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.