i love ppl!!! you are too mature!!!always straight on topic AND NEVER WRITING AUTOBIOGRAPHIES LIKE LOONEY IDIOTS LIKE ME!!!well done!!!
I LOVE PPL!!! 
all of the above
particularly two
and contest the notion that liberty leads to anti-democracy
as well as almost everything you said
people must be allowed to speak
even if what they are speaking is stupid
because if they don’t
nobody will correct them
speaking is how we think
anyway
strongly recommend that you listen to the 30 min video i posted
about how freedom of speech is much more than just one value
so I don’t have to type all that stuff down
also because it’s fucking worth it
it’s a beautifully condensed argument
and if I am to continue this conversation
i’d like to be under the light of that resource
my flat never ever totally wrong justification
is that it is the most fundamental right of all individuals
as guaranteed by the constitution
and cemented in our culture
for as long as we have been aware of ourselves
whereas you seem to want the decision
to be at the hand of independent entities
with power to decide arbitrarily
and with no accountability
just shocked lately
to be witnessing a clear erosion of the most basic human right
being defended by intelligent people
it’s the fucking dark ages
I watched it, and to sum it up…
Peterson’s thesis in the video is that truthful speech is the foundation of habitable order. --Bedrock value in the hierarchical order of values. For support, he tells a story that jumps from chimpanzee troupes, to Piaget, to religious mythology in Mesopotamia, and elsewhere. So, I put on my Coherence Theory of Truth—where the truth of his thesis would be justified by how the pieces of his story fit together. And if the thesis cohered with his narrative, then he’d be justified in believing it.
Also, separately, he made an argument about free-speech. It goes like; “Thinking is hard, so allow people to be stupid/offensive, and then other people can correct them. Also, people like to be treated as capable of autonomous choice and free speech. Hence, free speech.” (The point being that free-speech gets us closer to truth, and/or makes society more stable).
My criticism: free speech and truthfulness are two different values, and Peterson equivocated about and conflated them. To see the difference, I can completely agree that truthful speech is the bedrock of habitable order… and then use that as my justification for banning/silencing the free-speech of the President. (E.g., The President was lying from a privileged epistemic position of authority. —And it nearly tore apart habitable order. There are such positions of trust and authority (e.g., doctor, police, teacher, lawyer, accountant), for which it is especially reprehensible to spread misinformation, and given their epistemic position, can actually fragment society. (You may add to this that the President had extraordinary access to intelligence, Justice Department, etc, and still lied about it, which is worse than an ordinary citizen simply being wrong or incorrect, and unwilling to justify himself in any venue or court).
So, Peterson’s narrative does not support that free-speech is a bedrock value. —IOW, free-speech is not what keeps together chimpanzee troupes, or the underlying factor in religious harmony (that’s actually farcical), or even the commonality in children’s games. And, Peterson’s separate argument only makes it just a means to truthful speech, or just truth. (Just like John Stuart Mill).
But let me be charitable and re-interpret what he is saying…
People want to matter. People need to feel like their voices are heard. No society (chimpanzee troupe, kid’s game, religious body) will be stable unless people feel like they have skin in the game, or the ear of others, especially those in authority. So, free-speech is that thing, and it’s required.
Except, you do feel that your voice can be heard, in the way that matters, even with occasional limits on your freedom of speech. If I require that you speak truthfully, or don’t tarnish the humanity of others, or be quiet in places where you have nothing of value to offer, or don’t trespass on other’s privacy… you will still feel heard. (I mean, some people will never feel heard unless they can drop f-bombs in a courtroom while reading their flat-earth poetry that they wrote in some random stranger’s murder trial… but that’s not a threat to “stable order”, just their free-speech).
Why does Peterson end his speech in the way that he does? Why does Peterson say that if you don’t believe in free-speech, you are a “totalitarian enemy of habitable order…and the divinity of mankind…and pursue endless suffering in a hell-scape” …who ends their argument like that? That’s hyperbole to shame and shut people up. Shouldn’t he thank them for contributing to a stable and habitable order?
In most venues, there are limitations on who can speak, or how. I gave some examples. Almost everywhere has limitations like that, and you don’t mind.
The misinformation spread by Trump has led to people to deny the legitimacy of the current President, and the legitimacy of the election. Do you agree? That would be a case of liberty (i.e., freedom of speech to lie) leading to anti-democracy.
I don’t think Twitter should be forced to keep him on their platform. I don’t think having to make your own webpage is a community-level denial of your free-speech. Is what what you call “the fucking dark ages”?
I have a deeper problem with what Peterson said. He thinks that when there is a conflict of values, they need to be hierarchically organized, such that one needs to be determined the bedrock for all times and places and contexts. —And that’s false, but a separate topic.