0:26 - Opening Arguments on Apologies
3:41 - The Complexity of Fiduciary Responsibility
8:27 - Differences in Defamation Laws
13:25 - Exploring Addiction Through Storytelling
24:18 - Discrimination and Moral Principles
26:53 - The Work Environment Today
31:03 - Trends in Job Markets and Education
32:21 - The Rise of Thuggery Culture
In this episode, we navigate the complex terrain surrounding the controversy of public apologies in the digital age, particularly focusing on recent discussions about Twitter under Elon Musk's ownership. I delve into the argument that expecting a legal apology from the platform is unrealistic due to the potential consequences it would evoke, such as class action lawsuits. Legal frameworks inhibit these platforms from admitting wrongdoing without incurring significant liability, raising the question of what constitutes an acceptable form of restitution for users who feel wronged.
Furthermore, the conversation touches on the notion that the restoration of accounts may serve as a sufficient apology for missteps made in the past. This leads to an exploration of free speech on social media, the implications of ownership transitions, and whether Musk's actions in restoring accounts can be seen as a commitment to free expression. I critique reliance on standards that may not be attainable, suggesting that it can often lead to disillusionment, as with unrealistic expectations of apologies that cannot be legally executed.
We move on to the pressing issue of addiction, intertwining it with the discussion of decision-making and the consequences of those decisions. The narrative metaphorically retraces steps back to initial moments leading to addiction and life's downturns, emphasizing how small choices can snowball into significant issues. This thematic approach serves to showcase the gravity of decisions made today and how they shape our journey toward or away from disaster.
Additionally, I address societal expectations, particularly concerning the concepts of masculinity and dependence. As I flesh out my perspective on these expectations, I reiterate the importance of independence in both personal and professional realms. Discussion also arises around the changing landscape of employment, particularly within STEM fields and the challenges young graduates face when entering a saturated job market.
Throughout the episode, I engage with listeners, taking in their questions and thoughts which enrich the discourse surrounding these multifaceted issues. I provide insights on how to navigate feelings of insecurity in relation to identity and personal growth, emphasizing that past decisions do not define our future potential.
The conversation extends to discuss philosophical notions of morality and freedom of association, creating a platform for further reflection on how we approach ethics in our lives and interactions. By dissecting the philosophical underpinnings and the practical implications of our choices, I aim to ignite critical thought regarding how we structure our personal narratives moving forward.
As the episode winds down, I express gratitude for listener support and engagement, indicating an ongoing commitment to explore these vital themes in upcoming discussions that promise to challenge and inspire.
[0:02] So here we are in the land of locals only and let me just get here to make sure i get your comments donor only we have crossed over, oh what was her argument so her argument ran something like this and of course tips are still welcome though i know you guys have or you're already subscribers so I appreciate that.
[0:26] So it goes something like this. So she said, look, he can't give you like, let's say Elon Musk or whatever, and not that it would be him in particular. So her argument goes something like this. He can't give you an apology, because to give an apology, if Twitter made statements that were defamatory, right? In other words, if Twitter said, Bob was cheating the system, Bob was manipulating the system, and so on. If that was the case, they can't admit to that because that would be opening themselves up to a, maybe even a class action lawsuit for everybody who lost, right? So they can't admit and say these were false statements, right?
[1:16] So waiting for an apology that is functionally legally impossible is uh having a standard that can't be met and don't pretend to have a standard that can't be met and that's i'm not a lawyer but you know i mean that seems like a reasonable argument and she said that the restoring of my account was apology enough combined with the fact that twitter has been pretty good on free speech and Elon Musk has made a lot of sacrifices, to bring free speech to the West. So you can't get the apology, you can't get the restitution.
[1:55] And restoring my account and having a continued commitment to free speech that has now lasted for quite some time is pretty good. It's not perfect, right? So the apology is the restoring and having a standard that can't be met is the same as just being, I mean, it's not the same as having no standard at all. But if I say, someone bothers me, and I say, you know, they're 30 years old, and I say, well, I'll accept your apology if you're 25 again. Well, let's just say you won't accept their apology. Right, so saying I have a standard called receiving an apology that can't possibly be met, is the same as saying.
[2:40] That I'm not going to have a standard, right? So don't come up with a standard that can't really be met, right?
[2:50] So that's a good point. That's a good point. Jordan Peterson has recently been criticized a lot for no longer representing the disenfranchised young man whom he used to represent. Sure. Yeah, I get that.
[3:06] I will hold on to my independence, though it cost me my career. I just, I would not ever want to be, I don't want to rest in the palm of another man. I don't ever want to be dependent upon somebody else for my paycheck or my income. Yeah, no, she's making a very good point. And she does, of course, make the point, which you guys have made as well, which I understand that she's made the point that some good...
[3:41] Good can be done in the world that is some good can be some good can be done in the world that is, and that's uh yeah don't don't have don't have a standard that can't be met and say you have a standard a standard that can't be met is not a standard it's just a i'm not i'm not going to do it and and here's you know so that makes sense hello hidden dragon nice to see you yeah reinstated is the closest, she's saying reinstated is the closest to an apology that can be achieved in the current system.
[4:20] And it may not, in fact, I don't know if Elon, like, I'm just obviously completely imagining this, but if Elon says, well, I'd like to apologize to the people that Twitter treated badly, and his lawyers say, you can't do that, right? You can't do that. And so there's this thing called fiduciary responsibility, which corporate heads are required to follow. Fiduciary responsibility is don't do stupid things that destroy the value of the company. And if you are the CEO.
[4:58] If you are the CEO, I'm just going to spin this out, right? Again, I have no inside knowledge, and I'm not a lawyer, so this is just all my conjecture, right? So I'm going to spin this out and imagine a scenario, right? This is purely imaginary, just to be really, really clear. Thank you, JP. I appreciate that support. So Elon says, like he said, he said, I didn't buy a company. I bought a crime scene, right? So he opened up the Twitter inside documents and he said, I found a crime scene. I don't think he elaborated on that too much that I can recall, but that's what he said, right? So let's say that he found that Twitter had lied about people and claimed that they had done bad things when they hadn't. Well, that's defamatory in a way, right? Again, just my amateur opinion. So let's say he said, listen, we've got to really apologize to the people that we lied about and if he says um if he goes to the lawyers and says i want to apologize to people the lawyer says well i mean you can do whatever you want but i'm going to tell you the legal consequences that if you apologize to people then um you're going to get involved in a you're going to get sued it's going to be a class action lawsuit it's going to be tens of thousands of people and the payout is going to wreck the company.
[6:14] Right? And so if he were to do that anyway and the company's share price would be negatively affected, of course, right, or the company value would be negatively affected, then he would be subject to the problem of fiduciary responsibility violations. And then he would personally get sued for the loss of the company and that would be a huge mess and a huge disaster, right?
[6:43] So now it wouldn't be a shareholder thing because x is private it's not publicly traded on a stock exchange but accredited and institutional investors still invest in the in the company so if he were to say uh talk to lawyers and lawyers say you you're going to get the company's going to be destroyed and you're going to get sued into oblivion.
[7:12] Well, and Twitter operates worldwide, so. Places like Ireland, Ireland has very strong defamation laws. American defamation laws, none of this is legal advice. It's just my amateur idiot opinion, right? But in America, especially if you're a public figure, you have to show damages and actual malice. Like the person who defamed you needs to either know that what they said was false or have a reckless disregard for the truth, both of which are because everybody knows that who defames others, they just don't record anything or say anything about anything like that. So it's virtually impossible, not absolutely impossible, it's virtually impossible to win a defamation case in the US as a public figure if people really have it in for you as a whole. Again, not legal advice, just my amateur understanding of things. So in places like Ireland, it's different. So in Ireland, the person who makes the defamatory statement has to prove that it's true, otherwise it goes a different way, right? So there are places where it's a different matter.
[8:28] So...
[8:35] It's pretty wild. And again you know just uh just uh figure out this for uh yourself uh don't don't take anything i'm saying which is almost certain to be wrong in some area or another but don't take any of this as any kind of advice this is just my sort of understanding, but uh ireland is quite quite um positive towards it's easy to prove defamation in ireland as far as i understand it than a place like um america and so yeah there would be a whole they would probably do it that way right so so it could be the case of course that um, that it would destroy the company and then there would be no free speech right so if if sort of my requirement to go back on twitter would result in the destruction of twitter, well it doesn't really uh it doesn't really work does it from a sort of now again i mean we could agree or disagree with the laws or anything like that but that's the reality right.
[9:58] What prompted you to write this book on addiction the book's not primarily on addiction but it's a theme i wanted to write a story that's going backwards in time and, going backwards in time is a very interesting, it's a very interesting plot device because you start with the disaster and then you go back You know, take a silly example, the guy dying of lung cancer, and then you go back in time to his first cigarette, right? And the first cigarette is really pointed because, you know, the end, right? So I wanted to write a story going backwards that the big disasters in life start with the little decisions at the beginning. And it just turned out that addiction was a great vehicle for that kind of storytelling. And also I'm just I'm fascinated by people's addiction to status in particular, all right, I'm curious and a little excited to see what would happen if you do decide to post I don't think I would post, I mean tell me what you guys think but I think what I would do is I would say, I'm back and schedule a video live stream to take questions and make statements Thank you.
[11:24] You know what i'm gonna just i'm gonna grok something if you don't mind, uh i want to i want to i want to do it uh, oh no no no, i just yeah because i want to i mean i know that it's not I would say major differences. I have a big microphone in between me and the keyboard, but I'll do my best.
[12:09] All right, major differences between US and Irish defamation laws. United States defamation is governed by state laws with significant influence from federal constitution protections under the first amendment blah blah blah defamation in ireland governed by the defamation act 2009 which replaced the defamation act of 1961 um so in the u.s the plaintiff must prove the statement is false defamatory made with false negligence for private individual actual malice for public figures the actual malice standard knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth makes it harder for public figures to win cases ireland the defendant bears the burden of proving the truth of the statement a defense of truth under section 16 of the 2009 act if the defendant cannot prove the statement is true it is presumed false making it easier for plaintiffs to succeed compared to the u.s hey i got that kind of right i got that kind of right uh distinction between public and private figures in america strong uh the defamation act in ireland in 2009 does not explicitly distinguish between public and private figures all plaintiffs benefit from the presumption of falsity though the public interest defense, honest opinion or responsible communication may apply to cases involving public figures.
[13:25] In the US, damages require proof of actual harm, financial loss or emotional distress, except in cases of defamation per se, e.g. false accusations of crime. Punitive damages are rare and require proof of actual malice. Ireland, damages are more readily awarded and plaintiffs don't always need to prove actual harm as reputational damage is presumed. The 2009 Act in Ireland allows courts to award general special aggravated or punitive damages and so on, right?
[13:58] So, again, Grok could be wrong, and I certainly could be wrong, but I just wanted to mention that. All right. Did you learn a lot about defamation from the Climate Change on Trial podcast? I did. And obviously, I've looked into it for my own reasons as well. All right. Would you accept a Twitter rep apologizing low-key? A Twitter rep would not apologize because you can't act in a legal matter or something that could have legal implications on behalf of the company, usually. I mean, that would be kind of a foolish thing to do, right? All right. Somebody says, I think the fact that my OG account was not restored or the fact that the old backup was just deleted are not arguments for you're not going back or going back. Yes, but I mean, I don't know how many accounts were banned, but of course, massive numbers of accounts are banned because they're bots, right? So if you're not prominent or visible, then it's less likely that they're going to spend time trying to figure out if your account was banned because you were bot or not, right?
[15:14] I was slightly negative for a long time, but the idea of the implicit apology where actual change has occurred makes a lot of sense to me. Yeah. Yeah. Is there a philosophical, religious, or scientific basis for men in general being treated and handled in a more disposable manner? Well, sure. I mean, the prevalence of sperm versus the prevalence of eggs, right? And the amount of investment men have in procreation versus the amount of investment that women have in procreation just means that if a society is down to, you know, 50 women and three men they can recover if it's the other way around probably not right so, would it be simultaneous streaming like it's done on here and rumble or dedicated twitter stream i think it'd be dedicated twitter because i wouldn't want to mix in the feedback, that would be awesome but potentially very contentious and backpedaling i think mainly people would want to pull hat tricks on you into taking one side in various wars yeah i mean i'm just saying i'm not i'm not doing politics right would you consider creating a blue sky platform, hang out with the leftists who fled twitter oh god no oh no i mean i would either just lie through my teeth or get banned in five minutes right could you argue twitter is a different company new policies and regime well legally it's not right um again i'm no lawyer but i mean when you buy a corporation this was my argument before when you buy a corporation you buy all of its assets and its liabilities.
[16:42] So it's, I mean, new policies and regime. So is it sufficient for Elon Musk to spend, what was it, $44 billion to buy a platform which had no particularly strong business case for it and to take all of the bullets and all of the hostility and the, what is he involved in some lawsuit now with the, aggregation of advertiser boycotts and so on? I mean, is it enough for him to have done all of that and to have restored my account when nobody else has? And is that enough of an apology to have changed the policies, to have fired most of the people who were responsible, and to have restored my account, and to have sustained that?
[17:29] Right? To have sustained that. Right? My account, when it was restored, all of my old tweets became visible and shareable to people, and I didn't get banned again. Right? So is it enough that they have, that Elon Musk has practically committed to a free speech platform and has sustained that now for, what was it, two years? I don't even remember when my account was restored, but I don't know, a couple of years ago, two years ago. So he has maintained that. He's taken a lot of bullets. He has, and I talked about this recently, both he and Trump are death threats and all of this kind of stuff. So is the amount of bullets that he's taken and the amount of money that he's invested and the fact that my account has been restored, other contentious people's accounts have been restored and they're allowed to post, my account has not been re-banned and so on, is that enough?
[18:18] My daughter's case, to large degree, is that it is. and uh right um is there a difference between how would you process how you would process another cancellation if that did happen to how you process the previous one especially where people were unwilling to move one side over my concern with you returning has always been mostly been repetition yeah for sure for sure yeah i mean there is that risk right of course there is a risk that I become more prominent again, and then the cancellation happens not just on Twitter, but other places as well. I mean, there is absolutely that risk, for sure.
[19:00] I may end up going back on Twitter and end up in a worse situation with regards to reach. So that's certainly a possibility. And that would be less ideal. All right is there anything else i mean we could do a little jordan peterson um i'm also happy to take any other questions or comments that you would like to make um i can do the jordan peterson stuff on my own unless you guys absolutely love hearing it live but um.
[19:35] If you're listening to this and you weren't part of the live stream, freedomate.com slash donate to help out the show would really deeply, humbly, and gratefully be appreciated. Appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All right. Shadow banning and bot ratioing isn't something you worry about. I mean, honestly, I don't worry about it. I mean, it could happen, right? That could happen. I mean, hit me with a Y if you think going on Twitter would be worth the risk, and hit me with an N if you think not. I mean, I know I've done this poll as well, but...
[20:20] Somebody says, Hi, Stef. As an autistic person under Norway's welfare system, I once felt like I was handed a silver spoon. Now it feels momentarily stuck in my throat. Any tips for managing the conflict of relying on a system that feels both secure and stifling sorry if i'm off topic um well i mean i don't know i don't know i mean you're typing a great question uh and you obviously have a strong conscience and you're able to organize your thoughts and you apologize if you're off topic. So there's a good deal of great language skills, emotional sensitivity, and a strong conscience. So why do you need the welfare state?
[21:11] I mean, is there no way for you to make any kind of income or contribute to the economy in any kind of way? Again, I'm just curious. Is that a thing? Can you not achieve that?
[21:30] Or is it that quicksand of comfort that takes a lot of people down?
[21:38] Boom, boom, boom. So, yeah, you can tell me that. So, I'm waiting for that to come back. Stef, I'm working on a video where I make the argument that discrimination isn't immoral and allowing freedom of association with end, hoflation based on your argument that women would enforce morals. Your thoughts? Well, the consequences of morality tend to be positive for a lot of people, but consequentialism cannot be how you justify morality. Consequentialism is for practical matters. Morality is for virtue, and virtue cannot be sold on practicality. So um practical matters would be the consequence of me starting the business is that i make money and don't lose money okay so that's that's a concept so should i start the business well if your business plan and your market indicators are such that you're going to make money then that's a good reason to start the business if that's what you want to do so you make your decisions based upon an evaluation of consequentialism, of consequences. But those are non-moral matters, assuming your business is moral, right? How much should you, how much weight should you design a bridge over a river to take?
[23:04] Well, it shouldn't have to take the weight of a black hole, and it shouldn't have to only take the weight of a feather, right? So you have, if you over-engineer it and it's too strong, then you're wasting resources. If you under-engineer it and it's too weak, then you're risking lives and wasting resources to have to rebuild the bridge. So with regards to non-moral matters, consequentialism is great. It's great. I mean, I make decisions on diet and exercise based on consequentialism, right? If I eat well and exercise, I'm more likely to either have a longer life or a higher quality life or both. It's consequentialism. Nothing wrong with consequentialism in practical matters. Consequentialism is death to morality. Because consequentialism is making up ghost-like scenarios that you can predict the future based on free will.
[23:49] So, discrimination is wrong because forced association is a violation of freedom of association. So, if you force a company to hire redheads, discrimination is wrong not because of any consequences. Discrimination is wrong because forcing a company at gunpoint to hire redheads is a violation of the non-aggression principle. And it's wrong innately. It's just immoral to use force in a non-self-defense scenario. And it's not a self-defense scenario.
[24:18] So uh i just consequentialism you just end up arguing a bunch of stuff that's made up right it really is like arguing um the size of the kidneys and livers that klingons have well they're made up you know it's always kind of funny to me you know like you see occasionally these posts like so and so was the most powerful character in the marvel universe it's like no they weren't this is made up nonsense right it's the made up nonsense uh so uh consequentialism is to a large degree made up nonsense because it then hands the future over to somebody who's the better storyteller and willing to lie the most right so i talked about this last show with regards to global warming right oh you're all going to drown and die and florida's going to be underwater and america's penis will be submerged and blah blah blah right so just you know whereas you know well the science doesn't like whoever's the most compelling storyteller ends up ruling you can't allow morality to be decided by consequentialism and of course a lot of christian morality is consequentialist that's a lot of religious morality as a whole is consequentialist heaven or hell blah blah blah right so I would not make a case on discrimination.
[25:26] Now, discrimination depends. If you're talking about legal discrimination, forced hiring or not hiring and so on, but voluntary association, of course. I mean, women discriminate all the time. I mean, I'm sure everyone here, every male here, has asked a woman out and she said no. Well, you're discriminated against me. It's like, and when I was a kid, discrimination actually had a very positive vibe to it. Oh, be so and so. It's very discriminating tastes, you know. So I find it...
[25:59] Women can get mad about discrimination, but then you have to say, okay, well, then you have to go out with every guy who asks you and every guy who slides into your DMs is like, well, no, I don't want to go out with those guys. It's like, okay, then you're discriminating. So let's not talk about it being a bad thing. All right. People who are hiring now expect you to sacrifice your entire life and purpose under the prospect of working 15 hours a week. It's sad and disheartening. What? So they'll only hire you for 15 hours a week, but they want you to sacrifice your entire life. I don't follow that, sorry. Is consequentialism the same as utilitarianism? I mean, I generally blend, I'm sure that there are some technical differences, I generally blend pragmatism, utilitarianism, and consequentialism, because they say, do what works. And we should do what works. It's like, works for who? Works for what? Works in what manner?
[26:53] Why should, you know, like what works for one person doesn't work for the other person and so on so uh it is um it's it's just another word for subjectivism that's all it is thank you david by the way and thank you lorraine appreciate that.
[27:15] Uh yeah uh work the work um the work situation is brutal yeah u.s computer engineering grads face double the unemployment rate of art history majors yeah for sure, yeah, i mean yeah i mean x basically i'd be on to promote reason philosophy upb and peaceful parenting so.
[27:47] All right any other last questions or comments or problems or issues or anything else.
[27:58] Nobody knows what works in the future like i used to i used to have this statement right i mean i used to say this thing about the end of slavery right so if you were to say well the reason that slavery needs to end is because in the future giant robots the size of half an acre will sweep across the farmer's fields grinding up automatically all of the crops into usable form and it will run on dinosaur juice from millions of years ago sucked out from miles under the ground right, and people would say that i mean that's insane that's that's not a thing that's just like that's a fever dream right but that's what happened right so, oh this is uh for the person who says he's autistic i'm unsure since i've never had a job so my experience is limited i love learning new skills but i'm too chicken to put them to the test, Okay, so Peter, don't do that, right, with all due respect and sympathy and respect and admiration for asking the question. Don't say I'm too chicken to put them to the test. Say, I've been too chicken, right? Because if you say being a coward and your identity are one and the same, you can't ever escape it.
[29:25] I've i've chickened out in the past from putting them to the test that opens up a different future if you say i i'm too chicken you're programming your brain to associate cowardice with your identity and then you can't escape it right i mean if if i say i have blue eyes it's not like well they could be brown tomorrow right if i say i have blue eyes right so say i've made decisions not i am right because if you say i am you are programming yourself to be unable to change it you always have to say in your mind i've made bad choices not i always make bad choices you say i've been too chicken in the past not i am too chicken because that's not that's saying that the chicken and the um your identity who you are it's like saying i'm subject to gravity it's not going to change tomorrow i'm not going to be not subject to gravity tomorrow so this is a very very important thing in your mind do not mix in negative characteristics with your identity negative characteristics or negative things that you've done are choices that you've made and you can make different choices but don't wind things in to your like don't pee in the soup right You pee in the soup, you can't eat any of it, right? So I try to avoid that.
[30:53] I missed that I was making the argument from consequentialism. Thank you, Stef. Yeah, for sure.
[31:03] Oh you'd like to hear more from the new book i think uh that's i've got a long chapter to read so i'll do that this week um but i won't do it right now but thank you i appreciate that, uh somebody says i've noticed a trend recently where i went to university in the mid-2000s they told people to take the stem subjects if you wanted to get a job in your field these days i see that there are so many international students at the post-secondary level that the amount of graduates in programs like engineering has oversaturated the field with people seeking work yeah for sure yeah it is uh this sort of uh importing a bunch of workers uh means that, the existing workers within the country of whatever race or ethnicity the existing workers are um that they can't make any predictive predictable decisions right.
[31:53] It's never been done before is what makes it challenging to argue for free markets against status. They functionally lack the creativity or trust in human ingenuity. Well, every government collapses, right? That's, I mean, every government collapses, right? Is thuggery culture on the rise in general? Yes, I think so. I've noticed pickleball courts have taken over the basketball courts in public gyms and no more lifeguards of public schools. Hmm, yeah.
[32:21] Man, that's an important distinction how you've behaved versus your identity yeah i've made bad choices implies you can make better choices i am bad choices means bad choices are like gravity but you cannot escape.
[32:38] Somebody says power engineers in much demand three years at technical college can get you a middle class wage if you are talented in that way i mean i don't envy the younger people um at the moment both for the dating market and also for the job market because not only is there just a mass influx of other people willing to work for less coming into most countries but also uh who knows how ai is going to shake out right basically um if i were in your shoes i would just be studying AI like crazy. And it's funny, Apple just came out with a study that says AI doesn't reason. And it's like, well, of course it doesn't reason. It's just bits and burps, zeros and ones, and it's a word guesser. So exactly what I talked about in my presentation from last year, two presentations about AI, has just been confirmed by an Apple research project that, yeah, AI doesn't reason at all. It doesn't think, it doesn't reason, it's just word guesser.
[33:32] I was at a job interview where the store manager said something like when you're naked with your cousin i asked him about it afterwards and he gaslit me bad sign you don't uh you don't need me to answer that you just it's a funny story maybe he was making a joke but you don't need me to answer that all right well thanks everyone i appreciate your time today thank you for your support massively and humbly and gratefully appreciate it if you're listening to the thread of freedom and calm slash tonight to help out the show and we've got a great week of shows coming up do some more jordan peterson and we'll do some book readings and all of that and uh yeah maybe we'll post again on x all right lots of love everyone take care my friends bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
