Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[Approaching Infinity]

Peterson said that he had been wondering about the meaning of the biblical saying "the meek shall inherit the earth", as it didn't ring true to him. He discovered that the source word of "meek" originally meant "those who have swords and know how to use them, but choose not to use them". Then it made sense, as he has found that a person should pull in the (Jungian) shadow part of oneself, incorporate it and acknowledge the "monster" side of oneself. Everyone can do horrible things, but should choose not to do them.

Interesting factoid. The word he's talking about (praotes) is a synonym for another Greek word (epieikeia). Praotes is more in reference to the mental attitude, epieikeia is more in reference to actual behavior or conduct. In other words the virtue or mindset, and the act or practice. And guess what the word means? Clemency. That's right, Julius Caesar's most revered feature.

Epieikeia basically means having the right to justice, but choosing not to take it.

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/trench/meekness.html

In Aristotle's words, epieikeia is "a correction of law where law falls short on account of generalities," and he contrasted the man who stands up for the last tittle of his legal rights with the epieikes.
...
God does not strictly assert his rights against men. He gives their imperfect righteousness a value it would not have if rigorously judged. He refuses to exact extreme penalties. He remembers our natures and deals with us accordingly.
...
Among other distinctions, Aquinas emphasized two. First, epieikeia always refers to the condescension of a superior to an inferior, something not necessarily implied by praotes. Second, praotes is more passive, and epieikeia is more active; or at least the seat of the praotes is the inner spirit, and the epieikeia necessarily embodies itself in outward acts. According to Aquinas: "They differ from each other inasmuch as epieikeia is a moderation of outward punishment; praotes strictly speaking diminishes the passion of anger."

Caesar certainly had every "right" and ability to kill his enemies: a masterful warrior, a man at the top of every possible dominance hierarchy, the attraction of flocks of women. But he made mercy and gentleness (clemency) his rallying cry, his "new method of conquering". He sacrificed his earthly rights to condescend to the level of those below him (not in a self-important way, but in the way of lowering himself to their level, that he may raise them up). He was pretty much the definition of the hero as presented in that interview. And incidentally, that's probably how "clemency" made its way into the Bible.

 

[genero81]

you know what? I followed this whole Peterson/Newman thing, and the more I explore about him, the more I think that Peterson is the "Second Coming of Christ". Warrior of Truth. Simple as that. And I think he doesnt want to be that, but nevermind, he is.

That's a bit over the top I think, and Peterson would be the first one to tell you that. But I definitely think he falls into the category of help, as in "help is on the way".

He is someone who is broadcasting a grounded, life-affirming message, without a speck of sugar coating. Those who need it the most are eating it up. And even if they are the sort who would never pick up an esoteric book in their life, if they follow his advice, they will still be contributing to the positive balance in the world.

Go Jordan!

Not sure if this has been posted here somewhere, but this is Peterson's recounting of a spiritual experience he had after working on his book, maps of meaning, and making a sculpture, a drawing of which he uses for his YT channel and for his book 'maps of meaning'. The video link starts at the point where he explains it.

https://youtu.be/UyOAuiL_FE8?t=218

The study of "comparative mythological material" in fact made my horrible dreams disappear. The cure wrought by this study, however, was purchased at a price of complete and often painful transformation: what I believe about the world, now- and how I act, in consequence- is so much at variance with what I believed when I was younger that I might as well be a completely different person.

I discovered that beliefs make the world, in a very real way- that beliefs are the world, in a more than metaphysical sense. This discovery has not turned me into a moral relativist, however: quite the contrary.

Excerpt from Maps of Meaning.

I think I will read this book. Sounds like an experience of the "opening" variety.

 

[Joe]

I discovered that beliefs make the world, in a very real way- that beliefs are the world, in a more than metaphysical sense. This discovery has not turned me into a moral relativist, however: quite the contrary.

Another of the many things Peterson has said that converge with things the Cs have said.

 

[Oxajil]

Laura posted the following video on FB that I watched today and thought was very interesting:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...y; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

They discuss which traits tend to make a person left or right, morality, Haidt's research on disgust (and its opposite), political tribes, the 'Chicago principles', the importance of (unsupervised) rough and tumble play for children, how safe spaces in universities are a totally bad idea long-term, the negative effects of social media on especially girls, how girls and boys are equally violent (but in different ways), the 'emergent problem of ideological rigidity in universities', the importance of having a diversity of opinions in universities, etc. I'm probably forgetting some other main topics, but it's an informative watch if you have the time.

One thing that I thought was shocking is that since the 1990s, psychology has been moving to the left. I found an article on this by Haidt. Not good, as he explains:

Most people know that professors in America, and in most countries, generally vote for left-leaning parties and policies. But few people realize just how fast things have changed since the 1990s. An academic field that leans left (or right) can still function, as long as ideological claims or politically motivated research is sure to be challenged. But when a field goes from leaning left to being entirely on the left, the normal safeguards of peer review and institutionalized disconfirmation break down. Research on politically controversial topics becomes unreliable because politically favored conclusions receive less-than-normal scrutiny while politically incorrect findings must scale mountains of motivated and hostile reasoning from reviewers and editors.

 

[Turgon]

JP was part of a small panel of philosophers and intellectuals that were discussing 'Is There Meaning to Life?', yesterday. I've embedded his talk only, although if you want to see the entire talk including full panel debate, you can watch it here. His talk speaks for itself as far as being able to explain meaning and it's significance to people's lives in such a compelling manner. A few things that I found noteworthy though, is that a portion of the talk was done on the fly because he incorporated elements of the other two speakers talks into his own and used them as examples - the main point being that because atheists or materialists believe the universe is going to end at some point, that this is used as a rationale for there being no meaning to existence simply because at some point existence will end.

The Christian Theist brought this example up first, and essentially catapulted his entire talk trying to explicate that atheism ultimately leads to nihilism when confronted with a world where God doesn't exist, and that for human beings, even if you cannot entirely prove the existence of a transcendent reality, that a theological framework is what gives rise to an objective set of morals and values that lead to meaning in life. And that the reason for that is that it means there is essentially life after death and what human beings do carries over after death. He went so far as to say that there is no meaning without God. Unfortunately, I didn't entirely agree with his perspectives and wished he spent more time expanding on this idea rather than trying to beat the drum of where he thinks atheism ultimately leads to. I don't actually think you cannot have meaning in life without God, at least not in the way I assume he meant it to be. People's conceptions of a higher power or what role that higher power plays in their lives is not the same across the board. And that doesn't proclude people who don't believe in a God from living deeply fulfilling lives or finding meaning to existence.

Although it was interesting, because during the panel discussion after the individual talks, Peterson brought up a dream he had where he was in a cemetery surrounded by graves, and up rose Kings of old with armor and battle gear. Eventually they started to fight one another until the figure of Christ appeared and they all turned and bowed to him. He interpreted that as meaning Christ in the dream was representative of all the higher manifestations of each aspect of the Kings fused together into a single symbol, and that this is something that they all had to aspire to or bow before, because it was greater than each of them.

The other speaker was a self-proclaimed Naturalist, although I understood this to mean that she doesn't believe in anything supernatural or beyond the realm of what's observable by natural laws, and she said as much. So basically a materialist in philosophy. So, much of the back and forth consisted of her and the Christian Theist going on about how the other's stance was wrong or incorrect in some way. To be honest, I found it difficult keeping track of her talk and found she jumped from one idea to the next and not being able to discern exactly how it all connected together.

Another fascinating aspect to see because during the other two talks (you won't be able to see this in the full video), was that JP would periodically lean back in his chair and close his eyes, as if he was concentrating or focusing his mind in some way. And I think it was during those times he was actually incorporating what the other speakers were saying into his talk. Which to me, just shows the caliber of thinker he is. Because I think he just had a general idea of what he wanted to say, but winged the rest of it. Either way, he is an incredible live speaker! If ever he's in your neck of the woods, get tickets to see him!

http://<iframe width="854" height="...y; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Approaching Infinity]

The Christian Theist brought this example up first, and essentially catapulted his entire talk trying to explicate that atheism ultimately leads to nihilism when confronted with a world where God doesn't exist, and that for human beings, even if you cannot entirely prove the existence of a transcendent reality, that a theological framework is what gives rise to an objective set of morals and values that lead to meaning in life. And that the reason for that is that it means there is essentially life after death and what human beings do carries over after death. He went so far as to say that there is no meaning without God. Unfortunately, I didn't entirely agree with his perspectives and wished he spent more time expanding on this idea rather than trying to beat the drum of where he thinks atheism ultimately leads to. I don't actually think you cannot have meaning in life without God, at least not in the way I assume he meant it to be. People's conceptions of a higher power or what role that higher power plays in their lives is not the same across the board. And that doesn't proclude people who don't believe in a God from living deeply fulfilling lives or finding meaning to existence.

Actually, I think the Christian is probably closest to the truth. I'd agree with you that it doesn't preclude people who don't believe in God from finding meaning, but I'd say it's more accurate to say that they do so in an incoherent or contradictory way without a reasonable justification for doing so. A good case can be made that certain aspects of experience cannot be explained without reference to God (mathematics, truth, reason, morality, cosmological and teleological order). Of course, that doesn't mean that any given conception of God - Christian, Jewish, whatever - is necessarily true in all its details. But even a smart atheist like Thomas Nagel, for example, can't help but come to the conclusion that meaning (aims, teloi) and reason must be somehow part of the structure of the universe. But he can't come up with a description of how this is the case without something like God - he just pushes the question back by saying such things are somehow "naturally" part of the fabric of the universe.

The other speaker was a self-proclaimed Naturalist, although I understood this to mean that she doesn't believe in anything supernatural or beyond the realm of what's observable by natural laws, and she said as much. So basically a materialist in philosophy. So, much of the back and forth consisted of her and the Christian Theist going on about how the other's stance was wrong or incorrect in some way. To be honest, I found it difficult keeping track of her talk and found she jumped from one idea to the next and not being able to discern exactly how it all connected together.

It's sad most naturalists seem unaware that there are naturalistic theologies. They just don't have a very clear idea of what they mean when they talk about naturalism. Their ideas are predicated on disproving pretty dumb conceptions of God. (David Ray Griffin has a pretty recent book where he summarizes all this stuff: "God Exists, But Gawd Does Not")

 

[luc]

Actually, I think the Christian is probably closest to the truth. I'd agree with you that it doesn't preclude people who don't believe in God from finding meaning, but I'd say it's more accurate to say that they do so in an incoherent or contradictory way without a reasonable justification for doing so. A good case can be made that certain aspects of experience cannot be explained without reference to God (mathematics, truth, reason, morality, cosmological and teleological order). Of course, that doesn't mean that any given conception of God - Christian, Jewish, whatever - is necessarily true in all its details. But even a smart atheist like Thomas Nagel, for example, can't help but come to the conclusion that meaning (aims, teloi) and reason must be somehow part of the structure of the universe. But he can't come up with a description of how this is the case without something like God - he just pushes the question back by saying such things are somehow "naturally" part of the fabric of the universe.

Thanks Turgon and AI for sharing your observations. Watched this yesterday - here are some thoughts: first, it was interesting because the Christian and the naturalist came at it from a background of academic philosophy/theology, while JP came at it from a vast array of psychological, mythical, philosophical, scientific etc. considerations, lacking however some of the philosophical jargon and approaches. This can make JP's presentations seem a bit incoherent and "rambling" to some, especially those trained in philosophy.

But I think this "wildness" JP represents is only natural when talking about the deepest topics at hand with an honest desire to figure things out, to understand the human condition with the aim of helping people. Whereas for the two philosophers, especially the naturalist lady, it's more of a "mind game" decoupled from science, the art of living a good life, the existential problems facing humanity etc. It was quite telling in that regard, IMO, that once forced to leave the realm of philosophical jargon and name-dropping, the lady collapsed into platitudes ("But we did make so much progress! Look at feminism! That was all with the help of atheist moral philosophy!"), while the Christian collapsed into a missionary sermon. Although on a purely philosophical level, the Christian clearly was a strong force, and it was delightful how he started tearing apart the naturalist view (but was then stopped by the moderator). The naturalist lady was difficult to watch and follow IMO, and not very well integrated (playing the victim card etc.).

As for the materialism/theism debate and so on, I came to think that there are two perspectives to take here. Meaning must necessarily reside outside of the material world as most people understand the term. I think this is indisputable, and naturalists who deny this run into tons of contradictions. This leaves you with two options: either you believe in god (or a platonic sphere, a transcendent reality etc.), or you recognize that our understanding of the material world is fundamentally flawed as of yet. JP expressed this rather well IMO: if everything is material, then one day, our understanding of "materiality" will be radically different from our current understanding. I.e., material reality might be a lot stranger than the 19th century materialism most people (including scientists) believe in. We can see that already with quantum physics and so on. With both perspectives, I think you kind of end up with some sort of hyperdimensional reality, one way or the other.

 

[whitecoast]

Thanks for the panel discussion video Turgon. :) I definitely see JP as being more related to the Materialist than the Christian, but I do think that he gave a better speech, not least in part because he's a trained clinical psychologist and the subject has no doubt come up countless times before for him. I did like how the Materialist and Christian did name-drop sources for some of their material and thoughts, but I think JP's thesis is a fabric woven very finely from many different sources and a lifetime of testing of each component, as well as delivered in an easily accessible manner. Ivory tower intellectuals as a general rule aren't used to being asked that their writings be digestible to laymen audiences, much less provide practical advice for their lives.

Actually, I think the Christian is probably closest to the truth. I'd agree with you that it doesn't preclude people who don't believe in God from finding meaning, but I'd say it's more accurate to say that they do so in an incoherent or contradictory way without a reasonable justification for doing so.

We can say that our experience of the world is a subjective one (in the sense that it is our own and noone elses), but that does not preclude us from constructing together a reality which has an objectivity of a kind relative to our station of awareness (as determined by our faculties and their constitution and state of development). This goes for meaning as well as agreements on morality, theories of medicine, the elements, etc. Kant wrote a lot about this in Critique of Pure Reason, which was meant largely as an answer to Hume's extremely cutting skepticism and radical empiricism (even denying something like causality).

I don't think this in any way precludes the discovery of aspects of the universe that are non-physical. There is a definite barrier to discovering it, but this barrier comes down when enough training has gone into the mind and into emotions such that the faculties themselves are transformed, allowing us to perceive higher reality and parapsychological or paraphysical phenomena. Also the remarks of the C's about how it is assumptions and emotions that limit our capacity to absorb knowledge.

In a sense, I think the Christian contradicts himself when he says there is no meaning if all meaning is subjective... since his use of the term meaning, his thoughts on the term meaning, his instinctive understanding of meaning and its relevance, etc originates in its entirety in the a priori category of meaning, ie from himself and his constitution as it exists, as well as those of those he's learned from. Basically, he's saying meaning doesn't exist because it exists, but we can't prove it's not some subjective hallucination.

 

[Keit]

Laura posted the following video on FB that I watched today and thought was very interesting:

Thank you for sharing. Indeed, very interesting discussion! And disturbing at the same time. The level of infiltration of the radical left in the Academia is very frighting, and comparison to the fundamental religious behaviour is very astute. Good that there are still sane thinkers out there.

 

[Turgon]

The Christian Theist brought this example up first, and essentially catapulted his entire talk trying to explicate that atheism ultimately leads to nihilism when confronted with a world where God doesn't exist, and that for human beings, even if you cannot entirely prove the existence of a transcendent reality, that a theological framework is what gives rise to an objective set of morals and values that lead to meaning in life. And that the reason for that is that it means there is essentially life after death and what human beings do carries over after death. He went so far as to say that there is no meaning without God. Unfortunately, I didn't entirely agree with his perspectives and wished he spent more time expanding on this idea rather than trying to beat the drum of where he thinks atheism ultimately leads to. I don't actually think you cannot have meaning in life without God, at least not in the way I assume he meant it to be. People's conceptions of a higher power or what role that higher power plays in their lives is not the same across the board. And that doesn't proclude people who don't believe in a God from living deeply fulfilling lives or finding meaning to existence.

Actually, I think the Christian is probably closest to the truth. I'd agree with you that it doesn't preclude people who don't believe in God from finding meaning, but I'd say it's more accurate to say that they do so in an incoherent or contradictory way without a reasonable justification for doing so. A good case can be made that certain aspects of experience cannot be explained without reference to God (mathematics, truth, reason, morality, cosmological and teleological order). Of course, that doesn't mean that any given conception of God - Christian, Jewish, whatever - is necessarily true in all its details. But even a smart atheist like Thomas Nagel, for example, can't help but come to the conclusion that meaning (aims, teloi) and reason must be somehow part of the structure of the universe. But he can't come up with a description of how this is the case without something like God - he just pushes the question back by saying such things are somehow "naturally" part of the fabric of the universe.

Well, it was interesting because after the talk I got into a discussion about it with some friends that I went with, and one of them mentioned how the naturalist was totally uncomfortable with the idea of a transcendent reality as a part of existence. And was in a sense arguing that we don't necessarily need a non-physical realm to order our lives in some way. She described it as having a will to matter and that it's more like an evolutionary adaptation to add morals and values into our lives as a means of survival (unless I misunderstood her). But I used the example of the building that we were in. A group of people must have thought up the architecture and design for it. They had an aim in mind and needed reason, creativity, imagination and hard work to bring their thoughts into reality. So why is that any different to how the Universe has come/is coming together. The world and cosmos is complex, just like the building we saw the talk in, even if it's not to the same degree, and so it seems that a higher order of intelligence would have 'thought' it all up.

But I understand what you mean about the Theist coming closer to the truth. It's just that when he gave his talk, he often spoke of how without God there is no meaning to our lives, but he never really went into further detail as to how or why that may be true - even though it could very well be the case. In actuality I don't know what goes on through a mind of someone who doesn't believe in any higher power/god/universe, etc. and how they would discover purpose in their life with a worldview like that. And what concepts like meaning, morality, virtue, faith, etc. actually means to them. In the case of the naturalist, I would go so far as to say she was afraid of there being anything outside of what she can see and study empirically. At least the way she responded to abstract notions of Platonic ideas seemed to indicate something along those lines or at least something that threatened her worldview. She's of the Jewish faith so you grow up believing God is some sort of figure 'out there' that's a harbinger of punishment and destruction, which may be enough to push some people away from any notions of religion or spirituality (throwing out the baby with the bathwater).

As for the materialism/theism debate and so on, I came to think that there are two perspectives to take here. Meaning must necessarily reside outside of the material world as most people understand the term. I think this is indisputable, and naturalists who deny this run into tons of contradictions. This leaves you with two options: either you believe in god (or a platonic sphere, a transcendent reality etc.), or you recognize that our understanding of the material world is fundamentally flawed as of yet. JP expressed this rather well IMO: if everything is material, then one day, our understanding of "materiality" will be radically different from our current understanding. I.e., material reality might be a lot stranger than the 19th century materialism most people (including scientists) believe in. We can see that already with quantum physics and so on. With both perspectives, I think you kind of end up with some sort of hyperdimensional reality, one way or the other.

Here's what JP said about it in the first question during Q & A, which was actually really good to listen to again. I don't know enough about this to comment on it, but it's food for thought.

Dr. Craig: I was heartened by your affirmation of the objectivity of moral values and duties. You said there are things that are unquestionably good and unquestionably evil and these moral values aren’t invented but discovered. I couldn’t agree more. I want to push you on this to say that this consideration ought to help you move through and beyond naturalism to a transcendent ground for the objectivity of these moral values and duties. Because they won’t be found in naturalism. The naturalist is trapped in the lower story. Objective moral values and duties are not physical entities described by the laws of nature. These are transcendent realities, either Platonic or grounded in God. Therefore, the very affirmation of the objectivity of moral values and duties that were so strong in your talk – which was anti-relativistic – is found in Theism. I think that’s the most plausible moral theory that’ll enable us to affirm the objectivity of these moral values and duties.

JP: I’ve tried to work out the sorts of ideas that I’ve portrayed in this talk today, within a naturalistic framework as much as possible. Because the naturalistic technique is so powerful. But also because there are glimmerings in the scientific literature of the sorts of ideas that you portrayed when you mentioned the evolutionary biologists are increasingly making the claim that morality is a biological adaptation. I think you can make a strong case for that – a much stronger case then has been made so far. I think there is a sophisticated ethic that has evolved that we recognize as a consequence of the evolution of our cognitive and emotional structures.

I think that recognition manifests itself in admiration. People are very imitative. It’s one of the things that characterizes us in contra-distinction to animals who are not very imitative. It’s probably the precondition for our linguistic capacity. One of the things that characterizes human existence is the capacity to spontaneously pick a model for emulation and admiration – and that’s the manifestation of that moral instinct.

To admire is to want to copy. Well, what is it that you want to copy? You want to copy that which is most admirable. What is most admirable? What is MOST admirable starts to become a transcendent question. You can imagine the local example of what’s admirable. They are right in front of you and they are concrete and tangible. But to abstract out from that – that which is admirable in and of itself – is simultaneously to construct something which is the representation of a transcendent good. And that’s to some degree how religious conceptions emerge from their underlying biological substrate.

You might say that’s merely reducing the religious conceptualization and abstraction of what’s good to it’s biological substrate. And I think you can read it that way but I don’t think that necessarily indicates what that is. I think the entire process of evolution is somehow shaping itself around Platonic ideas or something like that – some transcendent good – and that it’s a mistake to assume that just because you can make an association between the transcendent abstract good and the process of evolution, that one is necessarily reducible to another. It isn’t the way reality works.

Dr. Craig: (…?) The genetic fallacy. Because one’s moral beliefs originated through a biological evolutionary process that therefore they are explained away and have no objective validity. That is to commit a genetic fallacy, isn’t it?

JP: At that level of analysis you have to start questioning your initial presumptions like the idea that the most true truth is objective. Because I’m not sure it is. I don’t think we understand what constitutes truth very well. And there is the truth that you act out as well as the truth that tells you what the world is made of. Those aren’t necessarily the same thing. So things get very murky at that level of abstraction. But one thing I’ve learned by attempting to reduce religious conceptions to their biological substrate is that there is always something left over that you haven’t explained – and it’s not something trivial – because every time I look into what’s left over it turns out to be unutterably deep. And I get rid of some more of it and the rest becomes unutterably deep.

Dr. Craig: Thank you.

 

[Timótheos]

Recent interview with Jordan Peterson, 11 minutes long. This time by the CBC, Canada's notoriously left-leaning public broadcaster. Notable for couple reasons...

Although overall more civil in tone than with Cathy Newman, interviewer Wendy Mesley did bring out a couple of surprise photos from the bottom of her notes, in an obvious attempt to pigeonhole JP as a supporter of the "alt-right". He handled it well enough, but I noticed that he's looking rather tired and frustrated in this interview, having to defend himself over and over from the same type of lazy leftist characterization of him as a deliberate provocateur.

What stood out for me was his very real pessimism in regards to the future, even though he still remains cautiously optimistic. Also, his keen awareness of the potential for all out chaos if the two extremist sides of identity politics continue to polarize and grow, and that one small mistake on his part is all it would take for him to "drown". Even the word "prophet" came up in their conversation, which kind of ties in to our discussion earlier.

Interesting.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...y; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[fabric]

I discovered that beliefs make the world, in a very real way- that beliefs are the world, in a more than metaphysical sense. This discovery has not turned me into a moral relativist, however: quite the contrary.

Another of the many things Peterson has said that converge with things the Cs have said.

Many things! In one part of the interview, Jordan was talking about all the craziness that was surrounding him when he ‘blew up’ on youtube after his refusal to comply with the compelled speech laws. For that whole year he said he had to be very careful with what he said or did as any mistake could be catastrophic. More importantly, built good relationships with those closest to him by being honest and truthful (friends, family) so that there wasn’t extra stress from unresolved issues between them. In addition to that, also networking with each other (getting feedback, analyzing etc) and working together to find the best course of action. It reminded me of what we do here and how the concept of networking in the STO sense is applied. He did clarify it by saying things weren’t perfect but it was a good as they could make it with their honest attempts to do so, which was good enough.

Here’s the part in the video starting at 1h30m40s:

https://youtu.be/E6qBxn_hFDQ?t=1h30m40s

 

[Cosmos]

Recent interview with Jordan Peterson, 11 minutes long. This time by the CBC, Canada's notoriously left-leaning public broadcaster. Notable for couple reasons...

Although overall more civil in tone than with Cathy Newman, interviewer Wendy Mesley did bring out a couple of surprise photos from the bottom of her notes, in an obvious attempt to pigeonhole JP as a supporter of the "alt-right". He handled it well enough, but I noticed that he's looking rather tired and frustrated in this interview, having to defend himself over and over from the same type of lazy leftist characterization of him as a deliberate provocateur.

What stood out for me was his very real pessimism in regards to the future, even though he still remains cautiously optimistic. Also, his keen awareness of the potential for all out chaos if the two extremist sides of identity politics continue to polarize and grow, and that one small mistake on his part is all it would take for him to "drown". Even the word "prophet" came up in their conversation, which kind of ties in to our discussion earlier.

Interesting.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...y; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Although it isn't really surprising, essentially Wendy Mesley did pretty much the same thing as Cathy Newman did in painting Peterson as a villain, just in a more sneaky and "friendly" way. Both get payed by their Mainstream Masters for doing just that, so it isn't really a surprise. Maybe it kind of starts to dawn on him, that there is much more going on in the west and in the world in general, that he starts to question some of his wrong assumptions in regards to things like geo politics and the role the West (headed by the US) is playing in the world for decades now via spreading tremendous and blody lies. That is just a pure assumption on my part though.

 

[Turgon]

Recent interview with Jordan Peterson, 11 minutes long. This time by the CBC, Canada's notoriously left-leaning public broadcaster. Notable for couple reasons...

Although overall more civil in tone than with Cathy Newman, interviewer Wendy Mesley did bring out a couple of surprise photos from the bottom of her notes, in an obvious attempt to pigeonhole JP as a supporter of the "alt-right". He handled it well enough, but I noticed that he's looking rather tired and frustrated in this interview, having to defend himself over and over from the same type of lazy leftist characterization of him as a deliberate provocateur.

What stood out for me was his very real pessimism in regards to the future, even though he still remains cautiously optimistic. Also, his keen awareness of the potential for all out chaos if the two extremist sides of identity politics continue to polarize and grow, and that one small mistake on his part is all it would take for him to "drown". Even the word "prophet" came up in their conversation, which kind of ties in to our discussion earlier.

Interesting.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...y; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Although it isn't really surprising, essentially Wendy Mesley did pretty much the same thing as Cathy Newman did in painting Peterson as a villain, just in a more sneaky and "friendly" way. Both get payed by their Mainstream Masters for doing just that, so it isn't really a surprise. Maybe it kind of starts to dawn on him, that there is much more going on in the west and in the world in general, that he starts to question some of his wrong assumptions in regards to things like geo politics and the role the West (headed by the US) is playing in the world for decades now via spreading tremendous and blody lies. That is just a pure assumption on my part though.

It's possible, although I saw him speak just a few days before this interview and he didn't look nearly as tired and exhausted in this interview. Although the nature of the two talks were entirely different. But I do think with his unrelenting schedule since the end of 2016 coupled with the backlash of the Channel 4 interview, deeply effected him and he is coming to realize how unscrupulous and contemptible the mainstream media actually is. How many times can they misconstrue his words before he becomes fed up and tired of having to revisit the same BS. He said it as much in the interview, he has to be careful about every little thing he says all the time, because just like with the pictures brought up in the interview, the media jumps on him for even the slightest misstep.

 

[genero81]

Recent interview with Jordan Peterson, 11 minutes long. This time by the CBC, Canada's notoriously left-leaning public broadcaster. Notable for couple reasons...

Although overall more civil in tone than with Cathy Newman, interviewer Wendy Mesley did bring out a couple of surprise photos from the bottom of her notes, in an obvious attempt to pigeonhole JP as a supporter of the "alt-right". He handled it well enough, but I noticed that he's looking rather tired and frustrated in this interview, having to defend himself over and over from the same type of lazy leftist characterization of him as a deliberate provocateur.

What stood out for me was his very real pessimism in regards to the future, even though he still remains cautiously optimistic. Also, his keen awareness of the potential for all out chaos if the two extremist sides of identity politics continue to polarize and grow, and that one small mistake on his part is all it would take for him to "drown". Even the word "prophet" came up in their conversation, which kind of ties in to our discussion earlier.

Interesting.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...y; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Although it isn't really surprising, essentially Wendy Mesley did pretty much the same thing as Cathy Newman did in painting Peterson as a villain, just in a more sneaky and "friendly" way. Both get payed by their Mainstream Masters for doing just that, so it isn't really a surprise. Maybe it kind of starts to dawn on him, that there is much more going on in the west and in the world in general, that he starts to question some of his wrong assumptions in regards to things like geo politics and the role the West (headed by the US) is playing in the world for decades now via spreading tremendous and blody lies. That is just a pure assumption on my part though.

It's possible, although I saw him speak just a few days before this interview and he didn't look nearly as tired and exhausted in this interview. Although the nature of the two talks were entirely different. But I do think with his unrelenting schedule since the end of 2016 coupled with the backlash of the Channel 4 interview, deeply effected him and he is coming to realize how unscrupulous and contemptible the mainstream media actually is. How many times can they misconstrue his words before he becomes fed up and tired of having to revisit the same BS. He said it as much in the interview, he has to be careful about every little thing he says all the time, because just like with the pictures brought up in the interview, the media jumps on him for even the slightest misstep.

Yes but he's showing those who can see what it is the MM does to try and promote certain narratives and ideologies; the tactics and fallacies involved. I think it's just what's needed. If they're dumb enough to keep trying to make him look bad, they will end up just shooting themselves in the foot. His popularity just keeps increasing.