Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

I have no problem accepting that these vids are legit, that that is precisely the kind of thing you'd expect to hear at DSA convention. The DSA is a very small fringe organization, it's not even a political party per se, but rather a gathering of radical socialists. For most of the 37 years of its history, it has had just a few thousand paid up members. For example, in 2016 they had about 6.5k members. In 2017 however, their membership tripled to almost 20k, and then increased to 31k in 2018. Guess why, and guess what type of people joined?

Indeed, this event seemed 100% believable to me, but I'm glad to see members double-check items, especially these days. It never even occurred to me to do that.

Side note: the "Don't Use Gendered Language" dude bore a striking resemblance to another YouTube famous lunatic, (as pointed out by Paul Joseph Watson in his redux of the same DSA clip). All in all, an amusing look into the heart of the Beast.

Still, I think we'd all agree it's wise to be cautious about laughing too hard at this stuff, despite the welcome relief value it represents. Such groups are always a joke in the beginning. -There's a whole lot of disenfranchised people who will join out of spite: "My parents/teachers/authority figures recoil from this? Sign me up immediately!"

How many people does a party need to get on a voting ballot in the U.S.?

One major difference between 1920's Germany (and similar debacles) and today, is that we now have video hosting sites so everybody can see immediately what a joke such movements are. Hopefully such differences will be enough.
 
Jordan Peterson has a new interview out. "Jordan Peterson Interview with Patrick Bet-David. In this second encounter these two thought leaders discuss tough times in the economy, the challenges of media, raising a family, fortune 100 companies hiring Ivy League students, Twitter and more life principles. "


That was a great watch, thank you :-) . So many good moments in there.

Indeed, this event seemed 100% believable to me, but I'm glad to see members double-check items, especially these days. It never even occurred to me to do that.

Side note: the "Don't Use Gendered Language" dude bore a striking resemblance to another YouTube famous lunatic, (as pointed out by Paul Joseph Watson in his redux of the same DSA clip). All in all, an amusing look into the heart of the Beast.

Still, I think we'd all agree it's wise to be cautious about laughing too hard at this stuff, despite the welcome relief value it represents. Such groups are always a joke in the beginning. -There's a whole lot of disenfranchised people who will join out of spite: "My parents/teachers/authority figures recoil from this? Sign me up immediately!"

How many people does a party need to get on a voting ballot in the U.S.?

One major difference between 1920's Germany (and similar debacles) and today, is that we now have video hosting sites so everybody can see immediately what a joke such movements are. Hopefully such differences will be enough.

Emphasis mine.

Yesterday I started reading the thread on the Holocaust: Revisiting the horrors of the holocaust and think your comments are apposite and wise. It is clear that the PTB financed Hitler who was considered a joke figure by the German people and no-one really took him seriously until it was too late. The lone newspaperman who saw the danger was dealt with. Now we have the whole social justice movement which feels like the PTB are pushing the world in the direction they want it to go again. With the clamour of social justice types to de-platform those who disagree with them and the increasing restriction of free speech on social media we are rapidly moving towards a glorious authoritarian world :rolleyes:. However, if social justice thinking and political correctness becomes fully mainstream and the norm then my hope is that the children who grow up in this environment will rebel against this as new generations tend to do. Either that or a nice big comet comes along and reformats the world. Until then, however, it is on each of us to do what we can do.
 
There is a very short YT video (titled: Jordan Peterson on the daughter question) which was made by a person with the help of some technology, it makes Jordan Peterson say things about his daughter which are perverse and horrendous (I could only listen to it for 30 seconds, it is one minute long). It sounds like him, as far as I can judge. It was posted yesterday and some people appear to believe it is true, based on the comments, fortunately some don't. All part and parcel of the free speech war? :barf:

I just thought I would better mention this, because it is so disgusting, inflammatory and slanderous and the way I see it: it is another attack on JP's integrity. FWIW.
 
There is a very short YT video (titled: Jordan Peterson on the daughter question) which was made by a person with the help of some technology, it makes Jordan Peterson say things about his daughter which are perverse and horrendous (I could only listen to it for 30 seconds, it is one minute long). It sounds like him, as far as I can judge. It was posted yesterday and some people appear to believe it is true, based on the comments, fortunately some don't. All part and parcel of the free speech war? :barf:

I just thought I would better mention this, because it is so disgusting, inflammatory and slanderous and the way I see it: it is another attack on JP's integrity. FWIW.
Do you have a link? We could all downvote it and comment on it.
 
Peterson had a new blog post regarding this new trend: taking one's voice and creating video/audio productions with the person saying whatever the creator decides

Something very strange and disturbing happened to me this week. If it was just relevant to me, it wouldn’t be that important (except perhaps to me), and I wouldn’t be writing this column about it. But it’s something that is likely more important and more ominous than we can even imagine.

There are already common fraudulent schemes being perpetrated by both telephone and internet. One know as the “Grandparent Scam” is particularly reprehensible, first because it is perpetrated on elderly people who are, in general, more susceptible to tech-savvy criminals and second because it is based on the manipulation of familial love, trust, and compassion. The criminal running the Grandparent Scam calls or emails the victim, pretending to represent a grandchild who is now in trouble with the law or who needs money for a hospital bill for an injury that can’t be discussed, say, with parents, because of the moral trouble that might ensue. They generally call late at night—say at four in the morning—because that adds to the confusion. The preferred mechanism of money movement is wire transfer—and that’s a warning: don’t transfer money by wire without knowing for certain who is receiving it, because once it’s gone, it’s not coming back.

Now what if it was possible to conduct such a scam using the actual voice of the hypothetical victim? Worse, what if was possible to do so with voice and video image, indistinguishable from the real thing? If we’re not at that point now (and we probably are) we will be within months.

In April of this year, a company called Coding Elite exposed an artificial intelligence (AI) program that to a substantial sample of my voice, which is easily accessible on the YouTube lectures and podcasts that I have posted over the last years. In consequence, they were able to duplicate my manner of speaking with exceptional precision, starting out by producing versions of me rapping Eminem songs such as Lose Yourself (which has now garnered 250,000 views) and Rap God (which has only garnered 17,000) as well as Rock Lobster (1400 views). They have done something similar with Bernie Sanders (singing Dancing Queen), Donald Trump (Sweet Dreams) and Ben Shapiro, who also delivered Rap God. The company has a model, the address of which you can find on their YouTube channel, which allows the use to make Trump, Obama, Clinton or Sanders say anything whatsoever.

I happen to think Rap God is an amazing piece of work, and when I first encountered my verbal avatar belting out the lyrics I thought that it was cool, in a teenage tech-geek sort of way. And I suppose it was. This caused quite a stir on the net in April, with media companies such as Forbes and Motherboard (a division of Vice) noting that the machine learning technology only required six hours of original audio (that is, actually generated by me) to produce its credible fakes, matching rhythm, stress, sound and prose intonation.

This week, however, a company called notjordanpeterson.com put an AI engine online that allows anyone to type anything and have it reproduced in my voice. It’s hard to get access to or use the site, at the moment, presumably because it is currently attracting more traffic than its servers can handle. A variety of sites that pass themselves off as news portals—and sometimes are—have either reported this story straight (Sputnik News) or had a field day (Gizmodo) having me read, for example, the SCUM manifesto (hypothetically an acronym for Society for Cutting Up Men), a radical feminist rant by Valerie Solanos published in 1967. Solanos, by the way, later shot the artist Andy Warhol, an act, driven by her developing paranoia. He was seriously wounded, requiring a surgical corset to hold his organs in place for the rest of his life. TNW takes a middle path, reporting the facts of the situation with little bias but using the system to have me voice very vulgar phrases.

Some of you might know—and those of you who don’t should—that similar technology has also been developed for video. This was reported, for example, by BBC, as far back in July of 2017, who broadcast a speech delivered by an AI Obama, that was essentially indistinguishable from the real thing. Similar technology has been used, equally notoriously, to superimpose the faces of famous actresses on porn stars, while they perform their various sexual exploits (you can find this story covered, for example, on The Verge, Jan 24, 2018). Movies have also been reshot so that the main actor is transformed from someone unknown to someone with real box office draw. This has happened, for example, to Nicolas Cage, primarily on a YouTube site known as Derpfakes, a play on the phrase “Deep Fakes,” which is what the video recordings created fraudulently by AI have come to be known. More recently Ctrl Shift Face, a YouTube channel, posted a video showing Bill Hader transforming very subtly into Tom Cruise as he performs an impression of the latter on Dave Letterman’s show. It’s picked up four million views in a week. It’s important to note, by the way, that this ability is available to amateurs. I don’t mean people with no tech knowledge whatsoever, obviously—more that the electronic machinery that makes such things possible will soon be within the reach of everyone.

It’s hard to imagine a technology with more power to disrupt. I’m already in the position (as many of you soon will be as well) where anyone can produce a believable audio and perhaps video of me saying absolutely anything they want me to say. How can that possible be fought? More to the point: how are we going to trust anything electronically-mediated in the very near future (say, during the next Presidential election)? We’re already concerned, rightly or wrongly, with “fake news”—and that’s only news that has been slanted, arguably, by the bias of the reporter or editor or news organization. What do we do when “fake news” is just as real as “real news”? What do we do when anyone can imitate anyone else, for any reason that suits them?

And what of the legality of this process? It seems to me that active and aware lawmakers would take immediate steps to make the unauthorized production of AI Deep Fakes a felony offense, at least in the case where the fake is being used to defame, damage or deceive. And it seems to be that we should perhaps throw caution to the wind, and make this an exceptionally wide-ranging law. We need to seriously consider the idea that someone’s voice is an integral part of their identity, of their reality, of their person—and that stealing that voice is a genuinely criminal act, regardless (perhaps) of intent. What’s the alternative? Are we entering a future where the only credible source of information will be direct personal contact? What’s that going to do to mass media, of all types? Why should we not assume that the noise to signal ratio will creep so high that all political and economic information disseminated broadly will be rendered completely untrustworthy?

I can tell you from personal experience, for what that’s worth, that it is far from comforting to discover an entire website devoted to allowing whoever is inspired to do so produce audio clips imitating my voice delivering whatever content the user chooses—for serious, comic or malevolent purposes. I can’t imagine what the world will be like when we will truly be unable to distinguish the real from the unreal, or exercise any control whatsoever on what videos reveal about behaviors we never engaged in, or audio avatars broadcasting any opinion at all about anything at all. I see no defense, and a tremendously expanded opportunity for unscrupulous troublemakers to warp our personal and collective reality in any manner they see fit.

Wake up. The sanctity of your voice, and your image, is at serious risk. It’s hard to imagine a more serious challenge to the sense of shared, reliable reality that keeps us linked together in relative peace. The Deep Fake artists need to be stopped, using whatever legal means are necessary, as soon as possible.
 
Didn’t know exactly where to post this. But since this topic covers postmodernism and it's destructive influence on people and society as a whole. The following might be interesting.

Unsuspecting passers are given questions about 1960 attitudes on domestic gender roles. Is it just me or were people and society different then we are told? Is this the patriarchal 60's we heard so much about?

Also, people think before they give an answer, nowadays it seems the other way around. Many people speak first before they think, further, people today are edgy and they think belittling and insulting others makes them look smart somehow.

The attitude of that era seems different, the answer given are thoughtful, I liked hearing people's opinions on deeper questions such as this. To me people back then seem mentally and emotionally stronger, more wholesome and also they seem much happier. Awesome blast from the past. Decide for yourself.

Should husbands help with the weekend housework? (1961)

Should husbands watch the birth of their children? (1962)


Insightfull Youtube comments:

Turns out that even in the misogynistic 60s men weren't actually misogynistic. The feminist narrative has been built on lies and half truths.

What strikes me are the majority of men who think it absolutely reasonable to share the tasks of marriage and home in these interviews. This might not fit the present agenda that white men from the pre multicultural era were unreconstructed sexists.

These are truly amazing. It just shows you that the idea we have of everyone being a terrible sexist and a patriarchal tyrant is simply not true, and, that there exists some kind of a human nature, common and precious, that persists through the time. Universal values 1. Postmodernism 0.

Hardly the toxic masculinity that is said to be so prominent. Men and women still respected one another, now they fight for equality by enforcing unequality


Perhaps a bit unrelated to the other 2 interviews. But the last chick in this video seems really cool and funny though 😄

Are looks important to women? (1967)
 
Last edited:
Here's the Canadian case where a father has been charged for family violence for referring to his daughter as 'she'. The case is to be heard Sept 3rd. This father wasn't against his child having treatment to transition, he only wanted to wait until after she got through puberty before she started taking testosterone.

Note that the father has a total gag order.

 
There's a film called "The Rise of Jordan Peterson" which will have its premiere in Toronto on 27 September, with screenings planned in the US too (more infos here). They apparently will release it on iTunes in November. Looks very interesting. Here's the trailer:

 
Saw this today linked from whatreallyhappened.com to 12160 SOCIAL NETWORK:
Dangerous people are filling the heads of young people with dangerous nonsense. Who are these people? They are what Jordan Peterson calls “the post-modernist...


 
I thought Peterson's judgement seemed worse than usual in the last interview I saw of him. Particularly in this part, and he seems to think so too:

 
Yes, he seems frail. I'm not so sure his judgement is impaired as much as he seems tired and maybe a bit distracted. Who wouldn't be with a very sick wife, months of worry and now we find he is also suffering addiction and withdrawal symptoms. He's a fighter and as they say "God loves a fighter"!
 
I think the appropriate action would've been to basically end all work stress during his wife's illness and now his own illness.
 
Yes, he seems frail. I'm not so sure his judgement is impaired as much as he seems tired and maybe a bit distracted. Who wouldn't be with a very sick wife, months of worry and now we find he is also suffering addiction and withdrawal symptoms. He's a fighter and as they say "God loves a fighter"!

Also, considering the time the interview was published, he was probably already on Clonazepam and/or in the process of cutting it down.
 
Back
Top Bottom