2 Replies to “Podcast – The politically incorrect Jordan Peterson”

  1. Setting aside I’ve never been much able to get anything useful from the terms “left” and “right”–it’s a philosophy thing, I suppose, we just don’t see any clear clear designation in them–the worry comes at the end of this otherwise fairly “laid back”, lunchtime table talk PCGC.

    We need to be careful here. M makes the argument that free speech opposing a speaker is just, well, more free speech. So far so good. But as in M’s Pub(lic?) Reason piece, I ask, what does this mean? Does it mean chanting a scheduled speaker down into inaudibility, so no one can hear (or what have you)? Then that’s taking away free speech by obstruction, like blocking a radio broadcast with static. It is not respecting free speech, it is not exercising it. Just kills it.

    Shall we speak with Bear Spray and flying bricks, too? As was briefly the fashion in the US last year? Then that’s physical attack. If the police, as last resort, are used to keep the chanting down or the bricks from flying, or both, are they not properly protecting free speech?

    If free speech is the right to keep others from speaking, that not just hypocrisy, it’s an easy way to end it. 2 minute hate stuff.

    As for PJ, I only saw the ch. 4 gig–which is why he’s getting all the weird attention currently. He did own her. But how could it be that hard to pluck such low hanging fruit as she appears to be? For myself, I find his way of speaking, freely as he might be, almost insufferable. Convolution, wrapped in duct tape, most irrelevant to his try at punchlines. But then he hit a decent one.

    He claims, I’m told, legislating his use of only He She They and Them will land him in CA court. You guys didn’t read the law–just an intent statement–so I really don’t know. But you are right: Why a law for basic decency? If someone insisted I refer to her as Goddess-Lord, well sure, why not? What’s it to me? It’s clever, even!

    I sense a new movement of self-divinity. Nice. That’ll take the wind out of fawning religion’s sails. Forgive the pun.


    God-Lord B

  2. Call me old-fashioned, but free speech and the restriction of free speech is an issue to do with governments; Peterson’s speech isn’t being impacted by governmental fiat, and the fact there is vigorous disagreement by the public about his views being expressed in such a way that he gets to go on TV and complain about people not wanting to listen to seems to show his speech is free no matter how often he cries “Censureship!” (especially since his critics really get afforded the same media space). I mean, we could redefine free speech to include what private individuals do to each other, but then that just makes the issue so broad to be unwieldy. I mean, I’m restricting your speech right now by limiting your ability to respond to this post (because after two weeks the ability to comment on the post goes away). Far better to worry about the government rather than your fickle fellow citizens… 🙂

    As to the law itself; yes, we went with the intent statement because reading out several pages of clauses and sub-clauses requires very particular podcasting skills, which we don’t have (and, let’s face, very few people have; good law-based podcasts are as rare as hen’s teeth). But the intent statement is a fairly good indication of the law itself; Canada, like NZ, has requirements about executive summaries (presumably because Ministers prefer to be briefed in brief rather than wade through the full text). It’s actually quite interesting how Peterson has studiously avoided dealing with the text of the law or its summary, insisting rather that his intuitions about the law are the one-true interpretation. There’s an almost “Freeman-on-the-land” aspect to his legal reasoning; the true intent of the law is the one Peterson sees, rather than the text itself. I suspect there’s quite a lot of his theories about psychology operating here, given the almost Freudian or Jungian approach he has towards the psyche and what people really “want” from calls for equality.

Comments are closed.