Jordan Peterson is an inspirational person who has the humility, yet confidence to make a positive difference in the world. Humility to learn and to listen attentively, but confidence in certain core principles which transcend opinion.
An example of the profound disconnect with reality comes from a former friend, Bernard Schiff, who refused to discuss with Mr. Peterson his disagreements, because Mr. Schiff assumed things that were not in evidence. He had a "reality" about Peterson which is not apparent in Peterson's behavior or hisactions. Schiff conflated disagreement with legislated speech with disagreement with cordial agreement on preferred pronouns. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!! Yet the activists make it all about the latter, when the former is the real issue.
If the activists and Schiff would wake up from their dream of fake conflict, they would see that Peterson is quite willing to use preferred pronouns if an individual requests their use, but is against the tyranny of governments mandaging speech. I'm sure Schiff would chafe under the yoke of compelled speech if the government declared that he needed to use language with which he was uncomfortable.
Bernie could have asked, "what are you really after?" But he didn't. He assumed, incorrectly, and then refused to dig more deeply.
"So," said Bernard Schiff, "it is true that he called me a number of times since then, many times, and I did not return the calls because he was on a roll. I was watching what he was doing. I thought he was getting nastier, angeier, and I saw that there was no reason to talk because I knew -- because I knew there was no access to Jordan except to say, 'Jordan, you're doing a great thing and I believe what you're doing.'"
Disingenuous! He had multiple opportunities for access, to ask questions to engage on the topics and to discuss more deeply the reasons for Peterson's actions, but CHICKENED OUT, and preferred to live in the DELUSION of his own fake opposition. He could have discussed with Peterson his disagreements, but chose to abdicate that responsibility. Instead, he preferred to judge from a safe distance and to pretend his own status as a benign observer, when in reality he was protecting his own toxic bias.
He had the opportunity to help Peterson see a different viewpoint or to risk himself finding Peterson's viewpoint, but he chose, instead, to protect the source of his outrage from exposure. That is an extreme of dishonesty that no one deserves.
Both Jordan Peterson and the Leftist Media have this huge misconception that the Right can also be tyrannical. This confusion is by design, because the Left is all about deception. The Right is all about individual liberty and responsibility; the Left is all about Big, Centralized power and responsibility. And because people tend to be selfish, the individuals in positions of power tend to abuse those positions for selfish purposes. This notion of an Alt-Right is merely a distraction; a perversion meant to throw off those who are searching for meaning and Truth. If you ask the Neo-Nazi about their beliefs, you will find that those beliefs are very similar to those of the Communist, the Socialist or the Fascist. All started as popular (democratic) uprisings. They clamor for centralized control by the experts who pretend to know better than the rest of us. But as Thomas Sowell said, they are merely the self-proclaimed "anointed" who have an unrestrained vision of man's ability to "fix" everything in the world. Thus, we get the Terrors of the French Revolution, where speaking out meant losing your head -- quite literally. We get the Killing Fields of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
Here is the essence of Jordan Peterson:
"Life is suffering. Love is the desire to see unnecessary suffering ameliorated. Truth is the handmaiden of love. Dialogue is the pathway to truth, so speach must be untrammeled so that dialogue can take place, so that we can all humbly learn, so the truth can serve love, so that suffering can be ameliorated, so that we can all stumble forward towards the Kingdom of God."
Jordan Peterson is willing to hug a gay man in public and on stage, because they are true friends. But he is not willing for the government to compell him to use specific language. That's at the hear of the controversy.
I dare say that every trans person would be outraged if they were compelled to speak a certain way that did not match that with which they were comfortable. So, in a very real sense -- a sense that they are completely missing -- they are agreeing with Jordan Peterson and should see him as a true friend.
What is missing from this film is digging more deeply into the fallacies used by Peterson's critics. Did they realize that they were misconstruing his message? Did they understand that he was advocating freedom of speech for everyone, INCLUDING THEM?
An example of the profound disconnect with reality comes from a former friend, Bernard Schiff, who refused to discuss with Mr. Peterson his disagreements, because Mr. Schiff assumed things that were not in evidence. He had a "reality" about Peterson which is not apparent in Peterson's behavior or hisactions. Schiff conflated disagreement with legislated speech with disagreement with cordial agreement on preferred pronouns. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!! Yet the activists make it all about the latter, when the former is the real issue.
If the activists and Schiff would wake up from their dream of fake conflict, they would see that Peterson is quite willing to use preferred pronouns if an individual requests their use, but is against the tyranny of governments mandaging speech. I'm sure Schiff would chafe under the yoke of compelled speech if the government declared that he needed to use language with which he was uncomfortable.
Bernie could have asked, "what are you really after?" But he didn't. He assumed, incorrectly, and then refused to dig more deeply.
"So," said Bernard Schiff, "it is true that he called me a number of times since then, many times, and I did not return the calls because he was on a roll. I was watching what he was doing. I thought he was getting nastier, angeier, and I saw that there was no reason to talk because I knew -- because I knew there was no access to Jordan except to say, 'Jordan, you're doing a great thing and I believe what you're doing.'"
Disingenuous! He had multiple opportunities for access, to ask questions to engage on the topics and to discuss more deeply the reasons for Peterson's actions, but CHICKENED OUT, and preferred to live in the DELUSION of his own fake opposition. He could have discussed with Peterson his disagreements, but chose to abdicate that responsibility. Instead, he preferred to judge from a safe distance and to pretend his own status as a benign observer, when in reality he was protecting his own toxic bias.
He had the opportunity to help Peterson see a different viewpoint or to risk himself finding Peterson's viewpoint, but he chose, instead, to protect the source of his outrage from exposure. That is an extreme of dishonesty that no one deserves.
Both Jordan Peterson and the Leftist Media have this huge misconception that the Right can also be tyrannical. This confusion is by design, because the Left is all about deception. The Right is all about individual liberty and responsibility; the Left is all about Big, Centralized power and responsibility. And because people tend to be selfish, the individuals in positions of power tend to abuse those positions for selfish purposes. This notion of an Alt-Right is merely a distraction; a perversion meant to throw off those who are searching for meaning and Truth. If you ask the Neo-Nazi about their beliefs, you will find that those beliefs are very similar to those of the Communist, the Socialist or the Fascist. All started as popular (democratic) uprisings. They clamor for centralized control by the experts who pretend to know better than the rest of us. But as Thomas Sowell said, they are merely the self-proclaimed "anointed" who have an unrestrained vision of man's ability to "fix" everything in the world. Thus, we get the Terrors of the French Revolution, where speaking out meant losing your head -- quite literally. We get the Killing Fields of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
Here is the essence of Jordan Peterson:
"Life is suffering. Love is the desire to see unnecessary suffering ameliorated. Truth is the handmaiden of love. Dialogue is the pathway to truth, so speach must be untrammeled so that dialogue can take place, so that we can all humbly learn, so the truth can serve love, so that suffering can be ameliorated, so that we can all stumble forward towards the Kingdom of God."
Jordan Peterson is willing to hug a gay man in public and on stage, because they are true friends. But he is not willing for the government to compell him to use specific language. That's at the hear of the controversy.
I dare say that every trans person would be outraged if they were compelled to speak a certain way that did not match that with which they were comfortable. So, in a very real sense -- a sense that they are completely missing -- they are agreeing with Jordan Peterson and should see him as a true friend.
What is missing from this film is digging more deeply into the fallacies used by Peterson's critics. Did they realize that they were misconstruing his message? Did they understand that he was advocating freedom of speech for everyone, INCLUDING THEM?