“Attempting to shut, and shutdown the man, is mere confirmation of many of his claims, even if you disagree with a good number of them”.

That's the way the Left deals with everyone, not just Peterson. The Left has to do this because they occupy a policy free, morals free, dead zone. If they thought that they had anything to say, the they would argue, not just ban and shut down.

Excuse me? PC exquisite Binoy Kampmark actually wrote an article defending free speech? Careful you don't get chucked out of your next plummy Government job for Conduct Unbecoming an Ideological Zealot, Binoy.

This could be a good sign though. The left is now becoming so unpopular, their behaviour so violent, their demands so bizarre, and their logic so bankrupt, that perhaps even their notables like Binoy know it is time to jump off the sinking ship of leftism?

Foxy, Susieoncrack, Arjay, David F., David G., Craig Minns, and Aiden B., please take note.

We do not need folk with Alt-Right views disseminating them at our universities.

Nor allow funding from the same source to then allow it to decide what controversial contrarian views are acceptable!?

We need as never before, pragmatic speakers whose humanitarian views, reunite a fractured, Individualised, greed is good, society!

As opposed to the Alt-Right which seeks only to divide and foment hatred and rage, or radicalised robots!

Perhaps we could allow (edited) footage of televised debate where speakers for the left and the moderate middle are given a chance at a rebuttal and to very thoroughly debunk those nation and unity harming, inhumane views!?
Alan B.

Why should a faculty of "divinity" which is supposedly in existence to promote a Christian (religious) world view accept Jordan Peterson as a visiting fellow when (as far as I know) even though he promotes Christian based ideas, he does not even claim to be a Christian.

There is nothing particularly Christian religious, and certainly not Spiritual about his 12 Rules For Life. They are really just applied (adult) common sense - equally applicable to anyone, including atheists.

Re Ralston College, if you check out the people associated with it most/all of them are very much on the right side of the culture wars divide - as indeed is the highly over rated Roger Scruton.

maybe the left are scared that people lying about their idenities like Pocahontas are doing them damage. Think of the number of real Indians that might of got the jobs she has taken. Mind you why anyone who would claim to be Indian while claiming that Indian Americans are greatly discriminated against defies logic. Sorry I forget marxism was never about logic.

Thanks for that runner and backing up, if unintentionally, my previous comment?

One would have thought that most of the Alt-Right would be pulling their heads in after the Christchurch massacre of worshippers at prayer!?

Except those so divorced from normal human empathy, so as not to care what effect their racist rant has on the impressionable malleable minds of the immature and intellectually challenged!

You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about a Native American sitting in the Senate.

As I understand it, the decimated Indian tribes accept a 25% Indian of mixed race as their kith and kin! So why can't you?

Or does being a bigoted racist sit so well with you? You are now so addicted to that particular mindset? You are unable to re-evaluate and become less hostile and more fair-minded as every other fair dinkum Aussie?

WORDS MATTER!
Alan B

'One would have thought that most of the Alt-Right would be pulling their heads in after the Christchurch massacre of worshippers at prayer!? '

You mean the eco facist who was convinced that the planet is overpopulated and saw communist China as the best Government. And you have the audacity to accuse me of a mindset Alan. One day truth might matter to you. It certainly does not seem to at this time.

Duck,

Peterson would agree with you, you don't have to be a Christian to feel some admiration for some Christian principles. I was just listening to a chorale by the British composer Vaughan Williams, with a narrator citing straight from the bible - Williams was not a believer, a pacifist and more on the Left than Right, but wrote some exquisite music based on Biblical texts, a Masque for Job, for example.

I have no trouble, as a non-believer, with tracing many of my core beliefs (such as I have any, some would say) to aspects of Christian principles - the parable (story, tale, hypothesis) of the Good Samaritan, for example. The sacrifice made by Tamar always moves me. Job's defiance of God, in God's gamble with Satan about who Job loved most, etc., inspires me (why the hell Job's story is in the Bible baffles me, God doesn't come out of it with any glory, merely as a big-shot bully, which most of us would be familiar with in the worst jobs we've ever had).

It's important that people have some moral foundations, and if mine relate indirectly to some aspects of Christianity, that's fine with me. I also find a few aspects of Islam quite admirable, and of course in Buddhism as well.

But you can call me alt-Right if you like, I don't accept that description. The question is: do YOU have any moral principles, and where do they originate ?

Cheers,

Joe

Some weeks ago I listened to (watched) the discussion between Roger Scruton and Jordan Peterson sponsored by the Cambridge Platonist Society. It is titled Apprehending the Transcendent.
Some comments.

They were introduced as two of the foremost intellectuals of our age, which plain and simply just ain't true, and is indicative of the Spiritual, cultural and intellectual poverty of the Western world in this time and place.

The discussion was incredibly boring - I turned it off after about twenty minutes.

There was no indication that they had any real notion of, let alone experience of The Transcendental Reality in which all of this is spontaneously arising.

"We do not need folk with Alt-Right views disseminating them at our universities."

Given the article was specifically about Jordan Peterson perhaps you would care to enlighten us to some examples of his views he specifically shares with the alt-right that are not just a case that there are places where the alt-right agrees with much of the centre.

BTW how do you feel about folk with far left views disseminating them at our universities?

I'm not too bothered if the far left have a chance to put their case, very bothered if it is done in a way that excludes any serious challenge to those views.

R0bert

You want an intelligent panel discussion with speakers who hold "humanitarian" views, Aiden B? Well, it already exists. It is called "Q&A" on the Australian Brainwashing Corporation, and it is exactly what you want. "Q&A's" idea of a "balanced" discussion is to have a right wing speaker like Mark Steyn, being shouted down by a nominally left wing speaker, a moderately left wing speaker, an extreme left wing speaker, and an absolutely crazy socialist who even Joseph Stalin and Hitler would look askance at.

It is why the ABC is losing intelligent viewers. Conservatism is the new punk. Leftists are the new moral puritans looking down on their deplorable inferiors and telling every body else how we must live.

Naturally, this does not go down too well with most of the population and the Left is starting to figure that out. So there is a need for political censorship to shut up right wing speakers like Milo, who attract the very non conformist young people that your side pretends to represent. The funny thing is, it was once the left who were the champions of free speech against the policies of the right. But now that the Left is the establishment, it need to do what it once claimed was absolutely evil to protect it's failing ideology from well deserved criticism.

When you have to resort to political censorship, your ideology is bankrupt. But I understand how uncomfortable your position is. With Europeans finally waking up to the real dangers of Islamic immigration (somewhat belatedly), your side desperately needs to stop free speech. Because criticizing Muslims and their religion in western countries will be certain to ignite a violent backlash from Muslims. Because you know, and I know, Muslims see nothing wrong at all with defending their religion with extreme violence.

And you know that won't be a good look for your beloved utopian ideal of multiculturalism. So your only alternative is to shut people up.

And you regard yourself as a progressive liberal?

Alan B,

Jordan Peterson is by no means alt right, he has never been racist, homophobic, sexist or any other form of bigotry

Shadow Minister, I wonder sometimes if they understand how rarely that claim is actually true or if it's just a smear used to try and put others off paying attention. Probably a mix of both.

R0bert

Robert,

I have no problems with far-left viewpoints being discussed at universities. I have no problems with far-right viewpoints being discussed at universities, although I certainly abhor such viewpoints.

And I would strongly support the teaching of history from all viewpoints, with emphases on Chinese, Muslim, Native American, Indigenous Australian, Indian, African and any other interpretations of history. Something happened, after all, so surely it's important to try to understand what actually DID happen and why ? What were the factors leading up to crucial events (say, the Ottoman capture of Constantinople, or the capture of Asian trade by the Portuguese around 1500, or the bursting our of east-central Asia of the Mongols around 1200, and again by Timurlaine around 1400 ? Did Timur really butcher the entire populations of cities like Merv and Baghdad ? What were the factors leading to the Catholic-Protestant split in Europe around 1530-1540, and what were its repercussions ?)

We need to get one thing straight: we (or our ancestors: us, then) have all been utter bastards when it came to seizing advantages where 'we' saw them. We've all got blood on our hands, or at least some of our ancestors have. None of us have been angels. To that extent, we can't blame remote history for the current situation that many people have to endure, such as in Yemen, north Africa, Syria, Afghanistan, Cambodia.

We can all bitch about the evils of someone else, and use that as a pretext for doing nothing, or for doing evil, as if one evil equalled and called forth another. As someone with Scottish ancestry, should I re-live Culloden ? As someone with Irish ancestry, can I go back to Cromwell ? As someone with English ancestry, can I go back to 1066 ? And so on, ad infinitum. When does whingeing stop ?

Joe

Peterson is not just another troll, narcissist or
blowhard whose arguments are fatally compromised by
bad faith, petulance, intellectual laziness and
blatant bigotry. This individual has a title and
profession that lend a certain illusory credibility.

His preferred image is that of a coolly rational
man of science facing down the hysteria of political
correctness. His new book - 12 Rules for Life: An
Antidote to Chaos has been a runaway bestseller in the
UK, US, Canada, Australia, Germany and France.
Making him the public intellectual du jour.

He tells his audience that " the idea that women were
oppressed throughout history is an appaling theory."
That Islamopobia is "a word created by fascists and
used by cowards to manipulate morons." That "white
privilege is a Marxist lie," and believing that
gender identity is subjective is - "as bad as claiming
that the world is flat."

But it's wrong to call him a " provocateur" - as if
he's just another Milo Yiannopoulos with a PhD.
He's a true believer. He's obsessed with telling his
adoring fans that there is a secret cabal of post-
modern neo-Marxists hell-bent on destroying western
civilisation and that their campus LGBTQ group is a
part of it.

The threat is not so much about what Peterson's
beliefs are - but how they detract from more critical,
informed, and, frankly, interesting conversations.

Disinviting him from Cambridge was a mistake. Let him
speak - let the students judge him for themselves.
Most will be able to see his very theatrical approach
that shrewdly exploits platforms that thrive on
spectacle, controversy, fear and prejudice.

Foxy,

I can see that in common with most of the left whingers on the site that you are content to read articles that misquote or quote out of context Jordan Peterson and probably haven't actually listened to him, because nothing he says or writes is sexist, homophobic, rascist etc, and the worst that the left whingers can find against him is a photo of him with someone with an "islamophobic" slogan on his tee shirt.

The very reason that the left whingers want to ban him from speaking is that the vast majority of those that do listen to him are swayed by his references to real and verified statistics and research instead of the hyperbole used by his detractors.

SM,

I've heard Jordan Peterson speak and found
him to be out of touch.

In many ways he's an
old-fashioned conservative who mourns the decline
of religious faith and the traditional family,
but he uses of-the-moment tactics. He loves to
dominate the conversation, and his title and
profession lend a certain illusory credibility.
His interview on 60 Minutes was a real eye-opener.

His approach is - very theatrical and shrewdly exploits
platforms that thrive on spectacle, controversy, fear
and prejudice.

And as stated earlier the threat is
not so much what Peterson's beliefs are - but how
they detract from more critical, informed, and, frankly,
interesting conversations.

Foxy,

My god, what unadulterated waffle. Let's translate what you said:

"I've heard Jordan Peterson speak and found him to be out of touch." I don't agree with him or his millions of followers.

" his title and profession lend a certain illusory credibility" = His professorship of Harvard, Toronto, multitude of papers with 1000s of citations makes him credible, but I just don't like him.

"His approach is - very theatrical and shrewdly exploits platforms that thrive on spectacle, controversy, fear and prejudice." - I can't reasonably criticise him so I will play the racism card.

"the threat is not so much what Peterson's beliefs are - but how they detract from more critical, informed, and, frankly, interesting conversations." His views are supported by years of practise and detailed research, but I prefer to listen to people that echo my views and would prefer that others don't hear him either.

SM,

I am entitled to my opinion.

As are you to yours.

However in discussions the one who has to stoop to
personal insults actually loses the argument and
their credibility. You really need to lift your game
and your outmoded tactics.

They impress no one.

SM,

So much for his views being supported:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life

Shadow Minister- Mate- I liked your argument. I also get offended when someone labels me outmoded. ;)

Good job Binoy Kampmark on the article.

Jordon Peterson's book was banned because of the NZ shooter.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/whitcoulls-pulls-jordan-petersons-12-rules-for-life-following-christchurch-attacks/news-story/44479280c616409d61042ccb148e4574

Canem Malum,

I also get offended when someone uses labels
like "Left Whinger," and makes accusations
like - "misquoting, out of context,
haven't listened to him, hyperbole..."
all the usual "öutmoded" tactics.

You're right labels belong on jars not people.
And if being called outmoded offends you -
then change your tactics.

Foxy,

Firstly, I never insulted you personally, I did however, criticise some of your more inconsistent utterings which is the point of the forum.

For someone that doesn't like labels, you sure use them a lot. You use the label:

"out of touch" When JP has clearly connected with millions of people sick of the identity politics, the political correctness and the intolerance of the left.

"old-fashioned conservative" when JP clearly advocates for gender and racial equality and equality of opportunity for all, and advocates against right wing policies as much as against left wing policies.

"illusory credibility" When JP has a huge body of published works that are widely cited, 20 000 hours as clinical psychologist helping people, and has held senior positions at the top universities in the world.

Then finally, you try and claim that his work is not scientifically supported by linking to a polemic by an relative unknown qualified in philosophy.

SM,

Terms like - "Left whinger"
is getting personal. And is used by you all
the time.

As for my critique of Jordan Peterson?
That's all it was - a critique.

Before you criticise others - start to improve
your own expressions and labelling.

Jordan Peterson is part of a new wave of intellectuals and politicians who are fighting back on behalf of Western Civilisation. The civilisation and its tenets and pillars have been under constant and persistent attack for the better part of half a decade.

But there is now a realisation of what we've lost and what we may yet loose, and an effort, uncoordinated but real, is underway to salvage what can be salvaged.

There are many leaders involved in this renewal including people like Peterson, Niall Ferguson, Václav Klaus and Ben Shapiro. Politically, of course, Trump leads the field but their are many others including the leaders of the new conservative parties in Europe.

Peterson, and others, infuriate the left because they refuse to play by the rules that the left invented and have used to dominate debate for the last decade or two. No matter what is said, call someone racist and they are supposed to suddenly step back, apologise and seek absolution. But Peterson doesn't do that and instead calls it out for what it is.

Trump is the same where accusations of being racist, homophobic etc are batted away with derision.

By sticking to a carefully considered set of principles and themes, Peterson is able to avoid being diverted into name-calling slanging matches and to humiliate opponents.

Every aspirational right-leaning politician should, and suspect have, studied and learnt from Peterson's "so you are saying" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54 )interview as a text book example of how to not be misrepresented and how to stay on message. And once the standard ad hominem debating methods of the left are neutralised, they really have nothing remaining.

Saving Western Civilisation is a going to be a close run thing. Had Trump lost or been overthrown by the deep state, it would have been over. 16 years of Obama-ism would have done it in the USA and therefore the rest of the west.

It still might fall to the attacks from the left. But its people like Peterson et al who have given it a chance of survival.

Foxy,

What you posted was not an honest critique, it was a character assassination based largely on falsehoods and your own prejudice. For example if you could show a single example of JP's prejudice that you accused him of on 60 minutes then you might have some credibility.

SM,

You say it was a character assassination - I say
it was a critique based from his many appearances
that I have observed. He's spoken on many issues
including the gender pay gap with Tara Brown on
60 Minutes. That interview is available on the
web to watch if you've missed it. If you still
defend the man after seeing that interview - then
there's nothing more that needs to be said.

In any case - as I keep trying to tell you - you
are entitled to your opinion - I shall stick with mine.

If Foxy wants to understand Jordan Peterson's views on "gender pay" she should watch the interview with Cathy Newman from UK's channel 4 which goes for about 30mins and covers the topic better than the sixty minutes one in which Jordan got about two sentences from memory to express his position which then passed to two other critical "experts". Foxy doesn't have to agree with the points raised in the Cathy Newman interview but at least she would have a more objective view of the subject matter perhaps. One of the key principles that Jordan Peterson uses in the concept of "equal opportunity rather than equal outcome". He seems to indicate that contrary to the view of feminists inequality in female vs male wages is not only about prejudice- he refers to a multivariate vs univariate analysis of the data. He indicates that wage inequality seems only related in a small amount to prejudice.

Anyway I believe that immigration is the more important and dangerous policy in the contemporary context. Sadly the identity lobby covers a range of policies including feminist ones which are mutually reinforcing but contradictorily don't necessarily have compatible self interests. Given that females constitute half of the population they can be a very useful and dangerous political tool for those that can direct them. Hopeful this female half of the population know what they are doing and how it will affect everyone in the medium to long term.

Feminists seem to be acting as the mouthpiece for females- it doesn't necessarily need to be so- especially when it becomes apparent that many feminist policies appear to be to the extreme socially liberal type that doesn't relate to the self interest and personal beliefs of those same females. Females are not necessarily feminist in the politically agitating sense. Females should find out what these Feminists believe and whether they believe the same things.

There are many in history that have learned to regret their use of power without wisdom.

Canem Malum,

I watched the whole Newman/Peterson interview.
Several times in fact. I thought it was a poor
interview. A missed opportunity. Which was a
shame because it meant that people did not get
to hear what Peterson says in his book.

In the pay-gap segment Newman tried to join
the dots rather than getting to the heart of
the issue such as the chicken/egg nature of female
dominated jobs being paid less. It was frustrating
to see his "hierarchy is biological" argument go
unchallenged as there is clear evidence that
egalitarianism is a evolutionary adaption that
benefited us in sustenance societies.

His blindness to existing gender roles which
decry equality of outcomes as only possible through
ïmmense social pressure amd tyranny"- an easy avenue
for exploration and criticism - was completely
missed in pursuit of a trap to crudely demonise
Peterson.

Still - to be a citizen is to engage and the Newman -
Peterson interview is a model of that engagement.
To quote the great African American scholar -
Henry Louis Gates:
Let them talk.

I don't like people who reduce human inter-action to tedious
name-calling.

It's good that you have seen the interview. And have made the effort to analyse it.

I don't think Jordan Peterson is blind to existing gender roles- he just says that they are related to things other than prejudice. He goes into some detail on this. As to whether they are caused as you indicate by "social pressure and tyranny" is up for debate and perhaps yet to be proven in evidence. I suspect as is true for animals that human genders are adapted for different roles in the group structure.

Canem Malum,

I like reading your posts.

Foxy- I think I misread some of your previous reply but my answer remains pretty much the same.

Canem Malum,

I appreciate that.

Good, well thought out posts, Caneb Malum. (good Aussie name)

Lefties like Foxy once obsessed about equality. But with the granting of equality, women and certain dysfunctional minorities did not obtain equality of outcomes.

Unable to fathom or even admit that woman and men are different, or that races and ethnicities are different, they then had to find another more sinister explanation. They settled on discrimination, oppression and white privilege.

Real intellectuals like Peterson (as opposed to pseudo intellectuals like artz graduate lefties) calmly and rationally explain why this is simply not so. Jordan is a top notch psychologist and he explains in ways that most people can understand. As such, he is having a real positive effect on educated lefties who can relate to his explanations, and re consider their own inculcated, programmed beliefs.

We should not have to put up with people who reduce
interaction to tedious name calling simply because our opinions
differ from theirs. This is after all just an opinion forum
and each of us is entitled to have our different opinions.
It is corrosive no matter how tough you may be to log on and
see that torrent of false assumptions. It saps your
energy - what's the point.

That's why posters like Canem Malum are valued. To my knowledge
this man has not stooped to personal insults ever. Our opinions
often differ - but I appreciate his civility.

Foxy,

I congratulate you on watching the Newman interview. However, the logic of Peterson's argument seems to have eluded you.

That even in the Scandinavian countries where every occupation is equally open to all genders, the reality is that women overwhelmingly tend to choose occupations that pay less, and tend to work shorter hours. The call for equality by today's feminists is not based on equality of opportunity, but of equality of outcome. Where is the call for a 50% female representation in bricklaying?

Secondly, don't disagree that the evolutionary tendency towards cooperation is a strong base for the success of humankind, but that in no way obviates the biological imperative for hierarchies.

SM,

I don't need your Congratulations for watching the interview.
Nor am I deluded in what I saw just because it does not
agree with your take.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought-201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life

cont'd ...

Sorry for the typo - here's the link again:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201802/jordan-peterson-s-flimsy-philosophy-life

Foxy,

Firstly, I was congratulating you on diverting from your usual diet of left wing blogs,

Secondly I think you misplaced your glasses. I said that JP's logic has eluded you, not that you are deluded.

Finally, try this thought experiment. Take a group of 100 people of equal skills, 50 take jobs that are less pleasant but pay well, and 50 take lower paying, but more satisfying.

The new wave feminists effectively argue that the wages of the lower paid workers should be increased to equal those of the higher paid.

Plumbers generally earn more than nurses and there is nothing stopping women becoming plumbers or men nurses.

SM,

The reality is that there are gender pay gaps.
We're not talking about
lower paid professions and higher paid professions.
What we're talking about is people in the same
professions getting less pay for doing the same
work simply because of their gender. Men earning more
than women in the same profession.

Professions like:

1) Physicians and surgeons.
2) Human Resources Managers.
3) Top Executives.
4) Real Estate brokers and sales agents.
5) Retail salespersons.
6) Financial Managers.
7) Personal financial advisers.
8) Bar tenders.
9) Female truck drivers.
10) Securities, commodities, and financial service agents.

And the list goes on.

What is being argued is equal pay for equal work.
Females should be getting paid the same as their
male counterparts for doing the same job.
They're not.

Foxy,

Jordan Peterson never expressed any issue with the concept of equal pay for equal work, in fact he actively espouses it.

Now that we have dispensed with 90% of the so called wage gap let's have a look at the like for like jobs.

In most lower to middle rank jobs the pay rate is identical. However, statistically men work 10% more thus gaining overtime and or promotions.

SM,

Jordan Peterson stated that the gender pay gap has
nothing to do with discrimination - but is due to the
innate biological differences between the sexes.
That more agreeable people get paid less.
Which I found to be rather simplistic.

However be that as it may - the fact remains that in
this country according to the Australian Government's -
WGEA (Asutralian Gender Pay Gap Agency) - Australia's
full time gender pay gap is 14.1%.
Women earn on average $239.80 per week less than men.

$1,455.80 - full time av. weekly earnings of women.
$1,695.60 full time av. weekly earning of men.

The gender pay gap by state and territory -
lowest - Victoria - 9.3%

Highest - WA - 23.1%

Gender pay gap by Industry -
Lowest 5.1% - Public Administration and Safety
Highest - 26.9% Financial and Ins. Services.

I shan't be responding to you any further.

Foxy,

JP did not say that the pay gap had nothing to do with discrimination, what he said that it was one small factor amongst many.

That the full time wage gap is 14% on average again does not take in hours worked or job type. It is no surprise that the wage gap is the highest in WA. The prevalence of highly paid FIFO jobs that women eschew is almost certainly a major factor.

So to close the wage gap, get more of them into mining and less pushing paper in Victoria

SM,

I know what JP stated.
He's stated it many times.

ABS and WGEA data both show a gender pay gap favouring full-time working men over full-time working women in every industry
and occupational category in Australia.

I'm done.

Foxy,

I watched the senate presentation of that data of the gender earnings gap. When asked whether the figures for the earnings included were based on an hourly rate, the answer was simply that the figures were based on gross take home pay over the year, and factors such as extra time or unpaid leave were not considered.
So in reality the wage gap figures presented have a hole that you could drive a car through.

Posted by LEGO, Monday, 1 April 2019 7:07:42 AM- Good, well thought out posts, Caneb Malum. (good Aussie name)

Answer- Sorry for taking so long to reply. Thanks for your feedback LEGO. Most of what I said was just paraphrasing Jordan Peterson. I also agree with your comments here. Hopefully we can learn from each other- though there are some from who there are fewer lessons. Similar to Jordan Peterson I find going back to nature as a powerful way of establishing a baseline to human behavior. Many groups try to present themselves as spokespeople for certain groups- this is a way of making it appear that your group has a much wider reach than it actually does. It's a "fake it till you make it" strategy. But all groups can use these strategies- it's a toolkit- some are just better at it than others. It's difficult though when the expertise of the nations universities (such as the psychologists) are put to the traitorous purpose of destroying the nation. There seems to be threads of socialist culture pervading certain professions and especially blue stone universities- this seems to be toxic to free thought and objectivity. There are some very brave hero's at Blue Stone Universities that make comments on occasion

PS- Canem Malum means "Dog Bad" or "Bad Dog" in Ancient Latin. Call a dog a bad name and he'll be a bad dog.