I legitimately want to know if you think he shouldn't be suing them for this.
I don't really have an opinion on the matter of whether or not he should be suing them, but if he does sue, I hope he wins. The issue here is that I just don't buy the idea that this lawsuit is anything other than a grandstand that he hopes will promote his message and grow his audience. It's not the legitimacy of the lawsuit that I am calling into question, but the stated motivations behind it.
Perhaps I am overly cynical in regards to Peterson, but my perception of him is that of a charismatic intellectual who is willing to use his talents to cultivate a servile fan base, and I am not convinced (despite my best efforts to assume good faith) that his motivations for doing so are entirely genuine. You can dismiss these misgivings if you wish, but I maintain that people who work to attract sycophancy while claiming to just want to help others should be viewed with suspicion; be they a religious leader, a political figure, or (as in Peterson's case) a self-help guru.
Do you actually know what this lawsuit is about? They made a girl cry for showing on of his videos in her class. She was reported but told she wasn't allowed to know her crime, hauled before a panel of her bosses and told that she was hurting people by showing a video of Peterson on the tv. You would be forgiven for thinking they were asked to reenact Kafka's The Trial without her knowledge, part of her crying seems to be in incredulity at the fucking ridiculousness of it.
As I have stated, I don't care about the justifications behind this lawsuit, nor it's legal merit, and I really don't care about these pointless slap fights that take place between footling academia hugboxes either. Most of these people provide nothing of value, and their work is every bit as inconsequential as their accusations are.
People getting worked up over this lawsuit like it's some pivotal stand for academic truth are just getting worked up over nothing. The truth is, two years from now, almost no one will remember this case, no matter what the outcome happens to be. The whole ordeal is just a vainglorious display of self-promotion on both sides, and I think that everyone needs to rise above it and see it for the irrelevant farce that it actually is.
And get fucked with that 'do you think his readers care if he's called a nazi?'shit. Who gives a fuck, he's not a God damned nazi, and if university staff are going to go out of their way to paint him as a nazi up and down the media, then they deserve what is coming to them. As the regressive left loves to tell us so much, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. I think you don't know what you're talking about and suffering tall poppy syndrome.
You need to calm down. I don't disagree with the principle that people who slander and libel others should face legal consequences for their misdeeds. I am simply questioning whether that is the main purpose here. There are lots of instances where people are deliberately litigious for the purpose of making a point or achieving a political goal, and in light of the fact that it is highly unlikely that Peterson will be harmed by witless accusations that he is a Nazi, why am I wrong in suspecting that this is one of those cases?
I have no grudge against Peterson, and I don't know where you get the idea that I must resent his success. Should I assume that you must hold the view that successful people are somehow above criticism?
Does said university have a history department? Then it's possible for them to frame him as some Neo-Nazi revivalist in their papers, articles, books..etc. Do they have Sociology, Anthropology departments..etc? Then they can use those as well to tarnish his legacy.
Universities have a lot of power in shaping discourse, as they should, and this power shouldn't be used to deplatform people or slander them.
I don't disagree with that, but I think you're overstating the power that universities and academics have over discourse, and the control they have over history is almost always fleeting. There have been lots of people throughout history who were lied about and misrepresented at the time of their working lives, only to be vindicated years after their deaths. If history is any guide, lies and misrepresentations tend to subside over time, and the reason for this is quite simple: context.
When someone wants to learn about a philosopher or historical figure, the first thing they do is pick up one of their books and read their actual writing. The context in which a piece of literature was produced is gradually forgotten over time, and eventually all that is left is the work itself, to stand or fall on it's own merits.
Nope, but by slandering him, they're limiting his ability to grow his business, they're tarnishing his personal brand. Not to mention the possibility of deplatforming him as well from all those plaforms.
I don't think they're limiting him at all. If recent history is anything to go by, their attempts to vilify him will only bolster his popularity and reputation.
Sure that's possible, like I said, he's got a brand to grow, but it's also possible that he feels personally threatened and affronted that the mere act of showing a video clip of his publically aired debate was enough for a lecturer to get the 3rd degree by committee. They're actively limiting the ability of his works to be discussed in academic institutions, and as an academic, I don't think he can afford to take the chance of not suing.
It's possible that he could be taking legal action for these reasons, and if so, I support him in doing so. I've just grown weary of these kinds of lawsuits, given the ways that they have been historically misused for political gain.
