In a speech on the YouTube channel “The Big Think”, Peterson told the viewers that liberals have not found a way to “box in” pathological leftism as their counterparts on the right have done with their crazies.
We need to begin by saying the right has been over-censored, especially since no normal person on the right supports the NAZIs (who are actually socialists) and the KKK. Many in power on the left think anyone on the right needs to be censored. Nothing on the sort is taking place on the left which allows Communist, Socialists, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Women’s March, and other far-left extremists have free reign.
In fact, major mainstream outlets go to great lengths to make excuses for the violence of Antifa as one example. One famed clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson is a lone voice calling for moderate leftists to put the clamps on the extremism of the left.
Undoubtedly, the right and the moderate leftists would define leftist extremism differently but his ideas are worth considering.
In a speech on the YouTube channel “The Big Think”, Peterson told the viewers that liberals have not found a way to “box in” radicals as their counterparts on the right have done. He said that right-wing groups embracing doctrines of racial superiority are ostracized but the left doesn’t do the same with their nutjobs (my word).
To digress from Peterson for a moment, we can agree doctrines of racial superiority are abhorrent, however, white privilege and other nonsensical doctrines are racisim against whites.
We also do not believe in censorship except over violent and terrorist groups and individuals.
To get back to Dr. Peterson. He told the 2 million plus viewers that this one-sided censorship needs to stop.
“What’s interesting is that on the conservative side of the spectrum we’ve figured out how to box in the radicals and say, ‘no, you’re outside the domain of acceptable opinion,’” the University of Toronto professor said. “Now, here’s the issue. We know that things can go too far on the right, and we know that things can go too far on the left. But we don’t know what the markers are for going too far on the left. I would say that it’s ethically incumbent on those who are liberal or left-leaning to identity the markers of pathological extremism on the left and to distinguish themselves from the people who hold those pathological viewpoints — and I don’t see that that’s being done.”
What does he mean by “outside the domain of acceptable opinion” and who gets to decide that? Where does the First Amendment fall in this? Peterson also talks of inequality. We should all want equality.
“I would say of the three, equity is the most unacceptable, the doctrine of equality of outcome,” he said.
“I think that’s a colossal ethical failure and it may doom the liberal-left project,” Mr. Peterson continued. “The lefties have their point. They’re driven fundamentally by a horror of inequality and the catastrophes that inequality produces — and fair enough because inequality is a massive social force and it does produce, it can produce catastrophic consequences. So to be concerned about that is reasonable, but we do know that that concern can go to far.”
The author stated i the end that “diversity, inclusivity and equity” can have the “have the same potentially catastrophic outcomes when implemented as the racial superiority doctrines.”
Equality of opportunity, not only [is it] fair enough, [it’s] even laudable. But equality of outcome? It’s like, ‘no, you’ve crossed the line. We’re not going there with you.’”
“I would say of the three, equity is the most unacceptable, the doctrine of equality of outcome,” he said. “It seems to me that that’s where people who are thoughtful on the left should draw the line and say nope. Equality of opportunity, not only [is it] fair enough, [it’s] even laudable. But equality of outcome? It’s like, ‘no, you’ve crossed the line. We’re not going there with you.’”
This is something the right can agree with. “Equality of outcome” is the doctrine of “disparate impact” and there is nothing equal about it. The doctrine is Marxist. It looks at outcomes and little or nothing else.
This tenet is the very institutional racism the left says they are against. It is the path to Socialism and Communism. This becomes an excuse to steal property, jobs, funds, and freedom from those who have earned it. The benefits obtained under this doctrine are then redistributed to those who have not earned it. It goes well beyond giving a hand up and becomes theft on behalf of the government’s preferred groups.
Most alarmingly, we do it already in housing and, increasingly, leftist judges make their decisions based on outcome alone.
This professor became famous for being different. A couple years ago, he opposed Canada’s “C-16 bill.” Peterson was called “transphobic” because he opposed langauge mandates for transgenders and other gender fluids.
Tucker spoke with Dr. Peterson about speaking the truth. Don’t lose your soul, he warns.