Didn’t Peterson get his fame from his YouTube channel?
I don’t follow him much at all.
I see what you’re saying though.
You have to call people out on their shit, also.
There has to be some happy medium between calling people out when they’re being awful, which seems necessary to advance society, and hounding them relentlessly.
I feel like I draw that line exactly where too many other people agree with you.
If you take the initiative to report that woman for using a racial slur, that’s at least as valid(I’d argue more valid) an action as that woman semantically broadening a racial slur.
But if you read a report about how she got fired for using a racial slur, and is being condemned, and then decide to go after her, then you’re just wasting time, discrediting your perspective, and kicking a horse while it’s shot.
Problem is that people like to fight battles after they’re already won, because they’re easier to be a part of then.
If everybody is agreeing with you, you probably don’t need to keep saying what you’re saying.
I think Peterson had a YouTube audience before he got fired, but his lectures then were mostly mundane ramblings about philosophy and psychology.
I think it’s fine to call people out on their shit, but too many people see themselves as the arbitors of justice, with no room for rehabilitation or recourse.
The dumbest thing about the Dave Chapelle protests outside Netflix was the entitlement. They wanted to keep their subscriptions while demanding Dave gets kicked off.
They had it backwards. The correct course of action is to stop supporting Netflix and encourage others to do so.
For the consumer to demand that the publisher punishes the performer, so the consumer can continue to utilise the platform is just so spineless.
It’s like protesting nestle. “Stop poisoning baby formula in third world countries, so I don’t feel morally bankrupt from buying your bottled water”
Did the Chappelle thing go anywhere? I thought it was DOA, although I’m not familiar with the controversy at all.
He made trans jokes? Or jokes about how he didn’t understand transsexuals?
At least with Nestle. There’s a lot of actual corporate litigation going after the itself for utilizing child slavery.
Hasn’t worked yet in legal forums, but there’s definitely a concerted effort to place the blame on the bad actor itself, whether an individual or in this case, the company itself.
But the protestors identified Chappelle as the bad actor in his case right, so they didn’t want to penalize the entire platform for one bad actor?
Boycotting all of YouTube instead of protesting the specific offensive YouTuber responsible for his own words doesn’t make sense to me.
Like Nestle should be held accountable because The company is actively fighting for the retention of child slavery in their cocoa plantations to support their business operations.
I don’t know what Netflix"s culpability would have been related to Dave Chappelle, a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their content and business model.
Didn’t Peterson get his fame from his YouTube channel?
I don’t follow him much at all.
I see what you’re saying though.
You have to call people out on their shit, also.
There has to be some happy medium between calling people out when they’re being awful, which seems necessary to advance society, and hounding them relentlessly.
I feel like I draw that line exactly where too many other people agree with you.
If you take the initiative to report that woman for using a racial slur, that’s at least as valid(I’d argue more valid) an action as that woman semantically broadening a racial slur.
But if you read a report about how she got fired for using a racial slur, and is being condemned, and then decide to go after her, then you’re just wasting time, discrediting your perspective, and kicking a horse while it’s shot.
Problem is that people like to fight battles after they’re already won, because they’re easier to be a part of then.
If everybody is agreeing with you, you probably don’t need to keep saying what you’re saying.
I think Peterson had a YouTube audience before he got fired, but his lectures then were mostly mundane ramblings about philosophy and psychology.
I think it’s fine to call people out on their shit, but too many people see themselves as the arbitors of justice, with no room for rehabilitation or recourse.
The dumbest thing about the Dave Chapelle protests outside Netflix was the entitlement. They wanted to keep their subscriptions while demanding Dave gets kicked off.
They had it backwards. The correct course of action is to stop supporting Netflix and encourage others to do so.
For the consumer to demand that the publisher punishes the performer, so the consumer can continue to utilise the platform is just so spineless.
It’s like protesting nestle. “Stop poisoning baby formula in third world countries, so I don’t feel morally bankrupt from buying your bottled water”
Did the Chappelle thing go anywhere? I thought it was DOA, although I’m not familiar with the controversy at all.
He made trans jokes? Or jokes about how he didn’t understand transsexuals?
At least with Nestle. There’s a lot of actual corporate litigation going after the itself for utilizing child slavery.
Hasn’t worked yet in legal forums, but there’s definitely a concerted effort to place the blame on the bad actor itself, whether an individual or in this case, the company itself.
But the protestors identified Chappelle as the bad actor in his case right, so they didn’t want to penalize the entire platform for one bad actor?
Boycotting all of YouTube instead of protesting the specific offensive YouTuber responsible for his own words doesn’t make sense to me.
Like Nestle should be held accountable because The company is actively fighting for the retention of child slavery in their cocoa plantations to support their business operations.
I don’t know what Netflix"s culpability would have been related to Dave Chappelle, a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their content and business model.