Daily Politics: Jordan Peterson On Identity Politics
Though he is no supporter of Trump, Peterson opined “It might be better for the political system, in general, to leave the private lives of the leaders alone.” “Sometimes people pay hush money so that a problem just goes away even if there isn’t guilt involved.” “Sometimes it’s easier to pay someone who’s harassing you to go away than it is to do anything else about them.”
He makes a good point. This is reminiscent of when Michael Jackson paid a father who accused him of paedophilia. Though I was never a fan of his music, I believe that Jacko was innocent and merely did not want to be dragged through the courts. This was a mistake as it encouraged other parents to accuse the strange celebrity in order to receive a payoff.
If Stormy Daniels received funds on the condition that she didn’t repeat her accusations further, then surely she should be obligated, morally if not legally, to return the money.
Jordan would have voted for Clinton as he thought she had the necessary experience, but he revealed that “the closer the election got,” the more he could imagine voting for The Donald because “I’m not happy with the tilt of the Democrats towards identity politics as a substitute for their conventional” “focus on valid concerns of the working class.”
“Doesn’t Donald Trump indulge in identity politics?” Coburn asked. “Just different groups and different identities?”
“Yeah, but I would say that the sort of identity politics that Clinton engaged in cuts a lot closer to the bone for me because of my position in academia and the overwhelming predominance of the radical left amongst the humanities and social sciences.” He could easily have been speaking about British politics here – the far left have pervaded our political and educational systems.
A clip was shown of the US President speaking about illegal immigrants entering America. “You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals.”
“Isn’t that sort of rhetoric identity politics?” Jo questioned.
“I don’t know if it’s identity politics exactly with him so much as just appealing to his constituency” Peterson replied.
The hostess enquired if the Canadian was saying that there is “a legitimate case for calling some illegal immigrants animals.”
“It depends on who he’s referring to. If they’re mass rapists, for example, then there might be a case” the professor answered. “There are things that people can do that are more barbaric than anything an animal might conceive of.”
Later, a section was actually about Jordan Peterson. Coburn orated “He first came to national prominence in Canada in 2016 in a debate about new laws on gender identity. Bill C-16 made it an offence to refuse to call someone by their chosen gender pronoun. Jordan Peterson argued that this would infringe free speech, while some supporters of the bill said he was advocating prejudice.
“From there, his YouTube star took off and he has now over 1 million subscribers and his videos where he talks everything from identity politics” “to the Bible, to Disney movies have been viewed over 150 million times.” “Last year, he supported ex-Google employee James Damore, who had been fired for suggesting men and women have different interests due to biological differences. And his latest book, 12 Rules for Life, has taken him on a global tour promoting his ideas and just this week he sold out the 1,000 seater Emmanuel Centre” “in Westminster.”
Peterson added that he also “sold out the Apollo, which had 5,000 seats.”
Jo asked him “Do you think though because of the heat that has been generated that your views have been misrepresented at times?”
“Oh definitely” Jordan responded. “I did take a very forceful stance” “against some of the excesses of the radical left wingers and it’s in their best interests to paint me as somehow a figure of the extreme right because then I don’t have to be contended with.” “It’s easy for people’s views to be oversimplified in a very large public debate.” Again, he could easily have been talking about British politics, particularly the way that the left has vilified UKIP.
“Just for clarity, do you think a trans-woman is a real woman?” the hostess asked.
The Canadian sighed with apparent exasperation and answered “I don’t really like the way those questions are formulated. Now, I don’t know what that means. What do you mean a real woman?”
“In your mind,” “depends on what you think a real woman is, but do you think a trans-woman is a woman?”
“No” Peterson replied. “Because I think that women are capable, generally speaking, of having babies and they have female genitalia and they have an XX chromosome and I think the biological markers are relevant. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I don’t think that people should be treated with respect and dignity if they happen not to fit easily into a gender category. That’s a different issue. But it’s a matter of definition and I actually think it’s a foolish argument.”
I concur wholeheartedly with these sentiments and laid out similar views in Tonight – Trans Kids: The Right Response?
Coburn suggested that the reason he is against being legally forced “to use a preferred pronoun is that you don’t actually believe that that’s the truth.”
In my opinion, that would be a reasonable position – disliking saying things that are untrue is an admirable trait – but Jordan responded: “No, that’s not my argument at all.” “My argument is that the Government shouldn’t compel voluntary speech.”
Jo harassed him with phrases such as “the motivation behind it.” He vehemently denied her accusations and insisted “There aren’t hidden motivations that have to do with some arbitrary prejudice against trans-people.” “There’s never been a time” when Britain’s Government “compels speech and the Canadian Government dared to do that. And that was unacceptable. And they masked it with this show of compassion for the oppressed and I don’t buy it.”
The presenter said “At an individual level,” “if somebody asked you to use a particular pronoun, you would do so.”
“I have” the psychology Professor confirmed.
“Are you a feminist?” Coburn enquired.
“No, not as it’s currently defined, certainly not” Peterson declared. “I think that anybody who doesn’t think that the competitive landscape should be opened up for equality of opportunity is not thinking.” “Everyone’s interests are better served if people have as equal access to opportunity” “as possible.” “But feminism now is for – and this is why it’s so deeply unpopular, a very small minority of women in the UK identify as feminists – and the reason for that is it’s primarily become an ideological weapon. And it’s an ideology that” “I detest.” He described it as “collectivist.”
I agree with this too. I support equality of opportunity for women, but many modern feminists fanatically strive for female superiority.
Jo asked her other guest, former Labour advisor Ayesha Hazarika, if she classes herself as a feminist.
The Labour politician predictably enthused “Oh, absolutely! I’m a very proud feminist.” This perfectly fits the pattern of Labour’s mindless commitment to focus on minorities at the expense of majorities. “Hence my pink dress” she added, which is a little perplexing to me. I thought that feminists and lefties wanted to eradicate this kind of stereotype.
“You would like men to regain, or reclaim their strength, physically, mentally and morally,” Coburn said to the Professor. “Is that broadly correct?”
“I would say morally, fundamentally, but I think the other things go along with that” he answered. “But it isn’t men precisely who I’m speaking to, it’s people. I’m a clinical psychologist, I’m actually interested in individuals.” As you may suspect, he is also against Social Marxism.
“Everybody has a lot to gain by greater equality” Hazarika opined. “Whether you get the equality of outcome that you want, I think only time will tell, but certainly equality of opportunity is very important.”
“Well we can agree on that” Jordan stated.
I concur with that too, but it is a very disingenuous thing for her to say, when the Labour party utilises short lists of electoral candidates which are all women and/or all ethnic minorities. How is that equal opportunities?
“The devil’s in the details with regards to equality” the Canadian posited. “I’m an advocate of equality of opportunity.”
“And outcomes?” Coburn interrupted.
“Outcomes? That’s an appalling doctrine!” he retorted.
Both women asked “Why?” leading to Peterson sighing with frustration once more. He had the look of a man who has been fruitlessly attempting to educate a particularly slow-witted child.
“You have to produce an unbelievably potent bureaucracy to make the ever greater and ever finer distinctions that are necessary to enforce the equality of outcome.” He explained. “How many group differences are you going to equalise across? Is it just gender and sex? How many genders?” “How many ethnicities?”
To expect equal outcomes, proponents of it as a target must think that each demographic is full of members with identical talents and interests to every other demographic, which is obviously not true.
Ayesha again advocated equality of opportunity – contradicting the positions of some of Labour’s decision makers – and talked about long-established patriarchy.
“1 of the things that have happened in the analysis of the differences between men and women is that the social constructionists claim is that the differences are socially constructed” the psychologist orated. “It’s a consequence of environment that men and women differ. But what the scientific literature indicates is that as cultures become more egalitarian,” “the differences” “actually increase.”
I think Peterson performed brilliantly and he made an exceptional first impression on me. We share many of the same views and have published very similar arguments. He spoke extremely well, expressing educated opinions that were based on logic and reason, rather than the far left’s usual rationale of arbitrary and unscientific emotion.