega party) a racist for some statements.

And now HE SUED and she is currently defending herself in court, for calling him a racist. Because being a racist in public is a crime in italy so he can sue for defamation for being called a criminal without a convinction for hate speech.

Now all hope hinges on the judge actually accepting that those statements were "racist enough" for her to be able to apply that label.

edit: rechecking the story she called the whole party "racist" and salvini is suing for damages for the party as leader, not for himself.

Source in italian

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/201...ivile/4626531/

Italy sounds pretty effed up and racist

I liked these dumb threads before they were discovered by a semi woke Lazio supporter.

Mussolini signed the racial antisemite laws in 1938 under pressure from the nazi ally but less jews died in italy than in all other territories occupied by nazis (as a % of the jewish local population). Not a clean record to be sure though.

But at that time the US was refusing boats with jewish, and switzerland wasn't paying life insurances unless the original documents could be produced, so not many countries have a clean record on that issue.

Then after ww2 we weren't particularly racist, but we have always been very traditionalist and "nativist" in the sense of italian people always thinking of italian culture as the best AINEC in the world and so on.

But that was moot as long as the % of foreigners living in our country was very small (under 3% until mid-90s, under 1% iirc before 1989).

Then that % went up to 8% (wildly different numbers inside italy though, with the north having places with more than 20%, and the south having places, even big cities, with less than 3%).

Given that we never had a normal right (berlusconi has been our right for 25y lolmg), there was enormous political space to take for an alt-right party.

Lega under salvini leadership went from 4% 5y ago (after some scandals about its founder) to 17% at the last elections in march, and more than 30 in current polls.

People are really liking the anti-black rethoric of salvini right now.

So yes right now we are pretty racists. But i think that this could go back to the sewer quickly if some normal rightwing political offer appears.

wat? i side with kyenge not with salvini.

Thems sound like suing words.

An Australian academic who teaches at an American school wrote a book review in a UK literary magazine. This has nothing to do with protests against Canadian libel or hate speech laws. If that were Peterson's intention, he would sue another Canadian.

As it is, threatening a lawsuit for the reasons given is a violation of academic norms and inconsistent with the goal of promoting an open speech environment.

Not sure what's worse: defending Jordan Peterson or being a Lazio supporter.

**** I'm Canadian and I think I called Peterson a misogynist once on 2p2, but I might have just said Nazi so maybe I'm safe.