There has been a lot of debate over the things Professor Jordan Peterson has been saying, particularly about freedom of speech and the reaction against political correctness. The Professor has been invited to give lectures at university campuses and there have been protests trying to shut them down almost each time, mainly due to his ideas about gender and gender pronouns. The people who protest these events are usually sympathetic to other movements such as ANTIFA and other gender based organizations, which makes them interesting to look at and respond to eventually.
The Professor is quite a learned man, he’s a professional psychologist and has been for quite some time, he has tenure at a university and has done many videos on Youtube of lectures from his classes. He says that the people who protest him are Marxists, and maybe they may hold a very limited notion of Marxian ideals, but overall their tactics and ideas that they advocate for don’t say Marxism, they say Social-Democracy. While protesting is a form of avocation of an idea, these protesters don’t seem to have countering viewpoints, they just don’t like what he has been saying, which is perfectly fine.
I would only argue that if they can shut Professor Peterson down, then by their logic anyone else who speaks can be shut down as well. I think one of the basic principles of Marxian thinking is that everyone should be able to express their ideas within society, and then society will choose which to go with. Obviously by that point it’ll be done within the context of the party or the local soviet, but still they’ll have the opportunity to go about choosing different view points. As much as Leon Trotsky was reviled within the Bolshevik Party he was still given the chance to pass out flyers and pamphlets on his ideas, he was aloud to form a power base even if it would eventually conspire to overthrow the government, if they can let someone like Trotsky speak then someone like Jordan Peterson should be aloud to speak as well.
Every ideas should be able to be expressed in a fair and open way, that’s the real purpose of our printing.
This selection comes from a video of the Professor called “Jordan Peterson explains why his speech got silenced.” I hope you enjoy it.
A link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RHn-EqdAqU
Well I can tell you a little bit about why these attempts to shut people down are being made.. Because you need to know this.. So, as far as I have been able to determine, this kind of protest is an expression of a philosophy that is grounded in Post-Modernism and partly in Marxism.
Now, the Post-Modern element is basically this “there is no such thing as genuine individual identity, what there is is group identity. And, like it or not you only have the interests of your group, and the whole world is nothing but a battle ground between groups with different interests.” There is no dialogue, there is no possibility of talking to groups, it’s just a power stage where combat has to take place.
And so the reason that speakers with whom the radical Post-Modernists and the Marxists don’t agree are denied a platform is because those people do not believe from a philosophical position that dialogue can bring consensus. And all that’s left if you forgo that particular principle is this.. And this is only where is starts.
The fact is that you’re all pretty damn civilized, and thank God for that. Because if there were enough fools in the crowd especially those who’re intent on violence this would turn out very differently. And we do not want to go down that pathway, it’s a big mistake. We’ve been down that pathway many many times.
(There was a question asked to Professor Peterson, and he responds)
I would certainly not conform to a consensus that was against my beliefs, merely because it’s a consensus; often the group is wrong. The question was “if there was a consensus against my beliefs, would I forgo them?” And the answer to that would be:
1st- It would depend on what my conscience said. What are we going to do? Assume that the consensus is correct? The Nazis had a consensus, right? The individual has a conscience. And you have to know when the group has made a mistake, and become nothing but a maddening, chanting mob. In which case, what you should do, is detach yourself from the massive, chanting mob.
(Another question was asked to Professor Peterson)
So there was a question, the question was stemming from my personality class, “do I think that people are willing to abide by their conscience are people who have integrated their shadow?” And I would say yes, because you have to be a bit of a monster to stand up to the crowd. If you’re too concerned about if people like you, and if you’re too avoident of conflict, then you’re going to cave at the first sign of pressure. And you don’t want to do that, because if you let people stop you from moving forward you just end up being someone who has stopped, and if you’re someone who’s stopped then you have no life in you.
And that’s no good, so you have to get tough. But you have to get tough in a way that’s controlled. It has to be controlled, because otherwise you’re the puppet of your worse impulses. And that’s a terrible thing to be.