this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
120 points (95.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
566 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
First you said that he became popular by "harming people" but the article you linked states; He became famous in 2016 after criticizing Canadian Bill C-16, claiming that the bill would enforce speech codes and harm free speech.
Then you implied he lost his license to practise clinical psychology which also has not happened (atleast yet)
Now you're saying that posting controversial comments on social media is "harmful to the public"
"The complaints against him include making "misleading" statements about COVID-19; mocking a plus-size Sports Illustrated model; and calling a surgeon a "criminal" for removing the breasts of transgender actress Ellen Page."
Source
So while I don't disagree that saying stupid shit on social media can potentially be harmful to some individuals that is still not in any way unique behaviour to JP so considering the original argument I still disagree with the claim that the world would be a better place without him. He's like Elon Musk; people don't like him as a person so they're actively looking for the most insignificant faults in his behaviour and then act like he's some horrible human being. It's recreational outrage pure and simple.
It's been two people bud. Other guy took over for me and I don't see a need to repeat the information, he did a better job than what I would've done.
Your statement is correct in he became popular because of his voice on C-16.
Listen I don't care to spell out every detail on why his statements ARE harassment. I don't feel like you care to listen. That's fine, no one expects you to be superman. It's okay to not be right sometimes. You don't have to change, you'll just be left behind. Good luck gamer.
The other guy is on my block list so it's only you I'm hearing from. Ad hominem also isn't changing anyone's mind. Making this about me is just wasting both of our time.
You do realize blocking people on here only deafens the blocker to them, right?
What's your point? What else would blocking be for than to stop me from seeing messages from the people I've blocked?
Just from how you worded it, you sounded like you put them aside is all. Many people don't know that blocking on here isn't what they're used to. Not that I think either one is in the best spirit of discussion.
My capacity to pay attention to things is limited so I prefer to not waste it on stuff that isn't important or interesting. When an user demonstrates incapability for civil discussion I choose to dismiss them entirely. I'm perfectly aware that by doing so I'm also filtering out a ton of potentially valuable content but I simply don't care because there's an effectively infinite amount of it.