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.