Define "toxicity"

[Sagenod]

Not a thing is stopping them. You are arguing from a position that doesn't exist.

This is not even what the thread is about!

There are overwhelmingly negative reactions to benign things all the time, thanks to social media right? We have outrage culture because we can respond as angrily as we want to behind a computer or phone screen. So to say there aren't instances of pushback against individual freedom of speech is just intellectually dishonest.

[Mihalik]

I'd like to see your source regarding Jordan Peterson's effect on extremism. I'm not saying it's untrue but I'd like to see for myself. I can't find a distinct correlation other than instances of potential alt right groups using his words as defenses for their positions. He has denounced the extremes of the left and right publicly. He certainly has conservative views but he is not part of the extreme and the only reason he is deemed alt right, bigoted, etc. is because he is a voice of dissent against the extreme left. If he had views that went against the extreme right, we would see the campaigns to discredit him take place in much the same way, but coming from different sources.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture...-study-877061/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...a-hornets-nest

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...32764211036731

There it took me about 15 seconds to find some links on google. Do your own googling for the love of God.

It's funny how I managed to peg you as a Peterson fanboi.

[Sagenod]

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture...-study-877061/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...a-hornets-nest

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...32764211036731

There it took me about 15 seconds to find some links on google. Do your own googling for the love of God.

The burden of proof is on you, friendo. I only asked for supporting evidence of your statement. I'll read through those when I have the opportunity.

You seem to be coming at this from a place of anger, which is also interesting. You've become incensed by my words even though you don't have a nuanced understanding of my own perspective. Furthermore, just mentioning Jordan Peterson in a list of people has certainly triggered a much angrier response than I ever intended. Not quite sure how I'm a fanboy, but I don't think this a very productive conversation when you start throwing around condescending terms such as that.

Let me state my view on what just happened:

You assumed there was an ulterior, distinctly negative motive behind this thread. Due to that predisposition, your response was inherently adversarial because your belief is that I'm defending bad people and bad ideas. As I said before, you read farther into the thread than was ever needed. And furthermore, you haven't even answered the question directly, instead leaving it at "the dictionary definition is appropriate." Of course it's appropriate, it's in the dictionary. Though I have to say you've given me a clear understanding of your perspective with this debate so it's not as if I'm asking for a response to the original question of the thread anymore.

Actually, I am perfectly fine with the conversation evolving, as long it remains respectful and sophisticated.

[Endus]

You're missing the point behind what Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein and the like state when asked about the topic of discourse: Let them speak their rhetoric. The masses will see them for what they are which is radicalized to the point of irrationality and potential villainy. By shutting them down you may radicalize them further and allow for the growth of cancerous, extremist groups. Don't you know people hate being told what to do? And they hate when you try to hide information from them. Refer to the Streisand Effect.

See, but those people are liars and con men.

They say to let them speak, and let the market decide.

And then when the market calls them bigoted stupid shitheads who are pushing lies for money, they whine about how unfair the market is and how the market should "let them speak".

Nobody's stopping them from speaking. What they're complaining about is open public criticism. Literally, the market rejecting their bullshit, on the basis of it being bullshit.

Nobody is shutting down free speech. The market responding to speech this way is free speech. Jordan Peterson et al are the ones opposing free speech, trying to have their critics silenced.

Coming at this honestly? Buddy, it's a question about peoples' perspectives. Somehow to you it's a thinly-veiled defense of toxic people or ideologies? Who or what do you think I'm defending? I'd love to know, because this entire thread has been a discussion of subjective view on a term concerning it's societal applications.

Let's go to an earlier post;

It seems as though nowadays the groups that want to affect social change tend to put the cart before the horse, believing their stance is inherently just and thus everyone should just follow along. But that's now how it works because people's minds don't change overnight.

You were attacking the "groups that want to effect social change". You made your alignment pretty clear.

You've tried to make it about me, please stop. Try to discuss this without assuming anything about my position, because you have no idea what said position is. Because my position doesn't matter, because this thread isn't about a specific instance of toxicity. Need I clarify further?

When I say you're "not coming at this honestly", it's an attack on your argument, not your person.

And if you're unwilling to state your own position openly and clearly, yeah, that's just more willful dishonesty. You're trying to make a case and then complain when that case is criticized, claiming we can't know what your case even is.

We can. It's in your posts. If you think we're getting it wrong, be more clear about what your case is. We only have what you write here to go by. If you're writing stuff down that gives the wrong impression, that's a problem with you, not with us for taking you at your word.

[downnola]

The burden of proof is on you, friendo. I only asked for supporting evidence of your statement. I'll read through those when I have the opportunity.

You seem to be coming at this from a place of anger, which is also interesting. You've become incensed by my words even though you don't have a nuanced understanding of my own perspective. Furthermore, just mentioning Jordan Peterson in a list of people has certainly triggered a much angrier response than I ever intended. Not quite sure how I'm a fanboy!

These sentences make you look like a muppet and don't strengthen your argument. Are you here to actually discuss these things or are you just trying to rile people up and start flame wars?

[Endus]

I'd like to see your source regarding Jordan Peterson's effect on extremism. I'm not saying it's untrue but I'd like to see for myself. I can't find a distinct correlation other than instances of potential alt right groups using his words as defenses for their positions. He has denounced the extremes of the left and right publicly. He certainly has conservative views but he is not part of the extreme and the only reason he is deemed alt right, bigoted, etc. is because he is a voice of dissent against the extreme left.

Yeah, no. He lied his ass off before Parliament about Bill C-17, pushing a bunch of malarkey about the bill that served only to inflame bigots. He had no reason for that, other than to fan the flames of bigotry.

It wasn't fear of the bill's effect; Ontario had had similar legislation in place for years without any of the consequences he fearmongered about, and he lives in Ontario.

It wasn't that he misunderstood the bill; the whole bill was like half a page long and there's no way he hadn't read it.

He lied, to fan the flames of bigotry. Pure and simple. And that's just a single example.

There are a ton of people who speak against cancel culture and view it as a problem. Look at Dave Chappelle and numerous other comedians along with actors, musicians, plenty of classically liberal people who are against cancel culture. You'll see that it's not just a buzzword for the alt right to hide behind.

And boy if you're going to try to tell me Dave Chappelle is toxic... It will be more difficult to take your position seriously.

Yeah, no. Chappelle is an outspoken transphobe and in his most recent special, he aligned himself directly and explicitly with an anti-trans hate group, TERFs. If he's really just completely ignorant on the subject, it's really fuckin' weird he made that a major part of his special (and it wasn't the first time).

[Sagenod]

This mostly just sounds like you're upset that people are able to disagree with something you posted on social media.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You say some dumb shit online, people are well within their rights to call bullshit. That doesn't mean they're pushing back against your freedom of speech. It just means they disagree.

Another assumption about me. This became of a referendum on my own position, somehow, which is quite obnoxious.

[Sagenod]

See, but those people are liars and con men.

They say to let them speak, and let the market decide.

And then when the market calls them bigoted stupid shitheads who are pushing lies for money, they whine about how unfair the market is and how the market should "let them speak".

Nobody's stopping them from speaking. What they're complaining about is open public criticism. Literally, the market rejecting their bullshit, on the basis of it being bullshit.

Nobody is shutting down free speech. The market responding to speech this way is free speech. Jordan Peterson et al are the ones opposing free speech, trying to have their critics silenced.


Let's go to an earlier post;

You were attacking the "groups that want to effect social change". You made your alignment pretty clear.



When I say you're "not coming at this honestly", it's an attack on your argument, not your person.

And if you're unwilling to state your own position openly and clearly, yeah, that's just more willful dishonesty. You're trying to make a case and then complain when that case is criticized, claiming we can't know what your case even is.

We can. It's in your posts. If you think we're getting it wrong, be more clear about what your case is. We only have what you write here to go by. If you're writing stuff down that gives the wrong impression, that's a problem with you, not with us for taking you at your word.

Oh lord... First: The market is clearly in favor of Jordan Peterson. Look at his rise to fame if you have any doubts. His critics couldn't silence him what do you mean? He became an international sensation so you lost me there.

So I'm attacking interest groups by stating a viewpoint on how they behave? Interesting. I didn't know you couldn't criticize peoples' actions without being an aggressor.

What position of mine do you want me to define? You seem dedicated to exposing me for the bigot (or whatever) I am, so ask away I am officially an open book.

- - - Updated - - -

These sentences make you look like a muppet and don't strengthen your argument. Are you here to actually discuss these things or are you just trying to rile people up and start flame wars?

Hold the phone: I'm not the one who's being adversarial. When you question my intent and have an inclination toward it being negative,I'm going to defend myself to the best of my ability.

- - - Updated - - -

Are we just looking for personal definitions of what we feel constitutes "toxicity," or are we looking for actual examples?

The mention of Jordan Peterson is a good start to show "toxicity," I guess.

Personally, I'd argue that "toxicity" comes in a whole bunch of flavours. In they end, though, the majority of them generally just come down to a base form of "being a dick."

Sorry, a lot of responses and I'm trying to avoid a dumpster fire of a thread.

I want to know what constitutes it to you specifically yes. Also, at what point is someone themselves toxic, as opposed to being a person with a set of toxic beliefs? When do we denounce them? Because some people get away with doing and saying certain things while others don't. Wouldn't you agree? There are majorly disparate reactions.

[Dezerte]

There are overwhelmingly negative reactions to benign things all the time, thanks to social media right? We have outrage culture because we can respond as angrily as we want to behind a computer or phone screen.

But aren't these examples of freedom of speech? And freedom of association?

E.g. a racist being shouted down and socially ostracized is free speech - the very definition of it. Prohibiting (i.e. making it illegal) people from doing that would be state censorship.
Is it civil? I mean, it's a response to an uncivil position so it's an understandable reaction. And it's also important to make it clear when something is unacceptable, that it is unacceptable - so that it can never take root/or be rooted out. So I would ultimately not consider such a "harsh" response to be toxic.

And really, cancel culture is just a new word for an old term if you ask me - social ostracization. I dislike how it's being used as if it's some new kind of phenomena, and that it is always bad (it can be, but that depends on what is being ostracized).

[Lenonis]

This is not even what the thread is about!

There are overwhelmingly negative reactions to benign things all the time, thanks to social media right? We have outrage culture because we can respond as angrily as we want to behind a computer or phone screen. So to say there aren't instances of pushback against individual freedom of speech is just intellectually dishonest.

Why do you want to restrict the freedom of speech of those responding to speech? Seems rather hypocritical.

[Endus]

Oh lord... First: The market is clearly in favor of Jordan Peterson. Look at his rise to fame if you have any doubts. His critics couldn't silence him what do you mean? He became an international sensation so you lost me there.

Literally no one has made any effort to "silence" Jordan Peterson. He just likes to whine about criticism because he can't honestly respond to it. That's the whole thing; snowflakes who can't defend their positions rationally whining about being "cancelled" whenever anyone levels criticism of their arguments.

The only assault on free speech lately is from right-wingers who like to lie about criticism and claim that it's censorship. If you aren't have legal barriers put on your ability to express yourself, your freedom of speech isn't being attacked.

So I'm attacking interest groups by stating a viewpoint on how they behave? Interesting. I didn't know you couldn't criticize peoples' actions without being an aggressor.

You were making a hostile misrepresentation.

What position of mine do you want me to define? You seem dedicated to exposing me for the bigot (or whatever) I am, so ask away I am officially an open book.

I'm not trying to define you as anything.

I will, however, continue to break down the arguments you make to their constituent pieces. If that turns out to look bad on you, that's your problem to deal with.

[Captain N]

It appears Connal has returned with a sock puppet. Still fellatiating over Jordan Peterson after all these years?

[Machismo]

That's very true. Yet people attempt to shut down freedom of speech all the time, if you haven't noticed. Obviously it depends where you are in the country, but having different viewpoints on matters is often met with disparate responses. It depends on the person, what they're saying, when they say it, how they say it, where they say it, etc. Context is key and a lot of the time, public perception can be influenced in distinct ways due to lack of awareness regarding context.

That's not to say there aren't inherently bad ideas. I never stated as such because I don't believe that, it would be ridiculous to think so. But we can't draw conclusions until we understand more than just headlines and hot takes.

Who is trying to shut down freedomnof speech? You keepsaying this, but cannot seem to show how.

You seem to be basing things on a false premise.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd like to see your source regarding Jordan Peterson's effect on extremism. I'm not saying it's untrue but I'd like to see for myself. I can't find a distinct correlation other than instances of potential alt right groups using his words as defenses for their positions. He has denounced the extremes of the left and right publicly. He certainly has conservative views but he is not part of the extreme and the only reason he is deemed alt right, bigoted, etc. is because he is a voice of dissent against the extreme left. If he had views that went against the extreme right, we would see the campaigns to discredit him take place in much the same way, but coming from different sources.

There are a ton of people who speak against cancel culture and view it as a problem. Look at Dave Chappelle and numerous other comedians along with actors, musicians, plenty of classically liberal people who are against cancel culture. You'll see that it's not just a buzzword for the alt right to hide behind.

And boy if you're going to try to tell me Dave Chappelle is toxic... It will be more difficult to take your position seriously.

Cancel culture is nothing more than the choice to exercise free speech. It's not denying anyone their freedom of speech.

[Egomaniac]

This is not even what the thread is about!

There are overwhelmingly negative reactions to benign things all the time, thanks to social media right? We have outrage culture because we can respond as angrily as we want to behind a computer or phone screen. So to say there aren't instances of pushback against individual freedom of speech is just intellectually dishonest.

Getting "pushback" for the things you say is not an attack against freedom of speech...it's an example of it.

[Hotmail]

So this right here is a great example of toxicity.

It does a few things - first it denies that there is indeed someone who may act in a way that is negative and toxic. Just flat out pretends toxicity isn't a valid thing that exists. Two, it is used as a way to bash a group of people the poster doesn't like. And finally it's overall just dismissive and patronizing.

So, funny enough, in a thread about toxicity you have a great example.

You're reading way too deep into it and probably projecting somewhat. It's just a really, really subjective thing, on top of absolutely being a rallying cry. You have plenty of examples in this thread already.

[Machismo]

Oh lord... First: The market is clearly in favor of Jordan Peterson. Look at his rise to fame if you have any doubts. His critics couldn't silence him what do you mean? He became an international sensation so you lost me there.

So I'm attacking interest groups by stating a viewpoint on how they behave? Interesting. I didn't know you couldn't criticize peoples' actions without being an aggressor.

What position of mine do you want me to define? You seem dedicated to exposing me for the bigot (or whatever) I am, so ask away I am officially an open book.

- - - Updated - - -



Hold the phone: I'm not the one who's being adversarial. When you question my intent and have an inclination toward it being negative,I'm going to defend myself to the best of my ability.

- - - Updated - - -



Sorry, a lot of responses and I'm trying to avoid a dumpster fire of a thread.

I want to know what constitutes it to you specifically yes. Also, at what point is someone themselves toxic, as opposed to being a person with a set of toxic beliefs? When do we denounce them? Because some people get away with doing and saying certain things while others don't. Wouldn't you agree? There are majorly disparate reactions.

Honestly, you're really not that difficult to figure out.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...he-Mandalorian

You keep talking about attacks on free speech, but cannot even explain what you even mean.

Criticizing people is not an attack on free speech.

A social media company kicking out racists is not an
attack on free speech.

[Lenonis]

You're reading way too deep into it and probably projecting somewhat. It's just a really, really subjective thing, on top of absolutely being a rallying cry. You have plenty of examples in this thread already.

You are the one the one that said it is just a rallying cry for the left. Don't get upset if you get called out.

[Hotmail]

You are the one the one that said it is just a rallying cry for the left. Don't get upset if you get called out.

My post is the opposite of upset.

There, I added a smiley so you don't feel threatened.

[Lenonis]

My post is the opposite of upset.

There, I added a smiley so you don't feel threatened.

I see you decided to continue with the patronizing. Thank you for your efforts to demonstrate toxic behavior for the class.

[Sagenod]

But aren't these examples of freedom of speech? And freedom of association?

E.g. a racist being shouted down and socially ostracized is free speech - the very definition of it. Prohibiting (i.e. making it illegal) people from doing that would be state censorship.
Is it civil? I mean, it's a response to an uncivil position so it's an understandable reaction. And it's also important to make it clear when something is unacceptable, that it is unacceptable - so that it can never take root/or be rooted out. So I would ultimately not consider such a "harsh" response to be toxic.

And really, cancel culture is just a new word for an old term if you ask me - social ostracization. I dislike how it's being used as if it's some new kind of phenomena, and that it is always bad (it can be, but that depends on what is being ostracized).

I agree 100% with that. Just to be clear, I never made any statements in defense of any figures or ideologies that are already regarded as toxic. In fact, I agree completely that our responsibility as a well-intentioned society should be to denounce evil. It's always up to the people.

- - - Updated - - -

Literally no one has made any effort to "silence" Jordan Peterson. He just likes to whine about criticism because he can't honestly respond to it. That's the whole thing; snowflakes who can't defend their positions rationally whining about being "cancelled" whenever anyone levels criticism of their arguments.

The only assault on free speech lately is from right-wingers who like to lie about criticism and claim that it's censorship. If you aren't have legal barriers put on your ability to express yourself, your freedom of speech isn't being attacked.



You were making a hostile misrepresentation.



I'm not trying to define you as anything.

I will, however, continue to break down the arguments you make to their constituent pieces. If that turns out to look bad on you, that's your problem to deal with.

There has been an effort to silence Jordan Peterson and compartmentalize him as being alt right for quite a while now. Do your research and you'll see. A group of students pushed him and the ones who wanted to listen to him speak out of a campus auditorium because they deem him transphobic, etc. Have you listened to him in all the interviews he's done or the speeches he's given? If you have you'll understand how he's been the victims of "hostile misrepresentation."

Now as for me making a "hostile misrepresentation" of interest groups. How so? Where is the hostility?