Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

Yet another video, but this one was really profound, in my opinion:
Also, he is going to give a lecture at The University of Amsterdam on the 31st, and a group of 'academics' have written an insane 'missive' where they smear Peterson in every possible way. You can read Peterson's account of it here:

Trouble at the University of Amsterdam | Jordan Peterson

Pretty awesome how he ended that blog post: "And, for those who are interested, here is the list of the signees, to whom I might suggest taking the time to actual investigate those whom they so eagerly and self-righteously denounce instead of allowing themselves to be swayed and then convinced by the ill-informed, casual and ideologically-proper scribblings of the unfortunately common clickbait purveyors now so often and so falsely known as journalists: [List of all the signees] See you in Amsterdam, you cowards, denouncers and totalitarian wannabes."

It must be tiring to constantly be smeared like that :-( but I'm hopeful that he will gain a LOT of support from the Dutch youth.

By the way, the event is so popular that they had to restrict the audience to only students. Pretty much people all over the country wanted to go there (I was thinking of going too!). I agree that restricting is probably best, for JP too, otherwise it'd get way too crowded. But there'll be a livestream on this FB page.
 
Wow, Which hunt! The Tweet responses are great with support.

Holding Space Films Published on Oct 24, 2018
This is a behind-the-scenes look at Professor Jordan Peterson as he navigates the biggest controversy of his career. This is the official trailer which illustrates the explosion of polarized opinions that surround his meteoric rise to global fame. *Premiering on CBC Docs POV Fri. Nov. 2 at 9pm EST then streaming in Canada at cbc.ca/watch* For more info visit: bit.ly/JordanPetersondocCBC and shuthimdownfilm.com/
 
Last edited:
Another interesting interview with Jordan Peterson, this time by Helen Lewis. As far as I could tell JP was his usual self and had me laughing more than a few times with comments such as the "rampaging hordes of male plumbers" when discussing the patriarchy. Helen seems well entrenched in her ideology but at least she's a little more articulate than some other interviewers, which gives JP the chance to dissect some of his ideas a bit more.

 
Wow. That interview is so dense that I thought I was at the end only to discover I was only 50 minutes in. It really goes places.

This part goes so well with the current discussion on NPCs that it's hard to believe it's coincidence:

Indeed. Here's the transcript from that part.

JP said:
The idea that something should be consistent, you were talking about the necessity for consistency in ideology, I'm not hearing what you think. I'm hearing how you're able to represent the ideology you were taught and it's not that interesting. I don't know anything about you. I could replace you with someone else who thinks the same way and that means you're not here. That's what it means. It's not pleasant.

You're not integrating the specifics of your personal experience with what you've been taught. To synthesize something that's genuine and surprising and engaging in a narrative sense as a consequence. That's the pathology of ideological posession. It's not good. It's not good that I know where you stand on things once I know a few things. Why have a conversation? I already know where you stand on things.
 
Just watched this one:

And well, it’s perhaps a language thing but the points being made by the lady sounded just so shallow, she barely made any sense beyond saying cute sounding words.
 
It's now live! Link

It was interesting. Thankfully, there were no crazy NPC SJW mobs that were trying to sabotage the discussion. Though, people were given leaflets at the entrance with the title '12 objections to Jordan Peterson'. See this tweet.

Unfortunately, the questions asked by the interviewers weren't questions that JP didn't dealt with numerous times before, so that was a pity. They also didn't seem to be prepared that well. Regarding questions from the public, there were a few good ones. But there was one woman who asked JP something about toxic masculinity, and at some point he asks her how she defines that. She goes: "Uhhhh... Ehhhh.... Well....", she started with something and then asks if anyone in the audience couldn't help her out. Cringy!

In any case, there were several times the audience applauded to what JP had to say (he also teared up when he talked about how others have said that his work helped them), and at the end he gave good advice to a young student. He said it's important to learn how to write (which helps you to think), and to pay attention to the right words to use, and of course to read a lot too, in order to become articulate. :-) That's something I'm trying to work towards to as well, which is not easy!
 
Wow. That interview is so dense that I thought I was at the end only to discover I was only 50 minutes in. It really goes places.

This part goes so well with the current discussion on NPCs that it's hard to believe it's coincidence:


One can only admire the sheer amount of patience and understanding Peterson can bring to a "discussion" like this! A perfect example of external consideration at play on a very high level. Fascinating to watch how one can stay as cool as he is while confronted by one absolutely deranged line of thinking after the other, while still being able to presume that one might might be able to learn something from the other and maybe help them to understand something or not. At best, a perfect example of "ideological possession" on the part of the interviewer, as Peterson rightly called it.
 
One can only admire the sheer amount of patience and understanding Peterson can bring to a "discussion" like this! A perfect example of external consideration at play on a very high level. Fascinating to watch how one can stay as cool as he is while confronted by one absolutely deranged line of thinking after the other, while still being able to presume that one might might be able to learn something from the other and maybe help them to understand something or not. At best, a perfect example of "ideological possession" on the part of the interviewer, as Peterson rightly called it.

Indeed. I admire his willingness to engage in these types of interviews. The benefit obviously outweighs any negative responses he might get. He's a remarkable man.
 
Last edited:
Another interesting interview with Jordan Peterson, this time by Helen Lewis. As far as I could tell JP was his usual self and had me laughing more than a few times with comments such as the "rampaging hordes of male plumbers" when discussing the patriarchy. Helen seems well entrenched in her ideology but at least she's a little more articulate than some other interviewers, which gives JP the chance to dissect some of his ideas a bit more.

Yes, this one is very good. At around 17 min I believe Jordan cornered her by articulating the point that the benefits she and her kind enjoy today are thanks to what she calls "Tyrannical Patriarchy". Will she give it up as it a "gift" from a evil system ? NO !!!!

Another tuche was the often used generalization, "Most wealth is in the hands of men.". Only on problem there, it is 1% of 1% of men that have this wealth and they do not represent 99% of men.

It is nice to see these two people engage in discussion without theatrics and ill will toward the other. Just a debate.
 
It's now live! Link
Just watching it now, thanks! Understandably, knowing the slander he received prior to the talk, he seems very focused and at the same time quite nervous – in a Petersonian way. I'm half way through, and I'm waiting that someone would finally ask a proper, interesting and good question! Instead, the presenters want to talk about the same things as always, and they're missing the most interesting things Peterson would have to say about more deeper things. Sigh!
 
Just watching it now, thanks! Understandably, knowing the slander he received prior to the talk, he seems very focused and at the same time quite nervous – in a Petersonian way. I'm half way through, and I'm waiting that someone would finally ask a proper, interesting and good question! Instead, the presenters want to talk about the same things as always, and they're missing the most interesting things Peterson would have to say about more deeper things. Sigh!

Okay, it got a lot better towards the end, and Jordan also got into his usual flow...nice! I have to say, that the question about 'toxic masculinity' was probably to lowest point of that evening....since the person asking couldn't even define it.
 
Another interesting interview with Jordan Peterson, this time by Helen Lewis. As far as I could tell JP was his usual self and had me laughing more than a few times with comments such as the "rampaging hordes of male plumbers" when discussing the patriarchy. Helen seems well entrenched in her ideology but at least she's a little more articulate than some other interviewers, which gives JP the chance to dissect some of his ideas a bit more.


I liked this one!

The interviewer had done her homework; she compiled and competently presented in one convenient video all the choice 'killer' arguments concocted by JP's detractors over the past 12 months.

And he shot them down one after another. Easily.

-Because, (let's be honest), most of those show stopper arguments exist at the same difficulty level of, "If god loves us, then why is there suffering in the world?" Junior High Philosophy Club reduction.

"You are conflating Identity Politics with Tribalism. They are not the same thing!"

I don't think he spelled out each argument to my own full satisfaction, and certainly not well enough to win over the interviewer (or I imagine, anybody committed to the Leftist ideological stew), but well enough to perhaps set normal viewers to thinking through each logical puzzle on their own and thus learn the concepts more thoroughly than if they were simply handed over fully assembled. (I don't know if this is a deliberate stylistic teaching approach on JP's part, or just a consequence of being hammered with the same silly questions over and over and assuming a basic level of informed rational capacity on the part of the viewers as he flicks them away).

In any case, this video did once again raise my wonder and awe at the stubborn blindness of his debating opponent/s!

How do people proceed in their old beliefs when their arguments are broken down, demonstrated to be faulty, and then effective alternative reasoning afterwards provided? That should be the end of the story! The rational response should be, "Oh! I never thought of it like that!" -Maybe not instant agreement, but at least, "I need to think about that some more."

But instead we see a stony faced non-response, skipping to the next line of attack as if the words just spoken were not heard or not computed. I really don't get that! I've seen it myself many times. It requires one to somehow shut off their facility to understand and process language for the duration of those selected moments when the debate is not going in one's favor. -Deafness! Not a retort. Not a counter argument, but to simply not hear and to not adapt, to just continue as though a primary logical pillar hadn't just been vaporized! It's really disturbing and frustrating to witness in people.

Ah well. That's nothing new. It's commonplace. It's the bedrock mental mechanism of entire swaths of the population. It may even a primary state of the human psyche.

But damn, it's still really weird to see in action! It's one of those key areas which differentiates "player characters" from "non-player characters".
 
Last edited:
She didn't seem to hesitate as much as other interviewers when her points are blown apart. With others I see at least a little trepidation at those moments. It's good for the interview in that it brought out the best of Jordan Peterson, but it was rather creepy. Almost as if she doesn't really believe what she says and has no personal investment.
 
Back
Top Bottom