Reaction: Jordan B Peterson Vs. Michael Eric Dyson MUNK Debate

Dyson, at some point, acknowledges Peterson's popularity and makes the comment that he wishes Peterson would tweet about Dyson's own book.

Wow. Pathetic.

Peterson could have replied "so what are you going to do, bleed on me?"

But he's far too classy.

Nailed him!!!!

“the survey at the end of the debate:
https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Debates/Political-Correctness
It’s part way down the page”

In short, Peterson has crushed the bloviating racist Dyson. No big surprise here.

That was interesting to listen to, but the left has no desire whatsoever with actually discussing political correctness. Every time you attempt to debate a leftist they degenerate into nothing but insults. Apparently, if the Dyson fellow didn’t have racism to rail about, he’d have nothing to say.

Well, maybe, but keep in mind that there are many components to "the left." Certainly those constituencies that are intellectually or economically invested in "the left" are untouchable by reason; they live in a bubble world, an echo chamber, that's like a cult in many ways.

But there are other parts of "the left" that it doesn't make any sense to write off.

For example, the young, and the very young. My daughter's a senior in high school, and my son's a college senior. Pretty much every one of their friends and acquaintances is a liberal.

Those kids are reachable. My daughter is a full-blown conservative, but she reports that some of her smarter friends are getting tired of the relentless propagandizing to which they are exposed by essentially every one of their teachers (except science, math, and Latin).

My son and I had a long talk about politics when I was driving him back to school last weekend. His views are not very formed, but he's influenced by his friends.

When I told him about the surveillance operations done by Obama against PDJT, it was obvious that was the first he'd heard of it. When I explained to him why it's important, why it's very dangerous if the law enforcement and national security intelligence apparatus of the United States is used by one political party to spy on the other, especially during a presidential campaign, he was alarmed. He had never heard about it, and had never thought about it before.

So don't be too quick to write off "the left." It's not a monolith.

So don't be too quick to write off "the left." It's not a monolith.

I'd not say that I "write off" the left, but I don't really have the inclination anymore to give them the benefit of the doubt. I generally ignore them unless I can't avoid it, because there is no logic or reason to them despite their protests to the contrary.

One thing I noticed about that 'debate' was that they apparently couldn't locate two actual conservatives to participate in it. At best Peterson is a classical liberal, and I suspect Fry isn't even that, though they both deplore the excesses of modern illiberal 'liberalism'.

Another is that Peterson missed a major opportunity when Dyson called him an "angry white man". IMO, his best response to that would have been to point out how inevitable it is that when arguing with a modern liberal, that they always stoop to name calling, because they don't really have anything else to say.

One thing I noticed about that 'debate' was that they apparently couldn't locate two actual conservatives to participate in it. At best Peterson is a classical liberal, and I suspect Fry isn't even that, though they both deplore the excesses of modern illiberal 'liberalism'.

I've listened to quite a lot of Jordan Peterson, and I haven't heard him say anything I disagree with, not even slightly. I'm not aware of any deviation between his views and mine. I admit that I'm not sure of his views on the RKBA, but he is a Canadian, not an American, so there's no particular reason for him to volunteer his views on that subject.

He doesn't identify himself as a "Conservative" for reasons that he keeps to himself, as far as I know. He seems to be a person who simply follows facts and history to their logical ends, and takes his own conclusions seriously. He is so well educated, and his logical faculties are so powerful, that his conclusions strike one as worthy of full belief.

If you've listened to his lectures you know that he can be very funny at times, seemingly without meaning to, and that he is willing to admit surprisingly intimate details of his own thinking, such as by talking about problems that he has not been able to figure out. He's also willing to poke fun at himself.

He has put himself on record as stating he would defy Canada's laws against hurtful speech, would refuse to pay any fine levied against him for breaking those laws, and would go to prison before apologizing for doing so.

If he's a classical liberal, than I'm a classical liberal too.

Another is that Peterson missed a major opportunity when Dyson called him an "angry white man". IMO, his best response to that would have been to point out how inevitable it is that when arguing with a modern liberal, that they always stoop to name calling, because they don't really have anything else to say.

OK, if that's your style. I've found that it's more effective to let others reach their own conclusions about what motivates liberals, rather than explicitly pointing out those motives. It's more a style of debate than a missed opportunity, in my view. There is such a wealth of Conservative views available today from many sources, that anyone who begins to go down the path that leads from the liberal swamp to the truth of Conservatism will readily find encouragement and reinforcement on their own, which is the best way to find it.