Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[obyvatel]

I can share my experience in South East Asia, where most of the Muslims are converted to the faith as a result of Islamic imperial campaigns in the distant past.

is not taken as setting up this standard in the context of this discussion. Like I clarified further in subsequent posts, there are a number of potential factors other than forced conversions but still causally traceable to the effects of military campaigns that play a role in the spread of the Islamic faith in the Indian subcontinent.

As far as Indonesia is concerned, looking at a wikipedia article , it seems that before Islam, there were Buddhists, Hindus and animists in the archipelago. The Indonesian archipelago is somewhat removed from the centers of Hinduism and Buddhism. These religions were perhaps introduced in the islands through earlier trade and/or military campaigns as well as missionary activity (in the context of Buddhism). These faiths were not "born of the land" so to speak, so may not have had very deep roots. The article states that it was around the 13th century that the Islamic religion started spreading more. Traders of Islamic faith settled in Indonesia and married into wealthy families. Eventually, royalty started embracing Islam and it took off more widely. The Sultanate was established in India in the latter part of the 12th century. If the archipelago inhabitants were primarily Buddhist and Hindu before and started to convert more to Islam since the 13th century, then it may be possible to draw a connection between the events in the Indian subcontinent and the spread of Islam in Indonesia. If the birthplace of the previous dominant religions was militarily defeated by people who ostensibly belong to the Islamic faith, then it seems natural that the influence of these religions from the geographically distant lands of the subcontinent would reduce and the new faith (Islam) would increase.

[quote author=Niall]
I suspect it's more a case of those Turkic-Mongol tribes invading India... because they wanted to invade India - not because they were 'Muslims'.
[/quote]

Yes, they invaded to plunder resources and exercise power. And it may just be a historical coincidence that they were able to do what they may have wanted for a long time ( the stories of the fabulous wealth in Indian temples and the fertile alluvial plains with plenty of food were spread through trade long before) after becoming Muslims.While Islam did not ask them to slaughter and plunder (just like Christianity did not ask the conquistadores to decimate the native South American civilizations), the cohesion of their tribes possibly improved after the spread and adoption of Islam making them more able to successfully mount such expeditions.

I mentioned about the low level tribal component in religion earlier. Tribe "a" worships God A. Tribe "b" worships God B. Tribe "a" and tribe "b" fight. Tribe "b" wins. Whether the outcome has anything to do with belief in God B or not, God A generally loses some influence and God B generally gains in influence. Peterson talks about religion in a Darwinian context. Deities have traditionally been believed to extend a protective influence over the tribe. So from the Darwinian perspective that Peterson endorses, one can say for tribe "a", belief in God A was not enough to protect their interests and continue their status quo. So psychologically speaking, it is expected that faith in God A is shaken to some degree after a defeat. More comprehensive the defeat, greater the destruction (especially of places of worship which are the abodes of the deities), higher the body count, more the faith is shaken. Tribe "b" does not have to force their vanquished foes to adopt God B. Those in tribe "a" who felt hard done by earlier in the previous status quo as well as those who are more materially minded and seek opportunities to further their material lot would be tempted to check out God B for better payoffs in the hope of improving their condition under the new status quo. Now if there is a tribe "c" who had a mix of God A and God B believers in their midst observing the outcome of tribe "a" vs tribe "b" battle, it is natural for them (especially those in the upper echelons) to favor God B after the dust has settled.

People tend to mimic "successful" people. In ancient and medieval times, religious identity of people was hierarchically more important than other identities. So spread of a religion in those times can be expected to more or less track the military/economic/social/political success of their adherents. OSIT

 

[Joe]

That's my understanding of it too. The bulk of conversions on the Indian subcontinent took place via Turkic invasions from around Afghanistan and Central Asia.

There's this from the wikipedia entry on Islam in India that seems to suggest a lot of interactions with Arabs by sea.

Commercial intercourse between Arabia and India had gone on from time immemorial, with for example the sale of dates and aromatic herbs by Arabs traders who came to Indian shores every spring with the advent of the monsoon breeze. People living on the western coast of India were as familiar with the annual coming of Arab traders as they were with the flocks of monsoon birds; they were as ancient a phenomenon as the monsoon itself. However, whereas monsoon birds flew back to Africa after a sojourn of few months, not all traders returned to their homes in the desert; many married Indian women and settled in India.[38] The advent of Muhammad (569–632 A.D.) changed the idolatrous and easy-going Arabs into a nation unified by faith and fired with zeal to spread the gospel of Islam. The merchant seamen who brought dates year after year now brought a new faith with them. The new faith was well received by South India. Muslims were allowed to build mosques, intermarry with Indian women, and very soon an Indian-Arabian community came into being. Early in the 9th century, Muslim missionaries gained a notable convert in the person of the King of Malabar.[38]

The peaceful spread of Islam was suddenly checked when Muslim armies began to invade India. Mohammed Bin Qasim (A.D. 672 ) at the age of 17 was the first Muslim invader and he managed to reach Sindh. Centuries later Mahmud of Ghazni (A.D. 971 -1030) was the second, much more ferocious invader, who swept up into Northern India as far as Gujarat.[38]

 

[Niall]

That's my understanding of it too. The bulk of conversions on the Indian subcontinent took place via Turkic invasions from around Afghanistan and Central Asia.

There's this from the wikipedia entry on Islam in India that seems to suggest a lot of interactions with Arabs by sea.

Yeah, that's the initial spread of Islam via ports along existing trading routes around the Indian Ocean. That's certainly not an 'imperial Islamic mission'. The later invasions from the north into India's interior though were a different story... one that indirectly involves Ghengis Khan, someone with really unique views on religion!

Anyway, that's a whole other story.

I mentioned about the low level tribal component in religion earlier. Tribe "a" worships God A. Tribe "b" worships God B. Tribe "a" and tribe "b" fight. Tribe "b" wins. Whether the outcome has anything to do with belief in God B or not, God A generally loses some influence and God B generally gains in influence. Peterson talks about religion in a Darwinian context. Deities have traditionally been believed to extend a protective influence over the tribe. So from the Darwinian perspective that Peterson endorses, one can say for tribe "a", belief in God A was not enough to protect their interests and continue their status quo. So psychologically speaking, it is expected that faith in God A is shaken to some degree after a defeat. More comprehensive the defeat, greater the destruction (especially of places of worship which are the abodes of the deities), higher the body count, more the faith is shaken. Tribe "b" does not have to force their vanquished foes to adopt God B. Those in tribe "a" who felt hard done by earlier in the previous status quo as well as those who are more materially minded and seek opportunities to further their material lot would be tempted to check out God B for better payoffs in the hope of improving their condition under the new status quo. Now if there is a tribe "c" who had a mix of God A and God B believers in their midst observing the outcome of tribe "a" vs tribe "b" battle, it is natural for them (especially those in the upper echelons) to favor God B after the dust has settled.

That's very interesting - thanks for fleshing it out again. I'm reminded of how crucial it is for the US today to maintain the image of unassailable power ('projecting strategic power' as the Pentagon puts it). They seem to instinctively know that tribes "c", "d" and "e" are watching them and expecting them to 'put Russia/Iran/China in its place'. That's Lindsey Graham's recent cameo in front of a gathering of powerful international diplomats at the Munich Security Conference, for example: Lindsey Graham says it's 'year of kicking Russia in the ass,' urges more sanctions

To maybe bring this back to Peterson's point about the dangerous absurdity of legislating against 'Islamophobia' or 'homophobia', the 'benevolent intentions' behind such proscriptions - preventing conflict between groups of people - would be far better realized by engendering curiosity in people about the topics we're discussing here: history, religion, geography, psychology and so on. Instead, the result of penalizing pretty much anything that could subjectively be construed as 'illegal thought' is that these topics are usually enlisted in one side's battle against the other, conflict between the groups rages, and truth is sidelined.

 

[Laura]

For those interested in deep/secret history, scholar Carlos A. Segovia has established (IMO after reading his arguments) that Paul's Abrahamic argument in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 - which he originally put forward to substantiate his core claim to the inclusion of the gentiles in God's people - was polemically reworked and reframed in a number of texts. First, by Christians who used it to EXCLUDE Jews entirely, and then, by someone working up the proto-Islamic Koran who combined those ideas with the pseudepigraphic text "The Apocalypse of Abraham" to create the core/founding myth of Islam.

He notes that it is clear that the editors of the Qur'an knew of Galatians 3 and were familiar with its Christian interpretation. He writes:

The Qur'an is surely more than an apocalypse, but if it may also be defined as an apocalypse - and I think it should be, due to the revelatory and eschatological concerns that lie at its very center - then I see it as an apocalypse entirely based upon the Apocalypse of Abraham. For all that we can find in the Qur'an (its non-negotiable monotheistic claims and polemics, which are, in fact, traced back to Abraham; its many allusions to a revelation received from above whose first witness was Abraham; the announcement of God's judgment as inevitable; and the distinction between Abraham's followers and everyone else in both the present and the future life; and so on) is already present in the Apocalypse [of Abraham]. ... The Jews are no longer God's chosen ones (as was claimed in Apoc. Ab. 22:5); they have been replaced by the "foremost" in faith and monotheism (Q 56:10). Actually, this is the only verse in the Qur'an where such a replacement explicitly takes place. Some may object that there ultimately is no supersessionism in the Qur'an; that the Qur'an accepts all prior revelations while simultaneously denouncing their intrinsic limitations and their eventual corruption by their own followers. The Quranic reuse of the Apocalypse of Abraham proves that this is not so: the new Umma is expressly said to substitute Israel. But then, it could be legitimately argued that the "sectarian milieu" out of which Islam emerged was, in fact, a Christian one.

The Apocalypse of Abraham provided the editors of the quranic text ... with the very core of the myth itself. It also provided them with its precise apocalyptical form. Once readapted, it offered them a place to inscribe their ideological construction. ...

It is fascinating to see that withing a single text of as yet unclear provenance, such as is the Qur'an, Paul's Abrahamic argument as re-framed by the church is subliminally (re)used against the Jews in a passage that puts forth a new founding myth that literally draws upon the post-Pauline Jewish discussion of that very argument in the Apocalypse of Abraham, to which the quranic myth is therefore fully indebted. The quite vexing fact that the apparent distinctiveness of such a new myth conceals a Christian reinterpretation of an intra-Jewish argument - as well as the textual corruptions of the latter - prevents us from assigning too much distinctiveness tho this myth itself. Hence, my hesitation to label it Islamic, for there is nothing specifically Islamic in such a myth. Perhaps this could help us understand though, as an aside, the reason why the quranic prophet is mentioned in the Qur'an (7:157-58; 62:2) as the "apostle/prophet to the gentiles."

Segovia has an entire book available on academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu/4218893/The_Quranic_Noah_and_the_Making_of_the_Islamic_Prophet_A_Study_of_Intertextuality_and_Religious_Identity_Formation_in_Late_Antiquity_2015_Book

 

[Niall]

I'm always pointing out Saudi Arabia's malignant influence on the rest of the Islamic world, but Iran doesn't do its cause any good when it too enforces 'Islamic customs':

Young Iranian chess grandmaster expelled from national team for not wearing hijab

Iran has banned 18-year-old chess grandmaster Dorsa Derakhshani from competing for the national chess team for not wearing a hijab – obligatory dress for women under Iranian law.

Derakhshani was expelled for not covering her hair with the garment – compulsory wear for women since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 – while competing as an independent player in the 2017 Tradewise Gibraltar Chess Festival.

Her brother Borna, 15, has also been banned after competing against Israeli player Alexander Huzman in the same tournament.

The siblings have subsequently been precluded from competing in future international competitions for the Islamic Republic. Dorsa obtained her International Master and Woman Grandmaster titles last year and currently lives in Barcelona, Spain, after taking up the offer of a year’s residency.

The head of Iran's Chess Federation, Mehrdad Pahlevanzadeh, was quoted as saying the Chess Federation will deal with the siblings in the “severest way possible.”

“The first step in dealing with them would be to deprive them from playing in Iran, and they won't have a chance to be in the national team,” Pahlevanzadeh said, Azerbaijani news outlet Trend News Agency reported.

 

[Oxajil]

Thank you for the link Laura!

I'm always pointing out Saudi Arabia's malignant influence on the rest of the Islamic world, but Iran doesn't do its cause any good when it too enforces 'Islamic customs':

Yes, I agree.

It's interesting that the Iranians I've met don't like to wear the hijab and don't like that it is compulsory in Iran. I don't know how it is with the majority of Iranian women, but the ones I spoke with told me they wish they had the same freedom as Iranians did during the Shah's rule (though the problem during the Shah's rule they told me was that the gap between the rich and the poor was wide, but they would've preferred the kind of freedom they don't have now).

I read stories sometimes of the punishments they give to people (including teens) who do not wear their hijab right, or who wear slightly ripped jeans, or who've held a party in their homes with men and women present (even though they were all married), etc. and it's not a pretty picture. There is definitely a dark side to Iran.

I should add that I was also told that most young women in Iran (especially in Tehran) wear their hijab rather loosely, so there is almost always some hair visible (which is allowed). At least, that's a bit of a good thing, but if Iran would eventually stop with these kind of punishments and abolish the compulsory hijab, I think those would be great steps forward. FWIW.

 

[mkrnhr]

For those interested in deep/secret history, scholar Carlos A. Segovia has established (IMO after reading his arguments) that Paul's Abrahamic argument in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 - which he originally put forward to substantiate his core claim to the inclusion of the gentiles in God's people - was polemically reworked and reframed in a number of texts. First, by Christians who used it to EXCLUDE Jews entirely, and then, by someone working up the proto-Islamic Koran who combined those ideas with the pseudepigraphic text "The Apocalypse of Abraham" to create the core/founding myth of Islam.

He notes that it is clear that the editors of the Qur'an knew of Galatians 3 and were familiar with its Christian interpretation. He writes:

The Qur'an is surely more than an apocalypse, but if it may also be defined as an apocalypse - and I think it should be, due to the revelatory and eschatological concerns that lie at its very center - then I see it as an apocalypse entirely based upon the Apocalypse of Abraham. For all that we can find in the Qur'an (its non-negotiable monotheistic claims and polemics, which are, in fact, traced back to Abraham; its many allusions to a revelation received from above whose first witness was Abraham; the announcement of God's judgment as inevitable; and the distinction between Abraham's followers and everyone else in both the present and the future life; and so on) is already present in the Apocalypse [of Abraham]. ... The Jews are no longer God's chosen ones (as was claimed in Apoc. Ab. 22:5); they have been replaced by the "foremost" in faith and monotheism (Q 56:10). Actually, this is the only verse in the Qur'an where such a replacement explicitly takes place. Some may object that there ultimately is no supersessionism in the Qur'an; that the Qur'an accepts all prior revelations while simultaneously denouncing their intrinsic limitations and their eventual corruption by their own followers. The Quranic reuse of the Apocalypse of Abraham proves that this is not so: the new Umma is expressly said to substitute Israel. But then, it could be legitimately argued that the "sectarian milieu" out of which Islam emerged was, in fact, a Christian one.

The Apocalypse of Abraham provided the editors of the quranic text ... with the very core of the myth itself. It also provided them with its precise apocalyptical form. Once readapted, it offered them a place to inscribe their ideological construction. ...

It is fascinating to see that withing a single text of as yet unclear provenance, such as is the Qur'an, Paul's Abrahamic argument as re-framed by the church is subliminally (re)used against the Jews in a passage that puts forth a new founding myth that literally draws upon the post-Pauline Jewish discussion of that very argument in the Apocalypse of Abraham, to which the quranic myth is therefore fully indebted. The quite vexing fact that the apparent distinctiveness of such a new myth conceals a Christian reinterpretation of an intra-Jewish argument - as well as the textual corruptions of the latter - prevents us from assigning too much distinctiveness tho this myth itself. Hence, my hesitation to label it Islamic, for there is nothing specifically Islamic in such a myth. Perhaps this could help us understand though, as an aside, the reason why the quranic prophet is mentioned in the Qur'an (7:157-58; 62:2) as the "apostle/prophet to the gentiles."

On Academia there is only there is only the forward to the book, but there are a few articles available like _https://www.academia.edu/2221521/_Those_on_the_Right_and_Those_on_the_Left_Rereading_Qur%C4%81n_56_1-56_and_the_Founding_Myth_of_Islam_in_Light_of_Apocalypse_of_Abraham_21-2_2013_Conference_Paper_Upcoming_Scholarly_Article which discusses the Apocalypse of Abraham

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Oxajil]It's interesting that the Iranians I've met don't like to wear the hijab and don't like that it is compulsory in Iran. I don't know how it is with the majority of Iranian women, but the ones I spoke with told me they wish they had the same freedom as Iranians did during the Shah's rule (though the problem during the Shah's rule they told me was that the gap between the rich and the poor was wide, but they would've preferred the kind of freedom they don't have now). [/quote]

From the few rare times that I spoke with Iranians it became clear to me that they are way better informed about geopolitics than the average Westerner. As for the forced upon hijab. They rather see it abolished. But the only way how is peacefully. More than half of Iran's population is under 35 years old. And since most of that population genre think the same about the Hijab from what they told me. It's only matter of time before the old status quo dies and the new will take over. And when the old generation dies, so will the forced upon Hijab.

 

[Oxajil]

but the ones I spoke with told me they wish they had the same freedom as Iranians did during the Shah's rule (though the problem during the Shah's rule they told me was that the gap between the rich and the poor was wide, but they would've preferred the kind of freedom they don't have now).

I should clarify here that based on what I've read about the Shah on Sott.net, I'm glad he's no longer in power. A lot of torture took place under his rule, as mentioned in this article for example. I hope Iran will peacefully and naturally develop to become better. It certainly doesn't need another CIA-puppet leader!

 

[whitecoast]

This is a little off-topic, but back to "free speech on university campuses" I found this article. Apparently the Chinese Student and Scholar Association is filing a complaint against the Dali Lama speaking at a graduation ceremony.

Chinese students in the US are using “inclusion” and “diversity” to oppose a Dalai Lama graduation speech
_https://qz.com/908922/chinese-students-at-ucsd-are-evoking-diversity-to-justify-their-opposition-to-the-dalai-lamas-graduation-speech/

Chinese students are joining their peers on American campuses and getting woke. Their cause? Defending the official line of the Communist Party.

On Feb. 2, the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) formally announced that the Dalai Lama would make a keynote speech at the June commencement ceremony.

The announcement triggered outrage among Chinese students who view the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader as an oppressive figure threatening to divide a unified China. A group of them now plans to meet with the university chancellor to discuss the content of the upcoming speech.

The awkwardness doesn’t end there. As the aggrieved students have trumpeted their opposition, their rhetoric has borrowed elements from larger campus activist movements across the United States. The upshot: What Westerners might perceive as Communist Party orthodoxy is mingling weirdly with academia’s commitment to diversity, political correctness, and other championed ideals.

Opposition to the Dalai Lama among Chinese authorities is nothing new, of course. Less recognized in the West is that many Chinese citizens feel the same way as the government. At UCSD, the Chinese-student opposition to the invitation came instantly. Just hours after the announcement, the Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA) issued a lengthy, Chinese-language note on WeChat saying it had communicated with the Chinese consulate about the matter.

UCSD is a place for students to cultivate their minds and enrich their knowledge. Currently, the various actions undertaken by the university have contravened the spirit of respect, tolerance, equality, and earnestness—the ethos upon which the university is built. These actions have also dampened the academic enthusiasm of Chinese students and scholars. If the university insists on acting unilaterally and inviting the Dalai Lama to give a speech at the graduation ceremony, our association vows to take further measures to firmly resist the university’s unreasonable behavior. Specific details of these measures will be outlined in our future statements.

Comments from Chinese students on Facebook were also couched in rhetoric commonly used to rally for inclusivity on campus. One simply read #ChineseStudentsMatter. Some argued that the invitation goes against “diversity” and “political correctness.” Others contended the university was acting hypocritically by inviting an “oppressive” figure like the Dalai Lama while fostering a climate of anti-racism and anti-sexism.

In a letter addressed to the university’s chancellor, the UCSD Shanghai Alumni Group used similar rhetoric, invoking “diversity” to justify its opposition.

As Chinese alumni, we are proud to be part of the growing UC community because of its diversity and inclusiveness. When addressing such a diverse community, there is a greater responsibility to spread a message that brings people together, rather than split them apart. During the campus commencement, there will be over a thousand Chinese students, families, and friends celebrating this precious moment with their loved ones. If Tenzin Gyatso expresses his political views under the guise of “spirituality and compassion,” the Chinese segment of this community will feel extremely offended and disrespected during this special occasion.

This is not the first time that overseas Chinese students at US colleges have voiced opposition to certain campus events perceived as disrespectful to China. In 2008, hundreds gathered at the University of Washington to rally against the Dalai Lama’s acceptance of an honorary degree. But typically, criticism is couched in familiar tropes like “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people,” rather than failing to account for diversity.

Whatever you think about the Dali Lama, it's quite interesting seeing the rhetorical arguments between left-wing movements (to whatever extent you could consider the modern Chinese Communist Party left wing) to quash free speech. What's also interesting is the tone with which the article portrays the attempt as bizarre and weird. Perhaps it's because it's the logic of political correctness that is "crossing lines" to serve the political enemies of the US? Traditionally Progressivism has little positive to say about the non-western world, in spite of how negative their views of the west itself are.

 

[RedFox]

Looks like they are pushing similar things to bill C-16 in the UK, I got the following email this morning:

Dear <>,

I don’t know if you heard, but last December, Maria Miller MP, Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, presented the Gender Identity (Protected Characteristic) Bill 2016-2017, to Parliament. This Bill seeks

“to make gender identity a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 in place of gender reassignment and to make associated provision for transgender and other persons…”

The proposed change to “gender identity”, although minor on the face of it, will have profound and far reaching consequences which represent a serious threat to the safety of women in Britain. The Bill as it stands, must be opposed.

Please sign this petition to Maria Miller, asking her to reconsider this ill thought through legislation.

According to the ideology being advanced here, “gender identity” is one’s subjective perception of their own gender as distinct from their objective sex. (Don't be concerned if you're confused... the ideology is confused and confusing - but we can look past that for the time being.)

Given the inherently subjective nature of “gender identity”, having it as a “protected characteristic" is a very dangerous thing. This is primarily because determining someone’s “gender identity” at least as far as the law is concerned, seems to rely exclusively on their word. So when a man self identifies as a woman, it is his word that he is really a “she” that is the determining factor.

We should be concerned about this for several reasons:

1. It is open to serious abuse. Of course there are some people who genuinely consider themselves to be the gender that they are not and such persons have the same dignity as everyone else and are should be treated with the same respect. Yet there are some people who would seek to take advantage of this law.

For example, one can easily imagine a man who self identifies as a woman in order to gain access to a women’s changing facility at a public swimming pool. His gender identity would be a “protected characteristic” and it might be illegal for the pool to remove this man from the women's changing room.

In this way then, it poses a serious danger for women and children.

2. Whether or not there is nefarious intent, many people rightly do not think it appropriate for a member of the opposite sex (whatever their "gender identity") to enter a changing room not of their sex when it is in use. This is a serious violation of privacy.

3. It undermines the basic notion of equality before the law. Some people, because of a “protected characteristic” are given preferential treatment and therefore not treated equally by the law.

4. This legislation is enforcing a particular, extremely controversial, view of the nature of men and women on the whole of society. As the state does not enforce one particular religious or philosophical worldview, so it should not enforce one particular view about what it means to be a man or woman on the whole of society.

This legislation could have serious negative consequences. In the quest to protect people from unjust discrimination, it risks failing to recognise real differences between men and women, and more importantly, puts women and children’s privacy and safety at risk.

We must let Ms Miller know our concerns. If we do, we might be able to halt this dangerous legislation.

Yours sincerely,

Greg Jackson and the entire Team at CitizenGO

PS In other news, thanks in part to your efforts, Lord Shinkwin’s Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill is progressing through the House of Lords. We will keep working to support this bill which is attempting to remove the shocking discrimination against people with disabilities present in our current abortion law.

The petition is here if people want to sign it _http://www.citizengo.org/en-gb/pc/41304-say-not-dangerous-gender-identity-bill

 

[luc]

Here's a recent Q&A with Peterson after a talk he gave in Ottawa (a bunch of SJWs were protesting outside btw). Really interesting, he also talks about individual development in terms that are very much aligned with the Work IMO:

http://<div style="position:relativ...:100%;left:0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

Recently, he talked to Sam Harris again: https://youtu.be/31Ud7-EkZE

I listened to it the other day - Harris was no match for Peterson I think, and although he said a couple of interesting things, Harris came across as rather dull to me. There's a stark contrast in Being between the two as far as I can tell, which made it impossible for Harris to really grasp many of the things Peterson is talking about.

 

[Altair]

Recently, he talked to Sam Harris again: https://youtu.be/31Ud7-EkZE

The link doesn't work: "The video doesn't exist"

 

[mkrnhr]

Recently, he talked to Sam Harris again: https://youtu.be/31Ud7-EkZE

The link doesn't work: "The video doesn't exist"

This link should work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31Ud7-EkZEI

 

[Altair]

This link should work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31Ud7-EkZEI

Thanks!