Jordan Peterson on Question Time next Thursday

[HandsOffMyRights]

As somebody fairly new to the self ID debate, could somebody please tell me how Jordan is connected? And what (if anything) this means for next week?

"It'll be interesting to see how he copes on Question Time when presumably he'll have a strict time limit. It could make him or break him."

Break him? I would be amazed if it did.
In the last two years he must have been interviewed, often at depth, at least 300 times and from what I have seen the majority of interviewers were hostile, especially after Kathy Newman made such an arsehole of herself with him.
There seems to have been an unwritten contract on his head for any , mostly left wing, interviewer that "tripped him up" that would be paid in kudos. He's in the middle of a worldwide sellout tour at the moment.
He is very very against identity politics.
Funny enough I think we see plenty of that here. If somebody disagrees with you on one thing then nothing he says about anything else should be given any credence.
A good example being if TG comes up tonight you can guarantee he will be the only person on the panel that would dare to go anywhere near saying what 90% of posters here say, yet because he disagrees on patriarchy theory and causes of the gender pay gap he's a misogynistic prick to be avoided.
If the subject does come up tonight enjoy it because I don't know who the next intellectual will be putting their head above the parapet to put your point of view.

Btw, Jenny Murray has just pulled out of a talk at Oxford after students called to de-platform her for a "transphobic" article she wrote last year.

"He first got public attention by making a huge fuss about how he was going to use the 'wrong' pronouns for his students and this was the hill he would die on etc. "

No he didn't.

He said he would make his own mind and not be compelled to use a pronoun he didn't feel was appropriate.

A good example being if TG comes up tonight you can guarantee he will be the only person on the panel that would dare to go anywhere near saying what 90% of posters here say, yet because he disagrees on patriarchy theory and causes of the gender pay gap he's a misogynistic prick to be avoided.

It is possible to agree with someone on some issues and disagree on others. This has been discussed on this thread (or possibly the other one on JP which was started about the same time), so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

The sad thing about reading this thread is that's it's exactly the sort of echo chamber people rail against in real life, and elsewhere on the internet. It's filled with endless anonymous allegations, willfully inaccurate misinterpretations and name-calling.

I really admire him. He totally opened my eyes to issues around the transgender debate and also around free speech. Funnily enough I found him through a thread on Mumsnet a couple of years ago. I’ve watched all of his biblical series and learned a ton though I found it very hard to follow in places.

I think it’s simplistic in the extreme to label him misogynist and shut your ears to everything else he has to say - as simplistic as someone labelling GC feminists “transphobic”. His answers are complex because the topics he discusses are complex and he recognises that in a way most people don’t, and he is trying to be accurate and precise in his explanations.

Twenty minutes.

So looking forward to him trashing the rest of the panel

Accurate and precise my arse.

Verbose waffly word salad more like.

First question is on "stop and search". Nothing new being said. JP hasn't spoken yet.

Oh no! JP just said that "male" is a gender when discussing knife crime! 

Wow "male"? That's so racist!

He's made some good points so far about the problem of male violence

I don't watch this very often but don't recall the audience getting as much time to give opinions before. Too much audience

If the vast majority of someone's supporters are screaming dickheads, then that person is almost certainly a dick.
I was prepared to give Mark Meechan the benefit of the doubt, for instance (and I still think that prosecuting the stupid little man was a waste of time and public money) but the amount of slavering support he was getting from various 'contentious' alt-right figures made me less enthusiastic about him and his behaviour.

I have no idea what most of Petersons fans are like. I bought one of his books and think he's interesting but I disagree with him on many things. My son is more of a fan. I think we're both sane but I suppose I would. Most of the generalisations about him and people interested in listening to him come from people who seem OTT in their dislike of him. Most people I know interested in him like some of his stuff and dislike other stuff

FAR too much audience. JP being remarkably restrained and making good points.
If the vast majority of someone's supporters are screaming dickheads, then that person is almost certainly a dick.
That statement says more about the poster than anything else.

JP has come across as the most reasonable and thoughtful so far... he's also had the most cheers.

Julie Bindel getting a mention.

The Times journalist just mentioned Julie Bindel's no-platforming in reference to the Grenfell effigy and free speech. He supports Bindel.

Pleased with the opposition to hate crime and no platforming

If the vast majority of someone's supporters are screaming dickheads, then that person is almost certainly a dick

That statement says more about the poster than anything else

Yes indeed. It fits one poster to a t.

Don't know what they paid him to appear but value for money wasn't had as they hardly gave him a chance to speak. Big anticlimax.

Wish JBP had had more time to speak (as opposed to Diane Abbott saying she spoke to people who died at Grenfell).

I liked the panel tonight. Lots of good points and sane voices especially in the last segment on free speech.