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?

Also it seemed that Mairead was being paid by the word.

I thought he came across well there, better than in some of the one to one's I have seen. More importantly what has happened to question time, I haven't watched it in a while and thought it was flabby and just all over the shop. David dimbleby didn't control it sufficiently. Great to hear the defence of Julie bindel.
Jordan Peterson does sound vaguely sinister when he states the UK does not yet understand the mistake they have made in curtailing speech, but as we are finding out he is right.

I thought he did well. I agreed with most of what he said although disagree a bit on the priorities. He was being uncharacteristically disciplined in his word choices.

Too much audience participation at the start then, at the end with Dankula etc, no participation at all.

The Irish woman was very rude. She kept speaking over everyone and didn't listen to Dimbleby.

I was glad Julie Bindel got a mention.

Was it just me or did Aaronovitch hide behind Bindel rather than give his own opinion on the Trans issue.

I thought I picked up that he -didn't necessarily agree with her -or some similar formulation?

I don't think he hid, I think he was defending her and shining a light on it all. He may or may not agree with her and it wasn't a question about the transgender issue it was about free speech. I really liked him.

Totally hid behind her - didn't he even say he didn't necessarily agree with her?

He spoke up for free speech and against no platforming. I was pleased.

I'm about half way through. They spent 26 minutes on knife-crime and stop and search. That seems excessive. It is a major concern in some parts of London but did it merit almost half the programme?

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

It was a slip. She meant the relatives of people who died at Grenfell. And she did correct herself.

I don't see the point of having Peterson here, which is likely to be a one off, and giving him almost no time to speak yet allowing Diane Abbott to drone on at length. It's not like we never see or hear her.

DA also said something along the lines that Glasgow had shown the greatest improvements in knife crime in this country. Perhaps she should endeavour to be more precise in her speech.

I really struggle to get past Dianne Abbots finger wagging roll her eyes towards the ceiling style of delivery.

She's forever looking for the answers on the ceiling tiles.

I always quite liked Diane Abbott but have heard too many of her remarks on This Week over the years to really agree with her much these days. She's not been well and she isn't the spark she was, However I think she spoke reasonably well last night. She does have knowledge of working class people which is getting rarer so she grates on me less than she otherwise would.

However the point about there being no true line between speech and action I do find a worrying argument leading to the " words are violence" mantra of activists nowadays.

What was the bad language? I'm sure at the beginning I got a "there is offensive language in this" warning but don't recall any swearing although I may just be immune to it

Agree Dimbleby spent far too long on knife crime, especially audience comments and not enough on later issues that are more relevant to non Londoners. People don't watch question time to listen to random audience members. There are talk radio stations if you just want to hear general public opinions on stuff. let the questioner say a couple of sentences and maybe an occasional audience comment but otherwise the panel is big enough (I think too big) for a range of opinions without needing extra voices.

He was right about the dangers of curtailing free speech.

We have a clear example: it is exactly what is allowing the trans ideology to take hold.

It's the trans issue, and then JP, that has made me realise that free speech is the fundamental principle that must be protected. My thinking on 'hate speech' has shifted because of this.

Dina Abbot,and the other women, haven't grasped this, with DA claiming 'hate' exists- well yes Diane, that's not what is being said, we know hate exists but do we ban hate?

and the other women banging on about the holocaust anniversary; well yes, so are you saying the way to avoid another fascist state is to control peoples speech and thinking?? Why might that be a bad idea??

Simplistic virtue signalling.

2rebecca
At one point Diane Abbott used the N and P words (which is prissy of me but I'm not going to write the full versions).

BabyItsAWideWorld
Peterson also asked who gets to define hate. If it's someone like Owen Jones then there will be a lot of hateful fascists out there to be 'crushed'.

Yes, I don’t agree with unlimited rights to eg racist speech or holocaust denial or homophobic speech. I would see the EDL banned for instance and same with Britain First. So I cannot get on board with a simple ‘free speech is always great’ agenda.

Well maybe we should have a bit more conviction with the strength of our arguments when dealing with the above morons instead of banning them. As far as I am concerned if you give these people enough rope they eventually hang themselves very publicly.

Some people wanted to ban Nick Griffin from appearing in Question Time for his racist views. What happened? He appeared and made a complete arse of himself on national tv before crawling back into obscurity.

There were calls for David Irving to be ‘banned’ yet his Holocaust denying arguments were ripped apart in the academic world before being ripped apart again in the courts. Who listens to him now?

As for your average run of the mill homophobic religious leader or bigot down the pub they are laughed at by mainstream society for the morons they are. Let them espouse their views and let us point and laugh at them.

Banning is not the answer

Agree with that Pan.

It's very "non resilient" to be no platforming and banning folk. Oh and Twitter / YouTube is another part of this. Are they platforms or publishers?

Banning them makes conspiracy theorists look conspired against for a start.