Jordan Peterson's defense of free speech, what gives?

[lorry]

Has anyone else noticed that Jordan Peterson's defense of free speech doesn't actually involve speech? 

[barn]

There's a short clip, called 'Truth Bomb', an excerpt from the recent full interview with Cathy N.

It (the clip) contains both the positive (pursuit of truth) and the negative (if/why not... questions...) supportive arguments/reasons.

It's the same, applicable to all interactions universally, be it a personal dialogue or a public speech.

p.s. - Jordan B. Peterson isn't defending free speech. He explains its merit, demolishing the suggested counter arguments.

[Jsbrads]

Lorry, your question short, perhaps I “sin” here.

Jordan does argue against compelled speech in the law. He also argues for free speech in society as the only chance to avoid violent conflict and positively to help speakers attain truth by exercising their ability to wrestle with those ideas. Two separate ideas I am presuming you conflated.

[lorry]

On 1/23/2018 at 9:20 AM, Jsbrads said:

Lorry, your question short, perhaps I “sin” here.

Jordan does argue against compelled speech in the law. He also argues for free speech in society as the only chance to avoid violent conflict and positively to help speakers attain truth by exercising their ability to wrestle with those ideas. Two separate ideas I am presuming you conflated.

 

Not sinning at all, brother! I did that because I though that if someone else picked up on what I though they picked up on that would trigger it. Does that make sense? I meant it sort of like "Hey guys, can anyone else smell that?". Communicating over the internet is really hard because we all lack so much context about each other to be able to communicate effectively, you know? I think that was a tangent, I'll explain what I mean about JP below.

 

On 1/23/2018 at 8:23 AM, barn said:

There's a short clip, called 'Truth Bomb', an excerpt from the recent full interview with Cathy N.

It (the clip) contains both the positive (pursuit of truth) and the negative (if/why not... questions...) supportive arguments/reasons.

It's the same, applicable to all interactions universally, be it a personal dialogue or a public speech.

p.s. - Jordan B. Peterson isn't defending free speech. He explains its merit, demolishing the suggested counter arguments.

 

Hi, barn. Thank you for the reference. I did watch the interview and so I can refer to that.

 

Pretty simple really. The position, so far as I can tell, is "we need free speech for true though" ~ 4:00+

 

 

I guess at ~ 2:50 Peterson asserts "... for most people, talking is how they think".

 

So, speech == thought, which implies, free speech == free though. So the defense of free speech, as in the Cathy, N. interview goes straight into a defense of free thought.

 

I disagree that speech == thought. I think that speech is the communication of the produce of thought, the flow of it if you will. Just as heat and work are flows of energy, but they are not energy as such.

[Jsbrads]

Perhaps you quoted Jordan perfectly, but missed the point. People have thoughts in their mind that they haven’t perfected. By explaining themselves to others, they improve their understanding of their own thoughts and now can see what those thoughts mean and dismiss or preserve those thoughts. Prior to articulation, thoughts can be amorphous and their interconnectivity can be obstructed.

[lorry]

2 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Perhaps you quoted Jordan perfectly, but missed the point. People have thoughts in their mind that they haven’t perfected. By explaining themselves to others, they improve their understanding of their own thoughts and now can see what those thoughts mean and dismiss or preserve those thoughts. Prior to articulation, thoughts can be amorphous and their interconnectivity can be obstructed.

 

I understand why a clinical psychologist might think that most people need to talk to someone else to organise their thoughts, after all, that is literally his job. No? Most people are possessed of an arrested capacity to introspect and conceptualise. I understand this. But still, speech is not though.

[RichardY]

On 23/01/2018 at 8:38 AM, lorry said:

Has anyone else noticed that Jordan Peterson's defense of free speech doesn't actually involve speech? 

He says in the clip you posted, that thought arises out of the prefrontal cortex via the motor cortex of the brain. 4:30.

 

On 24/01/2018 at 5:30 PM, lorry said:

I guess at ~ 2:50 Peterson asserts "... for most people, talking is how they think".

So, speech == thought, which implies, free speech == free though. So the defense of free speech, as in the Cathy, N. interview goes straight into a defense of free thought.

I disagree that speech == thought. I think that speech is the communication of the produce of thought, the flow of it if you will. Just as heat and work are flows of energy, but they are not energy as such.

Doing a Cathy Newman. Think; being a process. Thought, being something that arises not necessarily verbal

 

On 17/11/2017 at 6:46 PM, lorry said:

Jordan Peterson has no idea what information is, but he talks about information all the time. "The flow of information across boundaries" justifies "The flow of people across boarders". Boomer-tier silo-ed intellectualism.

 

>Talk about information

>Never define information

>Never discuss information theory

 

Dropped.

Stil listening to what he has to say then?  I actually agree with J.Peterson. "Earth & Water" from the movie 300, but also a quote by Herodotus. 

 

3 hours ago, lorry said:

 

I understand why a clinical psychologist might think that most people need to talk to someone else to organise their thoughts, after all, that is literally his job. No? Most people are possessed of an arrested capacity to introspect and conceptualise. I understand this. But still, speech is not though.

So why are you posting then? Physician heal thyself.

[lorry]

37 minutes ago, RichardY said:

1. He says in the clip you posted, that thought arises out of the prefrontal cortex via the motor cortex of the brain. 4:30.

 

2. Doing a Cathy Newman. Think; being a process. Thought, being something that arises not necessarily verbal

 

Stil listening to what he has to say then?  I actually agree with J.Peterson. "Earth & Water" from the movie 300, but also a quote by Herodotus. 

 

So why are you posting then? Physician heal thyself.

 

1. Therefore?

2. Therefore?

3. YouTube recommendation. As I watched 'very stable genius' by Stefan, JP with Cathy, N. was recommended and the thumbnail was in my top right . Serendipity, I think.

4. I sometimes wonder if people here think the way I think (I think not), and because I don't think that the information I identified is all the information to be identified (did I miss something? Again, I think not).

 

I think "Physician heal thyself", coming from you, is quight impertinent.

[RichardY]

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

[lorry]

19 hours ago, RichardY said:

Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Charming.

[Kikker]

On 24-1-2018 at 5:30 PM, lorry said:

So, speech == thought, which implies, free speech == free though. So the defense of free speech, as in the Cathy, N. interview goes straight into a defense of free thought.

I disagree that speech == thought. I think that speech is the communication of the produce of thought, the flow of it if you will. Just as heat and work are flows of energy, but they are not energy as such.

I don't know if you got stuck on saying that "speech is necessary for thought" (or speech is a way of thinking) is the same as saying "speech is the same as thought" or that you fundamentally don't agree on the relationship between thought and communication described by Jordan?

 

[lorry]

On 2/1/2018 at 10:20 PM, Kikker said:

I don't know if you got stuck on saying that "speech is necessary for thought" (or speech is a way of thinking) is the same as saying "speech is the same as thought" or that you fundamentally don't agree on the relationship between thought and communication described by Jordan?

 

 

Sorry Kikker, I was inattentive and did not see your post. I fundamentally don't agree on the relationship between thought and communication described by Jordan. I think to put speech prior to thought (by this I mean something close to cognition, not necessarily conscious thought as such) is to put the cart before the horse. 

[Kikker]

On 3-3-2018 at 1:26 AM, lorry said:

Sorry Kikker, I was inattentive and did not see your post. I fundamentally don't agree on the relationship between thought and communication described by Jordan. I think to put speech prior to thought (by this I mean something close to cognition, not necessarily conscious thought as such) is to put the cart before the horse. 

Well, this is not a chicken or the egg problem, there is no argument on which came first, conscious thought or conscious speech. It's painfully obvious that you would need to be capable of certain thoughts first before being able to express hem. Nevertheless, the argument is that speech and thought are part of the same cycle your thoughts are heavily fueled by the speech (or put more broadly communication) produced by others. Jordan Peterson seems to think that speech entails information-flow, meaning that everything that you have heard, seen or read produced by another human is speech, and to restrict that is restricting the information-flow itself. I probably don't have to tell you that manipulation of information like history can have dramatic effects on the perspective (and thus thoughts) people can have. Even more so, in the current day and age a person could be considered dysfunctional when isolated from birth, maybe even less capable than a socialized chimpanzee.  But Jordan argues something more fundamental, it would be beneficial (even necessary) for the individual to share honest (not necessarily truthful) believes freely. He makes this personal by giving the example of people streamlining their thought process by talking to other people about those thoughts. However, the larger picture would be from the perspective of a multi-agent system in which nodes (humans) share their current believes leading to consensuses. If that information sharing is disrupted, for example people share more information that they don't believe because it's necessary by law, then not the total knowledge of the system will be affected but the ability for individuals to derive conclusions from things they do know will.

[lorry]

6 minutes ago, Kikker said:

Well, this is not a chicken or the egg problem, there is no argument on which came first, conscious thought or conscious speech. It's painfully obvious that you would need to be capable of certain thoughts first before being able to express hem. Nevertheless, the argument is that speech and thought are part of the same cycle your thoughts are heavily fueled by the speech (or put more broadly communication) produced by others. Jordan Peterson seems to think that speech entails information-flow, meaning that everything that you have heard, seen or read produced by another human is speech, and to restrict that is restricting the information-flow itself. I probably don't have to tell you that manipulation of information like history can have dramatic effects on the perspective (and thus thoughts) people can have. Even more so, in the current day and age a person could be considered dysfunctional when isolated from birth, maybe even less capable than a socialized chimpanzee.  But Jordan argues something more fundamental, it would be beneficial (even necessary) for the individual to share honest (not necessarily truthful) believes freely. He makes this personal by giving the example of people streamlining their thought process by talking to other people about those thoughts. However, the larger picture would be from the perspective of a multi-agent system in which nodes (humans) share their current believes leading to consensuses. If that information sharing is disrupted, for example people share more information that they don't believe because it's necessary by law, then not the total knowledge of the system will be affected but the ability for individuals to derive conclusions from things they do know will.

 

Respectfully, I do not think Jordan Peterson has a correct conception of information. Speech defined as communicating information - verbally (or more generally as communicating information) would compel a formal definition of information, and a correct formal definition of information would lead one to take a (what would seem to be) very radical positions.

 

So.....

Speech being the communication of information.

Information being  that which is required to (objectively) reduce uncertainty, ie, that which is required to make correct choices.

Implies that freedom of speech, is freedom to communication information, is freedom to communicate that which is required to make correct choices.

And so something is protected by freedom of speech only in so far as it a communication of information.

 

Take this and apply it to the press, to the fake news:

Fake news is not communicating information, it is not communicating that which is required to make correct choices. It is the destruction of information, and the negation of that which is required to make correct choices. 

So it is not speech and therefore it can not be protected by free speech.

 

Global warming hysteria? Not free speech.

Equality between races? Not free speech.

Sleep with 10 guys, it'll be Ok!? Not free speech.

Trump is Hitler? Not free speech.

Black are discriminated against? Not free speech.

Muh communism? NOT FREE SPEECH.

 

Not even remotely JP's position. I think he is shit at math (viz., information theory) and doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

That said, there is no comprehensive theory of free speech in law, I've checked. It has yet to be written. So I might be being a bit harsh.

[barn]

Hi @lorry

A quick question...

22 minutes ago, lorry said:

Information being  that which is required to (objectively) reduce uncertainty, ie, that which is required to make correct choices.

How do you define certain and uncertain? I mean perhaps there are degrees of certainty rather. Expansion of knowledge, new connections discovered. ie. malaria (bad air)

Also, would questions be part of what can reduce certainty? Obviously, not in itself, because there should be an answer but my angle is = "that which is required to make correct choices" is always and forever in the hindsight (for realz), therefore you (ought to have,) need place for errors/trials.

Maybe I'm not grasping fully your meaning. Do tell.

[lorry]

2 hours ago, barn said:

Hi @lorry

A quick question...

How do you define certain and uncertain? I mean perhaps there are degrees of certainty rather. Expansion of knowledge, new connections discovered. ie. malaria (bad air)

Also, would questions be part of what can reduce certainty? Obviously, not in itself, because there should be an answer but my angle is = "that which is required to make correct choices" is always and forever in the hindsight (for realz), therefore you (ought to have,) need place for errors/trials.

Maybe I'm not grasping fully your meaning. Do tell.

I didn't define them, Claude Shannon did.

 

Information reduces uncertainty. Questions can transmit information.

 

For intuition...

 

Ever watch Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Consider you are faced with a question, you have no idea what the answer is, so you have insufficient reason to pick on answer over another. You can pick at random, you'll have 1/4 chance of picking correctly. You can do no better than random, eh? This what uncertainty means. Insufficient reason to pick one over another. Measured relative to no better than random.

Oh shit, eh? No worries, you have some lifelines! You use 50/50, and 2 incorrect answers are removed. You still have no idea what the right answer is, but now if choose at random you have a 1/2 chance of picking correctly. 1/2 is 2/4 and alot better than 1/4! What just happened? You gained information, you uncertainty has decreased! The information was that two of the four were incorrect, and you are much better off relative to before. You can be more certain you will pick the right answer, even if you choose at random.

But still, 1/2 is not as good as 2/2. But hey, it is a philosophy question, you have Stef's number, and you can phone a friend. You call Stef, he tells you the right answer, and boom! 1/2 goes to 2/2. More information, less uncertainty.

 

That which is required to make correct choices is never in the mind of the beholder, what is in the mind of the beholder is the specific evaluation of which choice IS correct. The correctness of a choice is defined in the context of a person and what they are trying to achieve, ie, their specific nature and their values. It can differ from person to person, but for a person of a specific nature, trying to achieve a specific outcome, it is defined. 

 

You were a contestant on WWTBAM. Assuming you wanted to be a millionaire the correct choice is the one which is factually correct. We can imagine some contrived example where something awful occurs if you win, so you throw the game to avoid something awful happening. What has changed is your values, what you were trying to achieve, not what was the correct choice so as to achieve that which you value.

Or lets say you have some unprocessed trauma around being a millionaire and so you throw the game so as not to provoke whatever unprocessed trauma is there. Again, what has changed is what you were actually trying to achieve, secondary psychological gain presumably, not what was the correct decision so as to achieve that outcome.

 

That which is correct is forever in hindsight? People make decisions under conditions of uncertainty, but we are doing a lot better than random, eh?

 

Reduce information? Well to reduce information is to increase uncertainty. That is easy enough to think through. Back to WWTBAM, you call Stef and he tells you the wrong answer on purpose because.... because! The reasons don't matter, but you just want from a 1/2 chance to 0. Information decreased, uncertainty increased. Millionaire status, btfo.

 

How do you know he just fucked you over? Well, we have grammar for that. If Stef said "barn, I don't really know what the right answer is, I think it is X, but I'm not sure bud" aka, if you follow my answer you still only have a 1/2 chance of being right. Well, that is very different from "[snickers] barn..... [in an annoying British ascent] have you even read Locke?! That answer is Y! 100%!".  

Easy, no? 

 

Try it with the Lugenpresse...

[Kikker]

9 hours ago, lorry said:

 

Respectfully, I do not think Jordan Peterson has a correct conception of information. Speech defined as communicating information - verbally (or more generally as communicating information) would compel a formal definition of information, and a correct formal definition of information would lead one to take a (what would seem to be) very radical positions.

 

So.....

Speech being the communication of information.

Information being  that which is required to (objectively) reduce uncertainty, ie, that which is required to make correct choices.

Implies that freedom of speech, is freedom to communication information, is freedom to communicate that which is required to make correct choices.

And so something is protected by freedom of speech only in so far as it a communication of information.

 

Take this and apply it to the press, to the fake news:

Fake news is not communicating information, it is not communicating that which is required to make correct choices. It is the destruction of information, and the negation of that which is required to make correct choices. 

So it is not speech and therefore it can not be protected by free speech.

 

Global warming hysteria? Not free speech.

Equality between races? Not free speech.

Sleep with 10 guys, it'll be Ok!? Not free speech.

Trump is Hitler? Not free speech.

Black are discriminated against? Not free speech.

Muh communism? NOT FREE SPEECH.

 

Not even remotely JP's position. I think he is shit at math (viz., information theory) and doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

That said, there is no comprehensive theory of free speech in law, I've checked. It has yet to be written. So I might be being a bit harsh.

The definition I used was more akin to the one used in information theory where the content of the message doesn't matter. Besides, reduction of uncertainty (or entropy, which has a formal mathematical definition) works both ways, truthful and untruthful. Since your whole argument was based on: information is only used to make "correct" choices, I think I'll wait on your reformulation.

 

[meetjoeblack]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 2:38 AM, lorry said:

Has anyone else noticed that Jordan Peterson's defense of free speech doesn't actually involve speech? 

Not sure if serious?

He argued against laws enforcing gender pronouns. 

[lorry]

10 hours ago, Kikker said:

The definition I used was more akin to the one used in information theory where the content of the message doesn't matter. Besides, reduction of uncertainty (or entropy, which has a formal mathematical definition) works both ways, truthful and untruthful. Since your whole argument was based on: information is only used to make "correct" choices, I think I'll wait on your reformulation.

Well, no. The form of the content doesn't matter so long as the sender and receiver can encode and decode the information respectively. With respect to verbal or written communication, we have very specific rules on the form of the content already. These rules are called: grammar. Don't you agree?

[lorry]

1 hour ago, meetjoeblack said:

Not sure if serious?

He argued against laws enforcing gender pronouns. 

He argued that he needs legally protected freedom of speech so he can think by himself.

[Kikker]

25 minutes ago, lorry said:

Well, no. The form of the content doesn't matter so long as the sender and receiver can encode and decode the information respectively. With respect to verbal or written communication, we have very specific rules on the form of the content already. These rules are called: grammar. Don't you agree?

You said:

Quote

Fake news is not communicating information, it is not communicating that which is required to make correct choices. It is the destruction of information, and the negation of that which is required to make correct choices. 

So it is not speech and therefore it can not be protected by free speech.

I said no it's not (destruction of information) because information can be truthful or not (correct or incorrect). So it can be protected by free speech.

Then, in your latest response, you say no to something but it's actually unclear what you're saying no to since my statement directly counters your argument about fake news. Likewise, the nuance you brought didn't do anything to change that.

[lorry]

3 hours ago, Kikker said:

You said:

I said no it's not (destruction of information) because information can be truthful or not (correct or incorrect). So it can be protected by free speech.

Then, in your latest response, you say no to something but it's actually unclear what you're saying no to since my statement directly counters your argument about fake news. Likewise, the nuance you brought didn't do anything to change that.

 

 

Destruction of information in the frame of reference of the receiver. Make sense now?

 

[meetjoeblack]

4 hours ago, lorry said:

He argued that he needs legally protected freedom of speech so he can think by himself.

You're mistaken. He is a clinical psychologist and prof with tenure at the university of Toronto. He was pushed to use compelled speech in gender pronouns by law. We then saw exactly what he was talking about later with Lindsay Shepard whereby, the university ambushed her for showing a Jordan Peterson video in a classroom, and accused of hurting the feelers of an imaginary student that did not even exist. 

 

Peterson is proven correct. He had the balls to step up against cultural Marxist and more stupidity. Saw a link that said he is making 60K USD/mon in youtube and a variety of other sources. Looks like he is doing it right. 

[Kikker]

8 hours ago, lorry said:

Destruction of information in the frame of reference of the receiver. Make sense now?

No, like I said entropy can be reduced both by untruthful and truthful information. If the receiver already believes the information, a decrease in uncertainty takes place and the reverse is also true. Besides, information isn't destroyed when uncertainty rises, you should know that.

[barn]

On 03/05/2018 at 2:04 AM, barn said:

How do you define certain and uncertain?

 

On 03/05/2018 at 4:31 AM, lorry said:

I didn't define them, Claude Shannon did.

As you can see, I didn't ask who defined it.

On 03/05/2018 at 4:31 AM, lorry said:

Information reduces uncertainty. Questions can transmit information.

Really? Does that mean, that the 'paradox of choice' is false? (Barry Schwartz)

On 03/05/2018 at 4:31 AM, lorry said:

Ever watch Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Consider you are faced with a question, you have no idea what the answer is, so you have insufficient reason to pick on answer over another. You can pick at random, you'll have 1/4 chance of picking correctly. You can do no better than random, eh? This what uncertainty means. Insufficient reason to pick one over another. Measured relative to no better than random.

I did, once or twice.

In this example, sure. I can't pick the correct answer with a more than 1/4 chance, yes.

On 03/05/2018 at 4:31 AM, lorry said:

Oh shit, eh? No worries, you have some lifelines! You use 50/50, and 2 incorrect answers are removed.

This is false. If you don't know what each choice is, you can't discard "2 incorrect" ones... because how would you know?

On 03/05/2018 at 4:31 AM, lorry said:

That which is required to make correct choices is never in the mind of the beholder, what is in the mind of the beholder is the specific evaluation of which choice IS correct. The correctness of a choice is defined in the context of a person and what they are trying to achieve, ie, their specific nature and their values. It can differ from person to person, but for a person of a specific nature, trying to achieve a specific outcome, it is defined. 

You need hindsight evaluation of the actions to verify correctness. Especially if you have no prior experience of a similar situation. You can predict and assess probabilities but the 'trial of the pudding is...'.

On 03/05/2018 at 4:31 AM, lorry said:

You were a contestant on WWTBAM. Assuming you wanted to be a millionaire the correct choice is the one which is factually correct. We can imagine some contrived example where something awful occurs if you win, so you throw the game to avoid something awful happening. What has changed is your values, what you were trying to achieve, not what was the correct choice so as to achieve that which you value.

So some people sign up to probably win, and as they get closer to achieving that they resign to prevent the probability of winning. Eh?!

On 03/05/2018 at 4:31 AM, lorry said:

That which is correct is forever in hindsight? People make decisions under conditions of uncertainty, but we are doing a lot better than random, eh?

 

I didn't say we're 'doing random'. Please don't twist my words.

Yes. Theories and ideas are just that, until verification/supporting evidence is made/found.

On 03/05/2018 at 4:31 AM, lorry said:

Reduce information? Well to reduce information is to increase uncertainty. That is easy enough to think through. Back to WWTBAM, you call Stef and he tells you the wrong answer on purpose because.... because! The reasons don't matter, but you just want from a 1/2 chance to 0. Information decreased, uncertainty increased. Millionaire status, btfo.

I don't remember asking you about how to reduce information... no problem.

I asked: "would questions be part of what can reduce certainty?"

No, I don't think you can reduce information BY increasing uncertainty. OR that if you reduce uncertainty you increase information.

i.e. You can't reduce the number of rice grains in a pile of ash by increasing the size of the pile/quantity of ash contained. You'd only make it appear less, similarly if you stood next to a basketball player and measured your height... the same.

On 03/05/2018 at 4:31 AM, lorry said:

How do you know he just fucked you over? Well, we have grammar for that. If Stef said "barn, I don't really know what the right answer is, I think it is X, but I'm not sure bud" aka, if you follow my answer you still only have a 1/2 chance of being right. Well, that is very different from "[snickers] barn..... [in an annoying British ascent] have you even read Locke?! That answer is Y! 100%!".  

Easy, no? 

I'm glad, you're having fun. Sorry, don't know what you are getting at here.

Someone hesitant to take a stance when giving me their opinion straight, doesn't make me any more certain about my final choice. Nor if they ask me a question instead.

Furthermore, I'll be less inclined to continue the conversation if the tone is inappropriate but that ultimately hasn't taken away/added information value. Same uncertainty.

However, if they provided evidence, proof... that'd reduce uncertainty. Information in itself does not help to evaluate better. It just means you have more to sift through to find your answer.

[lorry]

5 hours ago, Kikker said:

No, like I said entropy can be reduced both by untruthful and truthful information. If the receiver already believes the information, a decrease in uncertainty takes place and the reverse is also true. Besides, information isn't destroyed when uncertainty rises, you should know that.

I think your conception of information is incorrect, please consider reading through this explanation of the relation between information and choice.

[lorry]

13 hours ago, meetjoeblack said:

You're mistaken. He is a clinical psychologist and prof with tenure at the university of Toronto. He was pushed to use compelled speech in gender pronouns by law. We then saw exactly what he was talking about later with Lindsay Shepard whereby, the university ambushed her for showing a Jordan Peterson video in a classroom, and accused of hurting the feelers of an imaginary student that did not even exist. 

 

Peterson is proven correct. He had the balls to step up against cultural Marxist and more stupidity. Saw a link that said he is making 60K USD/mon in youtube and a variety of other sources. Looks like he is doing it right. 

I am right, Peterson is wrong, and he is shit at math.

[meetjoeblack]

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 9:13 AM, lorry said:

I am right, Peterson is wrong, and he is shit at math.

 

Quote

Controversial U of T Professor Doubles Income with Patreon Account

 

According to his Patreon page, Peterson makes $183,319 CD from the donation service, over $20,000 more than what he already makes as a professor.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/d7pe7z/controversial-u-of-t-professor-doubles-income-with-patreon-account

Meanwhile, some SJW is wimpering online about their hurt feelers and being right while driving a taxi cab. Step your game up son!

[lorry]

Internet forums were a mistake.

[eschiedler]

52 minutes ago, lorry said:

Internet forums were a mistake.

No doubt about it.