Watching a Jordan Peterson Interview

There are many, and I have seen a few, but I had not seen the one I watched this evening. It was an hour and a half, but, for a change, I had time on my side so I watched the whole thing:

Some people have sneered at him and I must admit that, watching this particular video, I did find his habit of making a statement then waiting for the presenter to start to speak before saying something else, and using the same ‘trick’ again and again, somewhat disconcerting. But what I especially like about him is that he has no truck with ‘political correctness’. Either something is ‘true’, or ‘untrue’ or ‘unknown’.

It is not always easy to get your mind around what he says. For example, he abhors inexact definitions. For example, we all used to know what ‘a man’ was, and what a ‘woman’ was, but those definitions have been under attack. But he refuses to accept that attack until those who are causing the confusion come up with a precise definition of what is a woman/man or a man/woman. He said that homosexuality/paedophilia  have  been around since ancient times, which is true. There are ancient frescoes which show such activities. That is not the issue. The issue is ………….

And there is the problem. No one knows even what the issue is, never mind what the answer is, because of imprecise definitions. Again and again, in the interview, Peterson asks the presenter ‘what do you mean by x’? She speaks in generalised, feminist language with nothing precise.

Again and again, in the interview, Peterson asks the presenter to define words like ‘transgender’.

The final part was about free speech. I was getting a bit mentally tired by then and distractions abounded. I need to watch that part again.

My overall impression was that the interview was the wrong way round. Peterson should have been interviewing the feminist. But that would never do. It would have been like a lion ripping a rabbit to pieces.

And is that not true of smoking bans and such? I cannot use the lion and the rabbit in this case. The similitude is a dam, especially about Brexit. It is at the point of bursting.

The political possibility was UKIP, but it has fallen apart. I am not surprised since it disavowed smokers, which was an utterly stupid thing to do. It should have supported smokers, vapers, drinkers, and the rest of the dregs of society, as seen by the Elite.

Where is the party which will stop the persecution?


3 Responses to “Watching a Jordan Peterson Interview”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    Define words?
    Hell, most people are like Humpty Dumpty and insist that words mean what they what them to mean.
    They also insist on being able to change their minds at any time.

    • garyk30 Says:

      For instance, the term ‘pre-mature death’.
      When we were born, about 1940, our ‘life expectancy at birth’ was 63 years.
      If we die after that age, how can it be a ‘premature’ death?

      Where is the God that tells them when someone is supposed to die?

      How can one die before they are due to die by God or Nature?

  2. junican Says:

    The idea of ‘premature death’ is a trick, based upon nothing substantial. The ‘substance’ is a theoretical person who has no ‘vices’ and survives for a long time.
    Is there such a person? For a person might not smoke, drink, or eat to excess. But I would imagine that such people are few and far between. That is, the BASE, which is the control, is not typical at all and is numerically insufficient as a a good example of how to live your life.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: