Jordan Peterson Slams Activist/Professor

Dr. Nina M. Lozano is a queer Latinx political consultant, activist and Associate Professor of Communication Studies at Loyola Marymount University Los Angeles.  The activist does what activists do best – tweet their outrage:

Remember, the vast majority of the time, “hate group” and “hate speech” simply means “I don’t agree with them.”

Jordan Peterson sees the professor’s tweet and responds perfectly:

Indeed.  Given her tweet, it is likely that Lozano does not have a grasp on critical thinking.  A true academic would let Shapiro make his case and then proceed to write up an essay that critically analyzes the talk.  An activist doesn’t have that skill set.  Their skill set involves using emotions and manipulation to prevent the talk from ever taking place (or to disrupt it if it does take place).

A truly academic approach involves free thinking and critical thinking.  An activist approach involves group think and indoctrination.  These days, just because Lozano is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies, don’t make the mistake of thinking she knows the academic approach.



This entry was posted in activism, Jordan Peterson and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Jordan Peterson Slams Activist/Professor

  1. pennywit says:

    Did Lozano call for the speech to be canceled or anything similar? Or is she just organizing protests and alerting the media? If the latter, she’s countering speech with speech, something that ought to be encouraged.

  2. Kevin says:

    “Countering speech with speech”

    Is that really what’s going on? If she was going to give a rebuttal speech, that would be “countering speech with speech”. Sounds to me what she is doing is what people have been trying to do to Shapiro for a while now, using mobs in an attempt to intimidate and silence Shapiro and those who want to hear him. Not to mention trying to drive the costs of security for a Shapiro speech so high that the universities won’t allow him on campus.

  3. pennywit says:

    Protests are themselves a form of speech.

  4. TFBW says:

    If this is an ordinary day for Ben Shapiro, then the various Leftists on campus are doing everything in their power to have the speech cancelled, and if it goes ahead, doing everything in their power to ensure that it is disrupted. If it turns out that all they want to do is make a fuss in a manner that doesn’t hinder willing participants from attending, then they’re unusually accommodating, particularly given this is California and a stereotypical Marxist professor we’re talking about.

  5. Kevin says:

    Protests are indeed simply a form of speech. Trying to prevent the speaker from speaking, or trying to prevent others from hearing, is NOT simply a form of speech.

  6. Michael says:

    Did Lozano call for the speech to be canceled or anything similar? Or is she just organizing protests and alerting the media? If the latter, she’s countering speech with speech, something that ought to be encouraged.

    I wish the communication studies professor did a better job of communicating. I can’t even tell if she is protesting Ben Shapiro or protesting her own school for “supporting hate speech.”

    Anyway, she claims the speech is “antithetical” to her school’s mission, so I read that as a demand to have it canceled. You don’t typically allow things to occur when they are antithetical to your school’s mission.

  7. Ilíon says:

    You can’t reason with those who give themselves permission to say *anything* (such as on-the-fly redefinitions of words).

  8. nsr says:

    The sheer hypocrisy of these people is what gets me.

    On one hand they want the freedom to do or say literally anything that feels right to them, even if that means scientific fact or even basic logic being told to do one.

    On the other hand they want anything that they expect would make them feel unhappy or uncomfortable to be prevented from happening, regardless of how that might infringe on another person’s freedom.

    Is it narcissism? Is it simply a mind that’s never matured out of self-centred, rebellious adolescence or even earlier childhood?

  9. FZM says:

    Protests are themselves a form of speech.

    Up to a point, if the aim of the ‘protest’ is to silence the people the protesters disagree with and effectively remove them from the public sphere, it is probably something else.

    In the 1920s and 1930s this was one reason all those paramilitary political organisations arose in Europe, to protect their own party meetings and to disrupt those of their opponents.

  10. pennywit says:

    I could “aim” to have all mimes in the United States summarily banished to New Jersey, and I am free to advocate for it, print fliers, etc. Doesn’t mean it’s legal for the gov’t to do it.

    (Banishment to New Jersey prohibited under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause)

  11. Ilíon says:

    Leftists — and their apologists — call *your* speech “violence”, and *their* violence “speech”.

  12. GRA says:

    “Communications studies”

    This makes psychology look like a respectable field, flooded with intellectual heavyweights.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.