/lit/ - Literature

>>23526214
In regard to the nonsense that Peterson is against online privacy:
>he isn't saying anonymity on the internet shouldn't exist
>he isn't even saying the option for anonymity should be taken away on the specific websites to which he's referring
>he is putting forward the idea for it to be debated in the public sphere
>he is correct when he says anonymous accounts incentivize trolling (e.g. memeflags)
>segregation isn't a perfect solution, that's why he is encouraging a discussion, but it is a better option than what is currently used (e.g. shadow banning comments)
Remember: Peterson's critics (be they libtards, trannies, conspiracy schizos, etc.) are always disingenuous and will mischaracterize what he actually says while making baseless ad hominem attacks toward his character.

A common example: they will characterize severe withdrawal from a doctor prescribed medication as a character defining drug addiction and will conveniently ignore that immediately after he completed/published his second worldwide bestselling book, organized and completed a sold out international lecture tour, started an interview series viewed by millions, is starting an online university (free degrees built into the model), published multiple articles, etc. In short: you can't trust such people and you should research it for yourself.

>>22562736
In regard to the nonsense that Peterson is against online privacy:
>he isn't saying anonymity on the internet shouldn't exist
>he isn't even saying the option for anonymity should be taken away on the specific websites to which he's referring
>he is putting forward the idea for it to be debated in the public sphere
>he is correct when he says anonymous accounts incentivize trolling (e.g. memeflags)
>segregation isn't a perfect solution, that's why he is encouraging a discussion, but it is a better option than what is currently used (e.g. shadow banning comments)
Remember: Peterson's critics (be they libtards, trannies, conspiracy schizos, etc.) are always disingenuous and will mischaracterize what he actually says while making baseless ad hominem attacks toward his character.

A common example: they will characterize severe withdrawal from a doctor prescribed medication as a character defining drug addiction and will conveniently ignore that immediately after he completed/published his second worldwide bestselling book, organized and completed a sold out international lecture tour, started an interview series viewed by millions, is starting an online university (free degrees built into the model), published multiple articles, etc. In short: you can't trust such people and you should research it for yourself.

>>22160282
>>22160291
>>22160296
In regard to the nonsense that Peterson is against online privacy:
>he isn't saying anonymity on the internet shouldn't exist
>he isn't even saying the option for anonymity should be taken away on the specific websites to which he's referring
>he is putting forward the idea for it to be debated in the public sphere
>he is correct when he says anonymous accounts incentivise trolling (e.g. memeflags)
>segregation isn't a perfect solution, that's why he is encouraging a discussion, but it is a better option than what is currently used (e.g. shadowbanning comments)
Remember: Peterson's critics (be they libtards, trannies, conspiracy schizos, etc.) are always disingenuous and will mischaracterize what he actually says while making baseless ad hominem attacks toward his character.

A common example: they will characterize severe withdrawal from a doctor prescribed medication as a character defining drug addiction and will conveniently ignore that immediately after he completed/published his second worldwide bestselling book, organized and completed a sold out international lecture tour, started an interview series viewed by millions, published multiple articles, etc. In short: you can't trust such people and you should research it for yourself.

>>21877012
In regard to the nonsense that Peterson is against online privacy:
>he isn't saying anonymity on the internet shouldn't exist
>he isn't even saying the option for anonymity should be taken away on the specific websites to which he's referring
>he is putting forward the idea for it to be debated in the public sphere
>he is correct when he says anonymous accounts incentivise trolling (e.g. memeflags)
>segregation isn't a perfect solution, that's why he is encouraging a discussion, but it is a better option than what is currently used (e.g. shadowbanning comments)
Remember: Peterson's critics (be they libtards, trannies, conspiracy schizos, etc.) are always disingenuous and will mischaracterize what he actually says while making baseless ad hominem attacks toward his character.

A common example: they will characterize severe withdrawal from a doctor prescribed medication as a character defining drug addiction and will conveniently ignore that immediately after he completed/published his second worldwide bestselling book, organized and completed a sold out international lecture tour, started an interview series viewed by millions, published multiple articles, etc. In short: you can't trust such people and you should research it for yourself.

>>21778105
In regard to the nonsense that Peterson is against online privacy:
>he isn't saying anonymity on the internet shouldn't exist
>he isn't even saying the option for anonymity should be taken away on the specific websites to which he's referring
>he is putting forward the idea for it to be debated in the public sphere
>he is correct when he says anonymous accounts incentivise trolling (e.g. memeflags)
>segregation isn't a perfect solution, that's why he is encouraging a discussion, but it is a better option than what is currently used (e.g. shadowbanning comments)
Remember: Peterson's critics (be they libtards, trannies, conspiracy schizos, etc.) are always disingenuous and will mischaracterize what he actually says while making baseless ad hominem attacks toward his character.

A common example: they will characterize severe withdrawal from a doctor prescribed medication as a character defining drug addiction and will conveniently ignore that immediately after he completed/published his second worldwide bestselling book, organized and completed a sold out international lecture tour, started an interview series viewed by millions, published multiple articles, etc. In short: you can't trust such people and you should research it for yourself.

>>21756354
You get the pasta:

In regard to the nonsense that Peterson is against online privacy:
>he isn't saying anonymity on the internet shouldn't exist
>he isn't even saying the option for anonymity should be taken away on the specific websites to which he's referring
>he is putting forward the idea for it to be debated in the public sphere
>he is correct when he says anonymous accounts incentivise trolling (e.g. memeflags)
>segregation isn't a perfect solution, that's why he is encouraging a discussion, but it is a better option than what is currently used (e.g. shadowbanning comments)
Remember: Peterson's critics (be they libtards, trannies, conspiracy schizos, etc.) are always disingenuous and will mischaracterize what he actually says while making baseless ad hominem attacks toward his character.

A common example: they will characterize severe withdrawal from a doctor prescribed medication as a character defining drug addiction and will conveniently ignore that immediately after he completed/published his second worldwide bestselling book, organized and completed a sold out international lecture tour, started an interview series viewed by millions, published multiple articles, etc. In short: you can't trust such people and you should research it for yourself.

>>21489604
I don't have to ask him. It's a mischaracterization of what he actually said. Basically, anonymity online leads to pathological behaviour. On specific websites (i.e. Twitter/YouTube), not the internet in general, he suggested seperating ID'd accounts from anonyomous accounts could curtail the negative outcomes associated with such. He isn't even saying anonymity the specific platforms should be entirely removed and he also isn't saying registered accounts should lack the ability to interact with anonymous accounts should they choose to do so. He was putting forward this as a suggestion to debate, not a call to action, and it is a better solution than what such platforms currently do (i.e. shadowban individual posts/comments with no accountability or even a signal that such has been done).

Peterson's critics rely on mischaracterizing his positions and retreating to character assassination when they're called out. Simple as.

>>21462236
>he stated that the fate of the world depends on the existence of Israel.
Like I said, you're mad he isn't anti-semitic. His take is that the rise in anti-semitism corresponds to authoritarianism and bases his arguments on historical precident as well as the general trend we see now. The vast majority of people who have a problem with his position on Jews/Israel ignore that aspect of his argument because they genuinely believe in a multi-millennia international conspiracy and cannot accept anything that even slightly undermines that belief.
>he literally rants against internet anonymity constantly
Not at all (pic-related). His point is that anonymity leads to pathological behavior. He has never said that anonymous accounts should be completely banned and his comments are in reference to specific websites (i.e. Twitter/YouTube) and not the internet in general. Futher, he put forward the idea for debate/discussion because it's a better solution than what is currently in place on these sites (e.g. shadowbanning which simply erases wrongthink without any accountability from governments and Big Tech). So no: Peterson does not argue for the elimination of anonymity on the internet and that criticism of him exemplifies how his detractors mischaracterize what he says to service ulterior motives.

>>21442366
>need to submit their realID's to social media
No he isn't. His point was that anonymity leads to pathological behavior online (you can witness it right now by heading over to /pol/ and paying attention to memeflags for 5 minutes). He put forward an idea for debate that didn't even suggest banning anonymity on the specific websites he was talking about let alone erasing it from the internet altogether. Once again, Peterson's critics are disingenuous and mischaracterize him.
>>21442389
He also prefaced that he is far from an authority on Islam and his aim was to start a dialogue due to the continuing importance Muslims have in the public theatre. The thrust of his message wasn't that Islam should adopt Liberalism at all--you're mischaracterizing him.