Current Events > Sorry guys I was wrong in my Jordan Peterson quote topic...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sorry guys, my bad, I made a pretty big typo in that topic. I accidentally typed Jordan Peterson when I meant to type Martin Luther King Jr. My bad, sorry again for the typo, but yeah that quote that 15 of you thought was "racist, offensive, and ignorant as fuck" was from Martin Luther King Jr, not Jordan Peterson.

My bad

---

Ok
---

that's cool...still disagree with it.

---

That's okay baby. Hopefully you see now how context matters.

---

Got em

---

Was it a social experiment on how this board will go frothing at the mouth at virtually anything they think JP said?

Also, I know the topic you are talking about but I doubt most people do. You should probably bump it or post this in that topic.

Dang, I missed it, but chec et mat

---

Big_Nabendu posted...

Got em

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

Psychotic and racist as shit like all Jordan Peterson quotes, and completely on-brand for TC.

---

Damn autocorrect

Yes, the motivation, character, and history of the person saying a quote, affect how the quote is received.

heres the entire speech where the quote was said.

https://www.smu.edu/News/2014/mlk-at-smu-transcript-17march1966

---

@DeadBankerDream posted...

Psychotic and racist as shit like all Jordan Peterson quotes, and completely on-brand for TC.

Care to explain this, sir?

---

Vicious_Dios posted...

Care to explain this, sir?

AlisLandale posted...

Yes, the motivation, character, and history of the person saying a quote, affect how the quote is received.

It still would have been racist if Jordan Peterson had said it.

---

Far right trogs are allergic to context

---

Going by the poll, most agree. Was it IP locked?

---

Hmmm... interesting.

---

tbf, racists also often quote MLK when talk of progressive movements come up, because they feel like it's better to sweep the past under the rug rather than address prevailing issues.

so like others have said, context matters, since who's saying something, and why they're saying it, can give it different meanings.

and as I've said in this topic and the other one, I disagree with the quote, but if Petersen was saying it, I might expect different things than if MLK was.

---

Uh no shit it was an MLK quote. Old kermit would never talk about how dangerous white supremacy is. You post some dumb shit but today you've been really trying to top yourself

Gotcha!

---

MLK saying "black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy" in 1960 is very different from Jordan Peterson saying it in like, a youtube lecture from 2018

---

averagejoel posted...

MLK saying "black supremacy is as dangerous as white supremacy" in 1960 is very different from Jordan Peterson saying it in like, a youtube lecture from 2018

This

"Context doesn't matter" isnt some kind of gotcha, it only reaffirms what people already think of TC

---

What was demonstrated was that for about 25% of people here, a true statement becomes false and offensive if said by somebody they don't like.

---

TC is an anti-vaxxer.

no shit he posts shit like this.

---

People don't like Jordan Peterson because he is a grifter. Not a single honest thing has been said from that dude's mouth since he got famous. Stop worshiping people that see you as a dumb fuck willing to throw his money away.

---

MixedRaceBaby posted...

TC is an anti-vaxxer.

no shit he posts shit like this.

is he really?
disgusting

---

Wouldn't call him an antivax, but he's real stuck on "both sides".

---

lmao

---

MixedRaceBaby posted...

TC is an anti-vaxxer.

no shit he posts shit like this.

ROBANN_88 posted...

is he really?
disgusting

Responding to a demonstrated cognitive dissonance with a false ad homenim attack just provides further evidence for the point I was making.



---

joe40001 posted...

What was demonstrated was that for about 25% of people here, a true statement becomes false and offensive if said by somebody they don't like.

people don't like jordan peterson because he says false and offensive things

---

joe40001 posted...

What was demonstrated was that for about 25% of people here, a true statement becomes false and offensive if said by somebody they don't like.

How exactly did you arrive at this 25%?

Can't really say that I do agree with it in those exact words considering the lack of institutional power that black supremacists hold in comparison to white supremacists.

The overall point in context is fair, obviously. Not really sure what you're seeking to prove with this?

---

joe40001 posted...

What was demonstrated was that for about 25% of people here, a true statement becomes false and offensive if said by somebody they don't like.

What you demonstrated was that drastically changing all context surrounding a statement can change it's meaning. That is pretty firmly in "no shit, Sherlock" territory for most people.

Tenlaar posted...

What you demonstrated was that drastically changing all context surrounding a statement can change it's meaning. That is pretty firmly in "no shit, Sherlock" territory for most people.

No context was given aside from the speaker. If you define the speaker as significant context for assessing the truth value of what is being said, then you are agreeing with me just in different words.

---

joe40001 posted...

No context was given aside from the speaker. If you define the speaker as significant context for assessing the truth value of what is being said, then you are agreeing with me just in different words.

Changing the speaker between the two that you did also changes the time period by several decades, genius.

joe40001 posted...

No context was given aside from the speaker. If you define the speaker as significant context for assessing the truth value of what is being said, then you are agreeing with me just in different words.

this is the dumbest shit Ive ever heard lol.


---

Wait, did you do another poll where you correctly attributed the quote to MLK and then compared the responses of the same users?

---

joe40001 posted...

Responding to a demonstrated cognitive dissonance with a false ad homenim attack just provides further evidence for the point I was making.

gotem again kid

---

justaguy3492 posted...

Wait, did you do another poll where you correctly attributed the quote to MLK and then compared the responses of the same users?

Lol, controls are unnecessary in "social experiments"!

---

joe40001 posted...

No context was given aside from the speaker. If you define the speaker as significant context for assessing the truth value of what is being said, then you are agreeing with me just in different words.

Martin Luther King saying that in 1960 to people (probably mostly black people) at a church is very different from Jordan Peterson saying that in 2018 to a bunch of neo nazis in a youtube lecture

---

my post still counts. Both are ethically bad, but practically, one is more materially and physically dangerous than the other
---

TC, I'll ask again, why are you like this?

Also, black lives matter in case you missed it

---

averagejoel posted...

Martin Luther King saying that in 1960 to people (probably mostly black people) at a church is very different from Jordan Peterson saying that in 2018 to a bunch of neo nazis in a youtube lecture

Just let him have his jigsaw larp

---

averagejoel posted...

Martin Luther King saying that in 1960 to people (probably mostly black people) at a church is very different from Jordan Peterson saying that in 2018 to a bunch of neo nazis in a youtube lecture

Yea, thats why people who tried to be reasonable and impartial said they would agree with the quote in a vaccum but not in our current reality where white supremacy is a much bigger threat. The people with the affliction of cognitive dissonance and a hate boner for the person more than the words uttered immediately called it racist and disgusting without a second thought. Much like how the same people calling TC anti-vax did so without a second thought because those same people love jumping to conclusions about others when it means they get a chance to shit on someone they dont like. Again, hardly surprising for CE.

---

Really feels like this wasn't the "gotcha" you thought it would be. Ah well.

---

You know what TC, you might have a greater point in doing this, I'm not sure what it was, but my issue with what you did in both this and the vax topic, is that you used two sensitive issues that people literally die over to prove a point.

Maybe you don't want people to take identity into consideration when someone says something... maybe you do? Why did you feel the need to get people emotional over this? You seem to dwell on topics that exclusively deal in ire.

Why not just use plain words to make your point instead of some grand gesture that forces everyone to question your motivations?

---

Tenlaar posted...

Changing the speaker between the two that you did also changes the time period by several decades, genius.

averagejoel posted...

Martin Luther King saying that in 1960 to people (probably mostly black people) at a church is very different from Jordan Peterson saying that in 2018 to a bunch of neo nazis in a youtube lecture

These are only is only a valid criticisms if pro-white anti-black racism is worse in 2018 than it was in 1960, otherwise the statement would be more true now and not less.

And I would hope that it is obvious to everybody that the truth value of a claim is not a function of the audience who hears it. (Particularly when we keep in mind no context including audience was attributed to the quote)

---

Xavier_On_High posted...

Really feels like this wasn't the "gotcha" you thought it would be. Ah well.

It was. I'm not shocked by people who never want to interrogate their cognitive blindspots will try to deny their own demonstrated cognitive dissonance. I honestly would be more shocked if a single one of them publicly said "you know what, fair point, I do often judge the content of an argument based on ideological assumptions about the speaker"

Heck, I'd be lying to say I never do it. But the important thing is I, and I think most people who picked option 1 or option 2, try to check myself.

But I am satisfied with the results. I provided good evidence that there is a portion of people here (let's say ballpark 25% (because ~15 of ~60 votes in that poll said it was a "racist, offensive, and ignorant as fuck")) for which "a true statement becomes false and offensive if said by somebody they don't like."

And that's just how some people operate. I think it's an intellectually reckless mode of operation and frustratingly hurting genuine progress of society towards more kindness and empathy, but it is how people operate. For some people discussion isn't about the pursuit of truth but a maneuvering game of power dynamics, kafka traps, and other obviously unrobust thinking.

Let's take this for example:

averagejoel posted...

people don't like jordan peterson because he says false and offensive things

And sorry, avergejoel, this was just the easiest example in this topic.

We have
"people don't like jordan peterson because he says false and offensive things"
and we also saw that
"something said by jordan peterson is false and offensive because he said it."

So it's an obviously flawed system from a good faith intellectual point of view:

Claim 1: Evidence the quote was offensive/false: Jordan Peterson said it
Claim 2: Evidence Jordan Peterson says offensive/false things: See quotes from claim 1

People make character judgments (usually based on ideology), then based on those character judgements infer meanings of what people say divorced from the actual content of the argument , then use those negatively inferred meanings as evidence of the flawed character they assumed in the first place.

There is no check within the system to prevent a feedback loop of delusion. And it happens all over the place.

Claim 1: "Anybody who is critical of any element of the anti-racism movement is a racist"
Claim 2: "There is no valid criticism of the anti-racism movement, because the only criticism comes from racists"

Yes! Obviously because you defined the rules that way. If you label somebody as racist, bigotted, or phobic if they challenge anything of what you argue, and then use that label to ignore them, it is obvious you are just not allowing criticism.

And anything that refuses to entertain good faith criticism is anti-intellectual and frankly is something we should be highly skeptical of, because robust things (like science) welcome skepticism.

---

AlisLandale posted...

Yes, the motivation, character, and history of the person saying a quote, affect how the quote is received.

All youre really saying is that some people love their double standards. Not too surprising, but still a bit frustrating when they refuse to admit it.

---

joe40001 posted...

Pseudointellectual circlejerking

---