Jordan Peterson

University of Cambridge Cancels Jordan Peterson's Visiting Fellowship Because He Is Not 'Inclusive'

The university "is an inclusive environment and we expect all our staff and visitors to uphold our principles. There is no place here for anyone who cannot."



Jordan Peterson, the University of Toronto psychologist known for criticizing political correctness, announced Monday that he would be a visiting fellow at the University of Cambridge's divinity school.

But on Wednesday, Cambridge's administration announced that they had rescinded the invitation following a public outcry from students and professors.

"[Cambridge] is an inclusive environment and we expect all our staff and visitors to uphold our principles," a Cambridge spokesperson told The Guardian. "There is no place here for anyone who cannot."

Peterson holds some views that are considered offensive by progressives—he has objected, for instance, to the idea that anyone should be required to use a trans person's preferred pronouns. The implication of Cambridge's statement, then, is that anyone who disagrees with the university's left-of-center commitments on these issues is unwelcome on campus.

This is a fairly warped idea of inclusion—dis-include those we label non-inclusive!—and one that imperils academic freedom and free-thinking. I disagree with many of Peterson's views, but he wanted to come to campus to engage with, and learn from, other scholars. It's possible he may have even learned something new from those conversations, or modified his views in some way.

Peterson will not get that opportunity, nor will Cambridge students and faculty get the chance to debate him or learn from him. So much for steel sharpening steel.

NEXT: Kirsten Gillibrand Knows More Than Your Doctor When It Comes to Pain Pills

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “is an inclusive environment and we expect all our staff and visitors to uphold our principles. There is no place here for anyone who cannot.


    1. You’re an imbecile.

      We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

      Karl Popper – The Paradox of Tolerance

      1. I never claimed to be tolerant you fucking imbecile.

        1. that sound you hear is the point Dajjal made wooshing over your head. good luck!

          1. No actually, it’s passing over yours.


          2. Fuck off, Hihn

            1. hey, buddy! you’re back and can ctrl+V better than ever!

              1. Fuck off, Hihn.

                1. ctrl+c then ctrl+v then enter! that’s how you do the Sevo!

                  1. I wish you keyboard warriors could actually physically fight each other over this.

                    1. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily??.

                      VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE >>=====>>>>

                2. If it is Hihn then he must be onnew meds. He couldn’t control himself for very long before.

      2. Cambridge excludes people for not being inclusive.

        But you’ve got a quote so it’s cool.

        1. Who cares about what happens in those shithole countries.

          1. True, once a nation has more Muslims than dogs, it’s a shit hole

      3. Popper’s paradox applies to society a a whole, where te intolerant are permitted the power to take over the state and impose their intolerance on everybody else.

        It has not application to the Peterson situation – even granting for the sake of argument that Peterson is himself intolerant. Because permitting him to study or to speak at Cambridge does not give him any power over Cambridge affairs. It simply gives him permission to study and speak. The power tolerantly to admit all comers remains in the hands of the existing authorities, whose “tolerance” (granted for the sake of argument) still rules.

        So it’s a dud argument, even if Peterson’s intolerance was a given.

        1. The tolerance of the existing faculty is deightfully captured here :

          “The truth is Cambridge just doesn’t have enough sage authoritative white men who believe they know better than everyone else and can tell the world how to run itself,” professor Priyamvada Gopal sarcastically tweeted. “We need to ship them in from outside.”

          She’s not just intolerant of Peterson expressing his opinions. She also finds his whiteness and malemess objectionable, of themselves. Let it never be said that Cambridge is intolerant of racists and sexists. They’re on the faculty !

          1. Gopal is an anti-white racist who is a despicable human being .. nothing that she has to say is important.

      4. Karl Popper would disagree with you about your interpretation of his words.

      5. Do not cherry-pick Karl Popper who falsified the Marxian dialectic. All hail Karl Popper. Hail Popper. Hail Victory.

      6. The paradox of tolerance only extends to proponents of intolerant philosophies who prefer violence to rational argument. Those who advocate intolerant ideas but stick to rhetoric and argument, you just treat as anyone else you disagree with.

    2. Warning: this thread is all Hihn shitposting. Flee.

      1. You weren’t kidding. Holy shit.

          1. hayek > friedman posts roughly 71 out of 246 = 29% or so shit-posting score, right now, runs about tied with the worst I have seen from “Tulpa”…

            FLEE the shitposting is about right, there, Trigger Warning!!!

            1. hayek > friedman + tulpa too, gets us to this thread being 2/3 or more shitposting… Readers beware, flee for your sanity!

      2. I like laughing at retards.

        1. You’ve come to the right place.

      3. “Tony|3.20.19 @ 5:47PM|#

        I’m a scammer and a liar.”

    3. So tolerance itself is not a principled good. Rather, tolerance is only good when the proper thing is being tolerated. I actually buy that. For example, I don’t tolerate rape or pedophilia.

      So now that Cambridge agrees that tolerance itself is not a virtue, we can have a discussion on what should be the metric or standard for what should be tolerated and what should not. The problem with that is that they pride themselves on the illusion that they are tolerant. The truth is there the same bunch of intolerant prudes as I am. They just have a different religion.

    4. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

      click here ======??

    5. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do

      So I started….>>>>>>>

  2. stupid article. tolerance does not require you to tolerate intolerance. I wish they had led him speak, but the paradox of tolerance is nothing new and has been addressed by tolerance advocates for decades.

    1. “tolerance does not require you to tolerate intolerance”


      1. devastating rejoinder. where would i even begin?

        1. Who cares?

          You’re a joke. You get laughed at. There is no more.

          1. white trash thinks i’m a joke. this will take years of therapy.

            1. No one cares what your mom thinks.

              1. 2/10. Yawn.

                  1. le sigh

        2. Actually it’s a devastating rejoinder … unless, as you seen to nelieve,that “tolerance”, to you, means no one is allowed to discomfort anyone you sympathize with.

          You remind me of the Sandinista spokesman Nelba Blandon who, when questioned about the seizing of the sole remaining independent newspaper in Nicaragua , said:

          “They [La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it.”

      2. and being open minded does not mean being open to other ideas! LOL

        We need a 100% fatal virus that selects only progressives.

    2. Are you an advocate of tolerance?

      1. you mean, do i advocate that people be polite and fair to people that are different from them? Yes? you don’t?

        1. Fuck off, Hihn

        2. “hayek > friedman|3.20.19 @ 6:49PM|#

          you mean, do i advocate that people be polite and fair to people that are different from them?”

          “hayek > friedman|3.20.19 @ 6:47PM|#

          white trash ”


          1. when you’re white, you get to use that word. i use it loudly and proudly. people who celebrate intolerance, being a dick, etc or people like you are white trash, if not literally, than in spirit. I don’t believe a tolerance society would be at all obligated to tolerate you in order to be ideologically consistent. Personally, i would love to see people like you passively excluded from polite society.

            1. I already accepted that you can criticise yourself.

              Try to keep up.

            2. “I don’t believe a tolerance society ”


              How fucking stupid are you!!!!

              Try English motherfucker!!!

          2. Oh wait I see my mistake, you said “different from them” my bad.

        3. Yes, I do. I demand the same in return.

          1. that’s the golden rule, eh? nothing controversial about it. If someone says, “hey i go by he instead of she” and you keep calling them she, you’re an *sshole.

            1. I’m sorry you’re upset that people don’t accept your delusions.

            2. I am your Lord and Master. If you do not call me Master, you’re an intolerant asshole.

              1. reductio ad absurdum

                1. It started out absurd. And you didn’t call me Master, asshole.

                  1. you little alt-right troll brats are fun at first, but it gets kinda old. Like the whole pretense of apathy via sarcasm is fun, but you don’t get bored by it? you never want to have a substantive conversation?

                    1. You’ve been saying it gets old for the entire day.

                      We get it. You cry a lot about shit and say it gets old but never actually leave.

                    2. It is actually an often amusing, and sometimes instructive, place. Sometimes meaningful discussions happen here.

                      There are resident trolls; Hihn [who often gets banned and returns via various socks, you can usually get him to go off on certain tangents like “Left + Right = 0” that he just can’t help.
                      Tony, who wants everyone else to provide for his needs and take care of him so he can do whatever it is he does, which appears to mostly be baiting people who identifies at conservative and/or libertarian. Then there’s “The Rev;” best description I’ve seen of him is that he is a “bowl of gall bladders and failed dictators that somehow became sentient.” Whatever he or it is it can’t say much beyond “carry on clingers” and “your betters will show you the way” etc.

                      We know they are trolls, probably miserable sons of bitches who are so fucking lonely that they go on sites like this because “contention is better than loneliness” [old Irish saying]. Some people just like cussing them out and telling them to fuck off and die; I call it The Temptation of Trolls. One cannot exist without the other.

                    3. ‘Alt right’ is what the progtard bleats out when being slapped around in an argument. Or racist. Or both after a particularly vicious ass whooping.

                  2. Sorry, Master Asshole.

                    Did I get that comma in the right place?

                2. Yes that’s exactly what calling a man “she” is.

                  Glad you finally admit it.

            3. o k.

              How about, I go by master, not he or she. In the future you must address me as “Master”.

              Good with that? If not, why not?

            4. You have created a straw man. Peterson didn’t say he wouldn’t call individuals by their preferred pronoun. He said he wouldn’t accept being forced to do the same by the government. There is a huge difference. If you can’t see the difference, then you have the problem.

        4. “Better not to breathe then to breathe a lie.”

    3. I’m a dude, playin’ a dude disguised as another dude.

      1. doodoodood!

          1. I’m going to get a tattoo of a butt…

      2. Dude looks like a dude. “Call me ma’am!”

    4. If you don’t tolerate me, how is it that you can call yourself tolerant? You clearly are not. But you feel that my behavior does not warrant being tolerated, which is a moral judgment. You religious bigot!

      Sorry bro, you just worship a different god. You’re an intolerant a-hole, just like me.

  3. Bloody pansies.

    I disagree with many of Peterson’s views

    I haven’t heard him say anything that didn’t seem to be common sense.

    1. “fruit sushi isn’t sushi”?

    2. Nor have I; he just doesn’t pander to the fuck=faces so they pull the “I’m triggered” routine.

  4. Tangential, but did he ever actually refuse to call a trans person by the prefered he or her? I thought it was just the made up nonsense zhes and xers and whatnot. Cause there’s definitely a difference there.

    1. i’m not 100% sure, but i believe his objection was to the codification of speech – i.e. that it would become law that you had to address certain people in a certain way. In practice, i think he’s willing to have basic manners, he just was against the law on free speech grounds.

      1. Those who would forbid another to speak because the latter refuses to call a tranny the tranny’s pronoun de jour are intolerant.

        1. oh there it is – and the white trash comes out with the transgender slurs. how dare someone inconvenience you with asking to be called a different one syllable pronoun.

          After saying you expect people who are different to be fair and kind, you refer to transgender people with a slur and proudly deny them empathy. You’re a bad person and we would be better off if you weren’t around.

          1. “how dare someone inconvenience you with asking to be called a different one syllable pronoun.”

            Now you’re getting it. Try to stop crying about it.

          2. Each individual has the absolute right to use biologically accurate pronouns regarding another – even if to do so rankles the other.

            Joe Frazier did not buckle to Cassius Clay’s insistence the Smokin’ Joe call him by his fraudulent NOI name, Muhammad Ali. Frazier, of course, knew of Clay’s whoring habits and quite naturally refused to play along with the fraud. Besides, who the fuck would want to be a muzzy?

            1. yeah – you have a right to be as trashy and bigoted as you want. that’s true. Because you choose do to so, you’re white trash, and should not be tolerated by tolerant people.

              1. We’re not your Father Confessor.

                1. womp womp.

                  1. No kne cares what people say when you drop your pants.

                    1. i’m gonna give that 4/10. mildly entertaining. not very clever, but better than Obama ate a dog, for sure.

                    2. “but better than Obama ate a dog, for sure.”

                      We’re all gonna have another laugh at your expense now.

                    3. wow. are you all hanging out together outside of this comment board? that’s so cute. Like little nazi arts and crafts time?

                    4. Wow you even cry about how other people spend their free time.

                    5. You wouldn’t know how delicious she is if I hadn’t handed her a wad of Benjamins.

                    6. yeah, thanks for spotting me that $200 for the whole night. She was great.

                    7. You’re poor. That explains your self hatred.

                    8. your mom has sex for money with poor people then, i guess. They’re all pink on the inside.

                    9. Well yeah dumbass, she’s a libertarian.

                    10. Oh she’s delicious. But she’s no she.

              2. Sooo, you are going to leave here and stop tolerating us? Please?

          3. I dont waste time with make believe. I wont pretend a man can be a woman. And I wont pretend you can have an intelligent conversation.

            1. well there you have it, folks. JesseAz says so, and he was captain of the football team with Uncle Rico back in ’88. He knows what’s up.

                1. Who are we? Where on the great vision quest will we be re-energized? Reality has always been overflowing with entities whose chakras are opened by power. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the world via bio-feedback.

                  We must learn how to lead unlimited lives in the face of desire. The future will be a quantum unfolding of transformation. It is time to take life to the next level

                  1. Ahahahahahahaah

                    You DON’T EVEN KNOW WHY WE ARE LAUGHING AT YOU!!!


                    1. tell me why i should care?

                    2. IT ONLY MATTERS THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY DO!!!



          4. “You’re a bad person and we would be better off if you weren’t around.”

            Please tell me this is satire.

            1. no, not at all. I don’t advocate violence or aggression, but if he wanted to do us the favor, that would be awesome!!!

              1. Right you want your enemies dead. No one is surprised, it’s what authoritarian trash like you does.

                1. no, it’s what you all want to think in your little conspiratoid world where all your political opponents actions and words are assumed to have malicious intent.

                  1. So in addition to not knowing how to properly use “your” you don’t know what “favor” means.

                    1. their is no reason why your doing this other than you they’re must be a favor in it for you.

                    2. Well, I can’t fault you for giving your best effort like that.


                    3. at least you’re not stuck on repeat anymore, but i’m guessing you type with one hand a lot.

                    4. Nah I use both. I don’t have to wipe away my tears like you do.

                    5. cute, you missed that one.

          5. Fuckin’ transtesticles!

        2. He didn’t refuse to do so, he objected to government mandating that he do so, and said that he would not comply if it were compulsory. The difference is crucial.


    2. I think his beef is with laws or policies that force people to use xe, xir, etc.

      1. Okay, thanks for clarification. Obviously those laws would be an Orwellian nightmare, but if a person transitions to male or female I have no issue with respecting calling them him or her, but even that should not be law, with being non-aggressively rude a right and all.

        1. In a free society, robust speech is more important than feeding delusions, much less submitting to them.

          1. yes, it’s more important to be a dick than to be polite because, mike, who has never formally studied the matter, read on some alt -right websites that transgender people are just delusional.

            1. Wow you really can’t stop crying.

              1. this is more of a 2/10 type response. the “stop crying, stop being butt hurt etc” method of trolling is pretty unoriginal at this point. Sometimes effective, but usually not.

                1. Your ham tears are delicious.

                  1. now that’s just creepy.

                    1. No one cares what every person who has ever met you said.

                2. But you do whine and cry, You’re not debating a subject. You’re merely lashing out at anyone who doesn’t go along with your bizarre progtarded PC idea of etiquette.

                  When really, no one gives a fuck what you think. An intelligent person isn’t going to feed the body dysmorphic delusions of a ‘transsexual’ any more than they would a schizophrenic.

                  That this is a problem for you just shows a monumental level of ignorance of science and psychology. Probably excaserbated by limited cognitive faculties.

                  Listening to you and the other douchebag cry about tranny etiquette is like watching two retards trying to fuck a doorknob.

            2. Referring to Ivan, who is “transitioning” to Ivanka, as he is not rude or impolite. It is accurate.

              Do you really think one has to read an alt-right website in order to recognize that there are some wires crossed with trannies?

              Little Johnny who wants to be little Juanita is a few corn cakes short of a stack.

              1. idk how you haven’t figured this out yet, Matt, but, generally speaking, whether or not your rude is not something you get to decide. Louis CK has this great bit about this. You’re like that guy who says, “no i’m not,” when people point out he’s being an a**hole.

                The bottom line is some maybe highschool educated fck’s opinion on the science of gender dysphoria is irrelevant.

                1. “whether or not your rude”

                  MY rude?



                  1. i’m sorry, i forgot how alt-write you are.

                    1. “your”!!!!




                      AHAHAHAHAHAH “YOUR” JUST JEALOUS!!!


                    2. calm down, babe.

                2. Aha, a soupcon of Rev. Arthur.

                  1. another inside reference? i missed your guys’ orientation last week so i’m not hip to all this richard spencer lingo.

                    1. Richard Spencer? The socialist?

                      Cucky Dinesh D’Souza owned him in Dinesh’s yawner flic.

                    2. I like how I made you cry so much that you changed your name.

                      But I have bad news. I had two dads. You got fooled!

                      I bet you cry about that too!!!

                    3. you’re so vain, you probably think this song is about you.

                    4. Your name is.


                    5. going for the shock value method, eh?

                    6. going for the shock value method, eh?




                    8. switched gears, thanks! shock value method is a classic technique. Probably wouldn’t have gone straight for the proverbial jugular, but i was young and impatient once too.

                    9. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

                      LEARN HOW TO POST CLOWN!!!


                    10. “the squirrels are laughing at me” – **facepalm**

                    11. AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      YES DUMBASS!!!


                      YOU’RE GODDAMNED RIGHT FACEPALM!!!


            3. Is it also polite to tell the schizo that there really are people in the bushes?

              1. oh come on now. faulty analogies never win.

                1. I like how you failed to counter anything and only cried.

                  1. Consciousness consists of transmissions of quantum energy. “Quantum” means an unfolding of the pranic. This life is nothing short of an invocation lightning bolt of authentic wisdom. Wisdom is the richness of peace, and of us.

                    1. I like how you resorted to gibberish when you realized you failed to counter anything and only cried.

                    2. The biosphere is calling to you via frequencies. Can you hear it? Have you found your myth? It can be difficult to know where to begin.

                    3. Chemjeff?

                      Lol IT IS!!


                    4. Shiva will clear a path toward ever-present manna. Soon there will be an awakening of potentiality the likes of which the biosphere has never seen. We must empower ourselves and awaken others.

                    5. God damn I broke him!!!


                    6. cute, now it’s trying to self moderate it’s own “debate.”

                    7. Hey you’re back!!!

                      To cry about getting owned by me of course.

                    8. it puts the lotion on its skin.

                    9. No one cares what you tell your victims.

                  2. He probably accidentally shoved some fiberglass insulation up his vagina. So he’s cranky now. Like a teething infant.

            4. There is certain absurdity here.

              A person who believes themselves to be a Labrador Retriever, believes in something that is provably false. Your species is an objectively provable fact. Particularly so in light of the ability to look at DNA. One who believes this way, is suffering from mental illness.

              A person who believes themselves to be male, when they are clearly female (or vice versa), beiieves in something that is provably false. Testing Chromosomes is not difficult.
              One who believes this way is not “misgendered” or any of those other made up terms, they are suffering from mental illness.

              I feel sympathy for people suffering from mental illness. I feel for those who believe themselves to be farm animals just as I feel for those who believe they are of the opposite gender to that established by objective reality.

              As a libertarian, I am opposed to forcing people in dressing in the sexually expected way, or into forcing them into treatment for their mental illness unless it makes them a danger to others.

              That said, I am uninteresting in pretending that they are in their right minds, or that somehow the fact that they are mentally ill requires that I endorse and participate in the delusion. Especially, I resent the expectation that they should be entitled to surgery to assist them in emulating the opposite sex and sinking further into delusion at my expense.

              1. I keep wondering why we haven’t yet been forced to pretend we hear the same voices the schizoids do. Or forced to agree with an anorexic with 1% body fat that, “Yes, those jeans do make your ass look huge.” Only a matter of time.

    3. He’s said that he would use the pronouns with students and has said the pronouns to individual students if they asked him; but refused to be *forced* to use the pronouns. Initially, Peterson’s argument centered on being forced to use the pronouns. Ultimately however, I think he really dropped the ball on that particular line of argument and added that he felt it [trans identity, intersex physiology, etc.] was made up nonsense, which I found disappointing. His first argument was interesting; his second, untenable. Peterson has some interesting ideas, but he’s dropped the ball like that a few times. Conservatives really have a hard time debating because they get vilified as ‘ists’ like ‘sexist’ or ‘racist’ even if it’s a wildly inaccurate label from the ‘outrage machine’ – but in debates, Peterson initially did very well staving off false accusations (typically by playing his trump card of ‘well the research says…’ and refusing to be paraphrased poorly). But now, Peterson is pretty much done because the left has managed to gather enough sentences from his various speaking events that the more subtle arguments are lost and the guy doesn’t come off as an intellectual as much as a bigot and sexist.

      1. “the guy doesn’t come off as an intellectual as much as a bigot and sexist”

        Not to rigorous thinkers.

        Maybe to the snowflakes and the intellectually challenged progressives, but not normal people.

      2. Except they tar everyone with that brush, to increasingly ridiculous lengths.

        1. and each other

      3. “he felt it [trans identity, intersex physiology, etc.] was made up nonsense, which I found disappointing.”

        Because it is.
        It’s literally a disorder.
        Get over it.

        1. [citation missing]

          1. Not your tears though, they are copious and plentful.

            1. Only a seeker of the world may harmonize this lightning bolt of non-locality. Stagnation is born in the gap where wisdom has been excluded. We can no longer afford to live with bondage.

              1. I especially like how he changed his name because of me AGAIN!

                1. you like me, admit it, trashley.

                  Humankind has nothing to lose. Reality has always been aglow with travellers whose essences are enveloped in nature. We are in the midst of a high-frequency unfolding of ecstasy that will give us access to the nexus itself.

                  1. I like how I upset you so much that you changed your name several times because of me.


                    1. that’s what it thinks, eh?

                    2. Lol protest more player queen.

                    3. I see the bitches are in fine form today. Tulpa, I think they get off on you slapping them around.

          2. One who has XY chromosomes believes one has XX chromosomes.
            Pretty straightforward

          3. the citation is missing because they removed it

      4. rsingler : Ultimately however, I think he really dropped the ball on that particular line of argument and added that he felt it [trans identity, intersex physiology, etc.] was made up nonsense

        That doesn’t sound like anything he would have said. I can recall him arguing that “identity” is a complicated social thing, which you negotiate with others, rather than something personal and exclusive to yourself but that’s not at all the same thing as saying that trans identity or any other identity is made up nonsense. Likewise the notion that he’s ever described intersex physiology as made up nonsense is so unliklely that….

        …I’m gonna have to ask for a reference.

        1. I conflated the two. You are correct. In my half-hearted self defense, I do think it’s important to emphasize the implications of intersex physiology, which I am reading back into his statements against trans identity. That being said, I know I’m playing fast and loose there, so yours is a solid critique. He never used the word ‘physiology’. I have a hazy memory for an interview where he basically calls bullshit on trans identity. I’d have to dig it up, and I don’t much care to waste my time. But insofar-as trans identity often emerges from intersex physiology, which is clearly not bullshit, you can’t really write off trans identity unilaterally without writing off the physiology as well. Like I said, I agree with your criticism, it’s hard for me to argue the conflation.

        2. I’ll see if I can dig up the quote on him calling b.s. on trans identity… I hope I heard him wrong, but I don’t think so. He’s a subtle fellow, so it’s possible I heard him through the liberal hysteria

        3. Reference @2:09+:

          Ok, so, the interview I remembered is this one; and he starts off fine. I love that he’s defending freedom of speech. But he “drops the ball” at around 2:09, saying: “…And when the words that are being required are artificial constructions of people I regard as radical ideologues whose viewpoint I do not share….”

          He thinks trans identity is an artificial construct. Under all the freedom of speech rhetoric, he calls trans identity an artificial construction. There are layers there, but I think my interpretation is fair.

          Peterson has an admirable debate habit of holding his ground- so maybe he’s just emphasizing his earlier argument about not being required to use the words because he’s a little miffed at the outset of the interview. But he states that trans identity is an artificial construct and he doesn’t share the views of people who believe in trans identity. While a lot of the ideas on the left deserve a solid dose of critical thinking, to call trans identity an “artificial construct” is an outright rejection of the physiological realities many transgendered individuals deal with. That’s “dropping the ball” because his argument shifts from his freedom of speech to calling transgender merely an artificial construct.

    4. Tangential, but did he ever actually refuse to call a trans person by the prefered he or her?


    5. Petersen simply objected to the Canadian gov’t compelling him to call someone by a preferred pronoun. He had no problem complying with someone’s request.

      He was making a very important point. At no time in the history of English common law had a statute been passed that compelled you to speak according to a gov’t dictate.

  5. “…I disagree with many of Peterson’s views, but he wanted to come to campus to engage with, and learn from, other scholars. It’s possible he may have even learned something new from those conversations, or modified his views in some way….”

    Alternatively, they might have learned from him. But since they refuse to be exposed to those who hold other views, that is not going to happen.
    He, being subjected to alternative views on a constant basis, does not share their disability; he can honestly claim to have examined other views and rejected them.
    They cannot.

    1. These snowflakes seem to forget that fences work both ways — they keep other ideas out as well is they isolate their own ideas in a vacuum of introspection.

      1. They don’t forget; that is their major premise.
        If the sheep never hear anything other than the socialist propaganda, then the propaganda becomes truth.
        The left cannot take the chance that there is any independent thought remaining after the initial grade and high school indoctrination.

      2. just like border walls also keep the citizens in

        1. Unless of course, you go through the usual ports of entry and exit. But yes, your ability to exit your back yard at any point is indeed limited by the fence around your property.

  6. What a bunch of fucks

    that is all

  7. Hayek would not have buckled to evolving progressive dictates on how to address a tranny. He was not a cuck.


    1. daily stormer is not – you’re in the wrong place. what is with you alt-right boys and cuckoldry?

      1. They find the fact that you engage in it to be detestable?

        Just a guess.

      2. ‘Hayek’, back off to Media Matters with you. Begone faggot.

  8. Robbie — what views off his to you disagree with? Actually fucking say them, instead of this fliimsy ‘oh well gee he’s not perfect I don’t agree but him but gosh jolly guys he’s not all bad’

    1. Given my personal experience, Jordan Peterson has been one of the most mischaracterized human beings on the planet, I suspect it’s something Robby read that someone else said that Jordan Peterson said. The shit that’s come out of the major media on him is LAUGHABLE.

      One of the best examples is Jordan Peterson was interviewed for days by a Nellie Bowles who ended up writing an entire article based around a two minute conversation in which he used an anthropological term called “enforced monogamy”. The article ended up being a hit piece. The term “enforced monogamy” is a legitimate anthropological term that’s an accepted concept in science. It term has even been used in prior years in the NYT in a positive way.

      People then read this shit and say “OMG! I CAN’T BELIEVE HE SAID THAT!”. It’s got fuck all to do with sexism.

  9. I disagree with many of Peterson’s views,

    What’s funny is 97% of everything Peterson espouses could be read in the pages of Reason 20 years ago. All it requires is that you listen to the man speak, and don’t waste your time on characterizations of him in other media sources. Listen directly to him, in long form.

    Gender pay gaps are based on a set of nuanced circumstances that don’t relate to an overarching “patriarchy”, but are most often determined by a series of complex choices made by individuals.
    The elevation of identity politics is counterproductive and even dangerous.
    Free speech is one of the highest ideals for the sane for discourse in civil society.
    Marxism is a dangerous ideology that’s responsible for a tremendous amount of human suffering.
    The arrogant belief that you can make humans better through complex social engineering is dangerous because few people engaged in it ever stop to consider if they might make things worse.
    Forced equality is a goal that sounds noble but is incredibly repressive and dangerous.

    For fuck’s sake, Reason, if you have such issues with the man (I’m looking right at you, Nick), get Nick Gillespie to interview and debate him. Let’s have some fucking discourse here. Challenge him on the things he said (or more likely the things you THINK he said) and kick around some ideas.

    1. They have cocktail parties to think of.

      1. Reason gets a lot of unfair shit in the comments these days, but the fact that Jordan Peterson (and other members of the so-called ‘dark web’) flew completely under their radar is almost criminal.

        Multiple Reason writers have sniffed at Peterson in vaguel, non-specific ways which is telling. I’ll give Nick credit in that he has on rare occasion called out something specific Peterson said and took issue with it. Well fuck, THERE’S YOUR OPPORTUNITY. Have him on and debate that issue. Maybe Nick is right and Peterson is wrong. It’s one of the biggest opportunities for the theoretical libertarian beat in over a decade and Reason has just let it slide by.

        1. No, Reason, generally, has not been unfairly called to account by the commentariat.

          John is far more accurate about assessing whether Reason scribes merit criticism. John, after all, does not profess to be a libertarian, but he frequently evaluates the substance, as well as the tone, of a given article, through a libertarian lens in order to point out the conflict between the text and libertarian principles.

    2. There is an cliquey disdain for him by Reason and National Review’s staff that never seems to be articulated in specifics, even though I see no insurmountable chasm between Peterson’s philosophy and theirs. I do not understand it.

      1. I see no insurmountable chasm between Peterson’s philosophy and theirs. I do not understand it.

        This is really THE thing that I can’t wrap my head around. The operative word here is “insurmountable chasm”. I fully agree, the agreements on the myriad issues is far greater than the disagreements.

        These guys (Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, The Weinstein bros) have literally filled concert halls to have deep philosophical discussions that everyone has claimed for years wasn’t marketable. NPR and PBSs entire existence is built around the notion that “there’s no market for what we do, therefore public funding”.

        The Sam Harris/Peterson debates have been fantastic. They disagree on MANY issues, but both are fascinating to listen to and the fact that you can have a rigorous, respectful discussion in this format is telling– considering that Reason has almost entirely ignored the phenomenon.

        1. Yes, and when both staffs talk about Peterson they make oblique jokey comments that make it clear that they consider him unclean in some way, but they never seem to actually explain their issues with him.

          1. Probably for the same reasons the rest of the media see him as “unclean”– which by the way is an excellent term to describe the attitude.

            1. The writers almost certainly have people in their life that think wrongthink should be deplatformed. If you don’t believe that, their editorial choices are strong evidence.

              Now they could have principles, and do real journalism. And sometimes they do. But often, as in the case of Peterson, they choose to demur.

        2. I should know, I’ve been to two of them.

          Jordan Peterson is everything the left isn’t, and that’s why they hate him so much.

          Don’t give me this wishy washy BS crap, Reason. Name specific things you disagree with. If you’ve spent any time reading or listening to him you’d understand that all your circle jerk cocktail parties are filled with people who have no fucking idea what they are talking about.

          Seriously, have you heard *a* thing he has ever said? *A* Thing?

      2. It’s not that he’s alt-right, it’s that the alt-right likes him. If Reason says anything positive about him. they’ll lose several standing cocktail party invitations.

        1. The alt-right does not like him. That is another lie the left has spread about Peterson

  10. OT: Here’s something I don’t get about the non-gendered pronoun thing: Under what circumstances would anyone be using someone’s preferred pronoun when addressing that person? You’re not going to be saying he, she. his, hers, etc. to the person the pronoun refers to. You’re going to say you. About the only time you’d be saying he in reference to someone who wants to be called xe is when that person is not present.

    1. It goes beyond even that analysis. It is also considered a slur to use non-gendered pronouns to avoid offense. Your only choice is literally to use their preferred pronouns or be labeled a bigot.

      1. sounds awful.

        1. Hey you got one right finally!

          1. i know. those pronouns are so cumbersome. i mean, american slaves thought they had it bad. Real slavery is having to be polite to transgendered people if you ask me.

            1. Based on how much you’ve been crying about it, you don’t have to be asked.

              1. please, stop crying to me about people crying. it’s gonna make me cry, trashley.

                1. More than you already have?

                  Holy shit.

                  1. i’m getting bored. can you change gears or are you just another Sevo?

                    1. Wow you even cried about that.

                    2. seriously, dude. I have an hour left here, and i’m getting bored. Can you try harder? if you can’t be original or even push my buttons, that’s just no fun.

                    3. Holy shit “YOUR” stil crying.

                    4. Now, let me tell you about my granny,
                      she used to take me upon her fanny,
                      she’d always say, “let Manny be Manny,”
                      and “son, don’t you ever look at a tranny.”

                    5. oh i get it. you think it’s funny to be cruel to fellow human beings. that’s so cool.

                    6. well, crying is a natural response to certain stimuli. Do you not have natural responses to stimuli?

                    7. At least you finally admit it.


                    8. Good god, will you please shut up. Ok, everyone who does not agree with you is mean. got it. Now go away.

    2. Just call them all “it”.

    3. You’re not going to be saying he, she. his, hers, etc. to the person the pronoun refers to

      True, but you may be referring to that person when they are within earshot, or within inkshot. Which highlights the point that this is C policing how A converses with B. Which is not very consistent with free association.

  11. “I disagree with many of Peterson’s views”

    Could you be more specific?

    1. Peterson’s hair is meh and he doesn’t care for fruit.

    2. You know! His views! Robby disagrees with many of them! Because reasons! Leave Robby alone!

    3. You have to disagree with some of them “to be fair.”

  12. He is guilty of thoughtcrime and must be depersoned.

  13. Texas cops rob CBD store

    Wazwaz told NBC 5 Investigates that anything that looked like marijuana was, instead, CBD hemp flower ? buds from the hemp plant that look like marijuana, but contain little or no THC.

    A police inventory list that was left with the shop owners said the goods seized included bags of what was described as “apparent marijuana products labeled (as) hemp flower.”

    “If you come into the shop looking to get high, you are going to leave disappointed,” said Sullivan, the owners’ attorney.

    “There is nothing in the shop that would get you high,” he said.

    At the tobacco shop in Duncanville, Wazwaz said her business is paying the price for the confusion that surrounds the selling of hemp and CBD.

    “They took all the money from the cash register, all the money from our safe,” she said of the police.

    1. Why the fuck would you open the safe? Fuck them if they think I’m giving it to them.

  14. “Wazwaz”? Seriously?

      1. Good god, no.

  15. “Peterson holds some views that are considered offensive by progressives?he has objected, for instance, to the idea that anyone should be required to use a trans person’s preferred pronouns.”

    In other words, Peterson is a zealous defender of freedom of speech and thought. What he objected to was a bill to make not using preferred pronouns illegal. If that offends progressives, then to hell with progressives, as they are illiberal totalitarians.

    1. Oh looky looky, here’s a guy that’s been interviewed by Nick and has even been a guest columnist here saying all manner of Problematic Shit.

      Do we get a mile of to-be-sures when Reason refers to Brendan O’Neill?

      1. Bro’neill is savage.

  16. As Yogi Berra might have said, “include him out.”

    1. I love Yogiisms.

      1. Even the ones he never didn’t say!

        1. Well he did say he didn’t say everything he said.

  17. Peterson looks like he’s exhausted.

      1. Peterson: X exists.
        Media: So you defend and support the proliferation of X!
        Peterson: *sigh*

        1. Is media a new word for AOC? Because that sounds like something she would say.

      2. It’s also difficult to constantly restrain self in the face of utter ignorance and abject stupidity. For example, the restraint required when having a debate with an idiot like Pedo Jeffy(Chemjeff) would be very strenuous in person. The effort required not to throttle the little idiot could be quite draining.

  18. So is this a contrary or a contradiction?

    1. It’s a contrary contradistinction.

  19. “[Cambridge] is an inclusive environment and we expect all our staff and visitors to uphold our principles,” a Cambridge spokesperson told The Guardian. “There is no place here for anyone who cannot.”

    So no place for this guy in this inclusive environment. What am I missing?

  20. You can judge how inclusive an organization is by the number of things they exclude.

    1. Let’s just say the list includes shitkickers and Methodists.

  21. You know there are good litmus tests to see if you know what the hell you are talking about. It’s been a libertarian thing for years that a good test is seeing if someone is for Rent Control or the Minimum Wage, then they don’t.

    Well add Jordan Peterson to the list. You honestly have no idea what the hell you are talking about with all the snide comments and crap that Reason posts about him. You’ve not read a damn thing he’s ever written. Do you know *a* thing about him, or is it just the crap you get filtered to you by dishonest lying collectivists?

    My prog roommate read the first chapter of his book and literally fucking put a note next to a lobster dominance observation as “Is this White Supremacy?”. Jesus holy hell, what the fuck is wrong with people.

    1. If all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
      (The “hammer” here is the race card; “you” is the American Left.)

  22. This is why Cambridge will always play second fiddle to Oxford. Oxford knows that the key to success is being exclusive.

    1. Exclusive means excluding.

      1. Damn straight.

  23. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h ? $72h?how? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance? on something new? after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

    Heres what I’ve been doing? ,,,


  24. Question: If students complain about progressive’s that hold offensive views. Pro abortion, etc.

    Will their speakers be “dis-invited?”

    …..naw, i think i know the answer on this one.

  25. Dr. Peterson is feared by the left because what he says is common sense and anyone that is not a deranged progressive understands this and does so clearly. They don’t want him to have a platform at universities for that very reason. This does nothing but reveal Cambridge to be an indoctrination center.

  26. I feel sorry for the clueless students whose school has the reputation for irrational ideological indoctrination.

    They might be spared from this knowledge while their parents are paying their dues and bribes, then as zealots of political correctness in the real world, the intolerant truth of logic and science will always expose their corruption and kick their asses.

    1. Really?

      Cambridge has had over 90 Nobel prize winners.

      Physics stretches from Newton to Hawking.

      36 Physics, 26 Medicine, 25 chemistry. It excels mostly in science. Always has.

      I do not think the University has left that commitment. Whatever the humanities do.

      1. I wonder how many of the students protesting Peteron will go on to win Nobel Prizes.

        1. Very few of them. Even in the vaunted physics department who could care less.

          1. Not if they make their decisions based on emotion and ideology.

  27. “We’re so inclusive, we exclude everyone who disagrees with us!”

  28. Peterson holds some views that are considered offensive by progressives?he has objected, for instance, to the idea that anyone should be required to use a trans person’s preferred pronouns.

    For *true* inclusiveness, the confounding “trans” should must be dropped. Perhaps Peterson could agree to use “xi”, for instance, on the fair condition that *everyone* refer to him Peterson as [insert unpronounceable/profane/constantly-changed/etc. expression].

  29. Anybody else watching the Caps and Tampa?

    1. Naah, I just went back to watch this one more time:
      He’s no Hitch, but he’s damned good.

  30. They’re inclusive, but not that kind of inclusive.

  31. Don’t think of a university as a marketplace of ideas or a home of scholars grappling with the tough philosophical and scientific questions. Think of it as a daycare.

    1. Treat it as such and that is what you will get.

      Try community college.

  32. If you ask progressives who it is Peterson doesn’t tolerate, they will say transsexuals despite the fact that he is entirely tolerant of and respectful towards transsexuals. Peterson is pro freedom of speech. Being pro freedom of speech doesn’t mean you disrespect everyone who could conceivably be offended by some theoretical speech.

    Peterson has been asked to renounce freedom of speech and he refuses. That is the entire thing that progressives are mad at him about.

    1. So the Canadian professor of psychology is a politician or American constitutional legal now.

      I am not a fan for other reasons. Let him speak for himself.

      1. If Americans aren’t using the Constitution, what’s wrong with him borrowing it for awhile?

        1. *sad rimshot*

      2. Freedom of speech is not something that was invented in 1791. Nor is it distinctly American. It is and has been a hallmark of western liberalism for a long time. The Americans just take it farther than anyone else is willing to.

        1. Is it written down elsewhere before 1789?

          1. You could argue that the principle was implicit in the Bill of Rights of 1689 which includes free elections for Parliament, and further specifies that “the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

            Yes, that is substantially more limited than the 1st Amendment, but it does show that the principle was not created whole cloth, but evolved into a principle applicable to all.

          2. Go back even further. This issue is explored in Plato’s Apology and Phaedo, which pertain to Socrates’ trial and execution for exercising free speech. You can guess what side Plato and Socrates come down on, and if those two guys aren’t pillars of western civilization, I don’t know who is.

  33. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

    click here ======?? http://www.TheproCoin.Com

  34. First, the Guardian article is heavily slanted, but quoting the likes of race- and sex-baiter Priyamvada Gopal is a new low. Second, the Faculty of Divinity publicly rescinded the fellowship offer in a tweet ; that’s just petty. Third, the student union apparently tweeted support for the rescinding before the Faculty’s tweet came out , so they knew before the intended fellow. All of which shows that Peterson’s critique of academia is spot on.?

    1. Right on.

    2. Professor Peterson remains free to criticize these elite academic institutions from which he has benefited, lived his life, and remains a part.

      I appreciate the input. Both the student and administrative bodies concurred in withdrawing the offer for visiting fellowship. That is their right, agree with the reasoning or not.

      He remains a powerful voice, mostly outside the halls of academia these days.

      Nobody has taken his rights away. This is not a libertarian issue as I see it.

      1. And we do not with their reasoning. That’s kind of the point.

        Also, when a public university pulls this kind of shit, it’s definitely a libertarian issue.

        Now go back to doing your bullshit job in the Cambridge administrative bureaucracy.

      2. Blatant Orwellianisms from once respected places of higher learning employed to avoid hosting or hearing dissent are not a concern for libertarians?


        1. Appreciate the replies.

          I agree that the reasoning as stated is flawed and results from a misunderstanding of what Peterson has said and written. For him it has come to a low level political social issue. I think he has some level of responsibilty in going to a broader media rather than sticking to the academic world in which he has lived and excels. Attracts some flies.

          I think Cambridge has every right to decide who will be granted a visiting fellowship or not.

          We talk about public. Yes the university, which is actually composed of various colleges set up over centuries, does accept public money. They also have billions in assets. The government money includes many things, funds for students to attend, research and other grants awarded by the state for projects in science and other fields.

          This is the university of Issac Newton, Stephan Hawking, they funded them and the many who learned and benefitted from the availability of a real university. Not for me to say about this particular fellowship and very talented lecturer.

          It is really about the future of acedemia. Politics aside.

          1. It is really about the future of acedemia. Politics aside.

            But also about the past of academia. The Univeristy of Cambridge is obviously, legally, a continuing institution, but whether it’s still “the University of Isaac Newton” isn’t just about legal formalities. It’s about its purpose, its values and its worth – whether it’s a “real” university in the sense of an institution devoted to pursuing academic enquiry, and educating students.

            No doubt plenty of real academic enquiry does go on at Cambridge, but rejecting and dissing Peterson, particularly in the insulting and disingeuous manner selected, indicates that in some departments at least, such enquiry is now constrained by ideology. As of course it was for a good chunk of its history though after the ideological ascendancy of the Church of England crumbled, we got used to academic enquiry that was largely unconstrained by ideology. Was that a brief experiment that we now wish to put behind us ? Or a good idea worth keeping ?

            I suspect that universities which think it’s a good idea worth keeping will be the ones that thrive, and the ones that wish to abandon the experiment – even if they have the oldest and fanciest brand names – will be the ones which will sink beneath the waves.

          2. “It is really about the future of acedemia. Politics aside.”

            If you believed that then you really should see the problem.

            Because Cambridge’s recent actions are not about free inquiry but instead are based entirely upon ‘the aside.’

            1. When an institution values orthodoxy higher than inquiry it may remain an institution, but it ceases to be an academy.

  35. Isn’t the University violating it’s own inclusive policy by not including non-inclusive people?

    1. If the Cambridge administrator was a computer, Captain Kirk would be able to use the contradictions in its programming to make it blow up.

  36. The University of Cambridge is run by communist assholes.

    Fuck off.

  37. “”rescinded the invitation following a public outcry from students and professors.””

    That’s the reason. Mob rule.

  38. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 7000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,

    Check For info Here,

    ===> http://www.TheproCoin.Com

  39. “…but he wanted to come to campus to engage with, and learn from, other scholars…”

    Now he realizes they are as stupid as he suspected.

  40. So they invited him and then people protested so they took it back? What’s wrong with the administration at Cambridge. It would have been perfectly fine if they never invited him at all. He’s popular but his ideas are not exceptional. And what’s with everyone being so mad that Robby does not agree with everything Peterson says? You have to be a real tool to find a problem with that stance.

    1. “And what’s with everyone being so mad that Robby does not agree with everything Peterson says?”

      Yes, that is exactly what people have been saying. You sure sussed that out correctly. You are a brilliant and perceptive individual of the highest ken.

  41. I don’t know if Cambridge has an endowment that is funded my rich alum like the US, but if so, it would be entertaining to see the Cambridge administration stand strong if all their rich alums pulled all their donations. The administrations may be spineless, but they’re bigger funding whores.

    1. Garbage Island, though.

  42. Cambridge doesn’t sound very inclusive to me!

  43. Disagrees with many of Peterson’s views. Like the value of cleaning your room? Or standing with your back straight? Or always telling the truth? Asshole.

    1. Those are all fine good things. Dad should have showed you. Mom should have said it.

      If they did not here it is and in many self help books.

      Not groundbreaking insight there.

      If you want to talk a serious discussion. I can begin.

      The lobster analogy is a trick. He does have knowlege and brings in evolution, a bit of neurobiochemistry and animal behavior.

      None of that relates to the effects of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is ubiquitous from amoeba through higher life forms.

      The human central nervous system has evolved in far different ways than jellyfish, lobsters or bees. That pathway is not comparable in any meaningful sense.

      Yet people show up to the lectures and buy lobster hats or shirts.

      You think you can rattle me by calling me asshole? Try harder.

      1. The human central nervous system has evolved in far different ways than jellyfish, lobsters or bees. That pathway is not comparable in any meaningful sense.

        As I understand it, his argument is not that lobster and human brains are much the same, but the existence of human dominance hierarchies is not a recent cultural invention, but has ancient biological roots. (He does not, of course, deny that the details of any particular human dominance hierarchy – eg being a movie star – are culturally influenced.)

        And his argument rests on the ubiquity of dominance hierarchies in social animals. And he notes that even creatures as evolutionariy distant as lobsters from humans have them. And that they are regulated by serotonin.

        Whether lobsters use serotonin to assess their standing in the social hierarchy, in exactly the same way as humans do, is perfectly irrelevant to this argument. To refute his argument you would need to show that humans recently acquired dominance hierarchies culturally (not specific ones, but any and all dominance hierarchies) and previously didn’t have them. Or that lots of social animals don’t have them, or that those that do have them evolved them separately from non dominance hierarchy ancestors, rather than by descent from hierarchical ancestors.

        1. Nice argument Lee. I’m not convinced it is 100% true, but I am convinced that what you offer is indeed a ‘meaningful sense’ for making comparisons.

          1. It is a nice argument but it’s Peterson’s rather than mine. I don’t know anything about neuro-biochemistry and whether it’s reasonably likely that different animal groups have evolved serotonin based mental equipment to assess status by convergent evolution rather than from a common source. Peterson is assuming not.

            In any event, the substance of Peterson’s argument is nothing to do with lobsters or serotonin, it’s that it’s vanishingly unlikely that most social animals have evolved dominance hierarchies, but that uniquely, humans have not, but have acquired them culturally. The lobster thing is just underlining the point with a claim of the ancient nature of the dominance hierarchy in the human lineage.

            What seems oddest to me is that a number of intelligent people who don’t like his analogy with lobsters completely miss the point – Peterson is not claiming that humans are very like lobsters, he’s deliberately picking an animal that is about as evolutionary distant from a human as it’s possible to get – ie dominance hierarchies must have existed as far back in time as the split between the lobster’s ancestors and ours.

            1. Which is a cogent thesis yet my problem with Peterson is that he has also created a rather manipulative symbol, not merely an evolutionary argument. I think that is intentional . He has followers, not just clients or students. To bring his message, or brand to the masses he needs a visible symbol.

              Peterson often quotes Jung. He understands all of this very well.

              He may be doing so with the best of intentions. Saving a generation of the lost boys. Yet it brings out my inner skeptic. It is not like he is not getting anything from this and not merely financial.

              It is ironic that his snub from Cambridge is because he has become a symbol himself not entirely within his control.

              1. It is ironic that his snub from Cambridge is because he has become a symbol himself not entirely within his control.

                I suspect he understands that quite well too. Without wishing to make invidious comparisons, Peterson has an interesting take on Hitler and the Germans. The gist is that Hitler did not impose his own undiluted vision on the Germans, but he had a number of hobbyhorses, and was a talented orator. As a talented orator he had a keen ear for audience feedback, and learned to play up the themes that got the crowd going, and play down the ones that the crowd didn’t react to. Hence “Nazism” was knitted as a co-operative effort between the Fuehrer and his followers*. Peterson is not big on the idea that you can’t blame the Germans for Hitler.

                I think one of the reasons that Peterson is such a compelling speaker and lecturer is that he is aware of the audience’s reaction. I don’t think that means he peddles things he doesn’t believe, merely that his most familar riffs are the ones that his audiences have liked best.

                Invidiosity once again aside, Trump does much the same*.

                1. One reason I like standup comedy. It is all about that connection and the chance of failure is high. The most difficult performance art. You are exposed. In music or something you can be technical, but not comedy.

                  In politics Reagan was the best at it in my lifetime. He could sit behind that desk and look into the camera. You felt he was talking right to you. He just oozed charm.

                  Bill Clinton second. He had that aw shucks way of making you think he was a regular guy. Almost self depreciating the way a good comic is.

                  I still do not understand Trump. I know it works for many people. Faith perhaps, he gives people faith and vindication for all the wrongs, imaginary or not inflicted upon them.

                  Appreciate the discussion.

                  Glad you brought up his views of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Did not know that he talked about it.

                  Hannah Arendt had much to say about it. Read several of her books. It is dark to go there. Wonder what she would say about the world today.

                  1. Glad you brought up his views of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Did not know that he talked about it.
                    My impression is that it’s pretty central to his analysis of the human condition, which as you say is Jungian.
                    This short clip is a decent illustration of the train of thought :
                    1. How on Earth could a “civilised” country like Germany beget so much malevolence and evil ?
                    2. Because there is malevolence within all of us
                    3. If you doubt this, you are simply a child, who has had no experience of malevolence
                    4. And as such you are easy prey to true malevolence, as a victim, or as an abetter, a sheep like follower
                    5. Think you’d have been Schindler ? Most Germans weren’t, so why do you imagine that if you were put to the test you’d stand up against evil ?
                    6. The solution is to recognise the dark within you and learn how to master it
                    7. Which is a long and hard road, but you can start with baby steps
                    8. By taking a bit of responsibility
                    9. Even for something as trivial as cleaning your damn room

                    So Peterson would certainly approve of you visiting the dark places with Arendt. So long as you recognise that they’re not populated by “them” but by “me.”

    2. Maybe people at Cambridge don’t like lobsters.

  44. Leftists who want inclusion only want inclusion until they get in power. Once in power they want exclusion, as this story illustrates.

  45. In the wake of the Mosque massacre in New Zealand, a major chain has banned Peterson’s self-help book (12 Rules…) from its shelves. He apparently posed with a fan who wore an “Islamophobe” shirt.

    With capitalists like this, who needs the state to suppress speech.

  46. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily??. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE

  47. “This is a university of welcoming & inclusiveness…now get the hell out.”

  48. We know we are in bad shape when the ‘make money at home’ comments start to look like the most sensible.

  49. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

  50. The modern universities in the US, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain all manage to illuminate Karl Popper’s description of the problem of tolerance. “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.”

    The left is willing to tolerate anything except that which questions their own authority to make the rules of tolerance.

  51. “I disagree with many of Peterson’s views…”

    Made sure to get that in there, eh Robby, lest you should be cast in with the other unclean and unenlightened who fail to fully embrace inclusiveness as you do. We’re curious. What might some of those “many” disagreements with JP’s views be?

  52. “…this is an environment of welcoming, and so you should just get the hell out of here.”

  53. I’m just counting down the time until the free helicopter rides start happening… Because this level of lunacy can’t go on forever!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.