And you cant understand why its pointless to hash out anything with someone that considers himself infallible… cause you consider yourself infallible. You’re the hight of arrogance and I’d argue you even tower Jordan in this regard.
4:40 to 4:55 Fry reduces him to his core essence.
For anyone else, the Stephen Fry bit, take note how Peterson displays what I like to call "Roganitis", much like how Joe Rogan has "Hunter Bidens laptop / Hillary / Right wing talking point" Tourette's (cant do a show without somehow throwing those in there, so does Peterson, he leads into this podcast with "Radical Left" within the first three minutes of the show - and Fry shuts him down. Shuts him up in a straight up superior artistic fashion - its debatable if Peterson even gets it or just surrenders on the spot, think maybe its the latter... But god damn. Well done Stephen.
This is the stochastic propagandistic nature of these righties and their media, while Naiz's, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers are scheming to overthrow democracy ... These Orcs wont a single peep about the radical right ... But make sure to always throw a "Radical Left" in the stew for the audience. Cause society's biggest problem is Trans People. Ok Batman. Peterson is a piece of shit. So is Rogan.
Peterson initiates the conversation, Fry is his invited guest. Peterson tells fry he invited him in part because he known as a humanist atheist, someone he had the pleasure of having a previous conversation with two years before in Toronto where they got into the topic of political correctness, a subject he wanted to continue with in part but that his primary interest is to get his views on the relationship between narrative to empiricism and rationalism.
Peterson then asks Fry why he was agreeable to the interview, what he hoped could be accomplished in having it, his aim as it were. Fry explains that he is deeply distressed by the fissures that have opened up in liberal Western society, the inner divisiveness threatening it, and how only with a willingness to have meaningful dialogue can those differences be reasonably dealt and that contrary to the criticisms of people like you who see Peterson as dirt, he sees Peterson as an interesting thinker and a person worth talking to, that he has he believes, more in common with Peterson than say some of the people who support Peterson and that dealing with people who support you but out of a complete misunderstanding of what you are saying need to be repudiated.
Peterson then explains that he has done just that on the right more in his classes but that he is more well known on the internet for his opposition to certain trends on the radical left stating his belief that it is people on the moderate left that have the best chance of confronting those excesses.
The discussion then turns to the difficulty of drawing lines between where to divide radical from moderate, with Fry saying he disagrees that the moderate left can actually deal with the radical left as he himself is hated both by the right and the radical left.
In short your characterization of what was said is a ridiculous mockery of what was really said, a projection of your own blind prejudice and left extremism. It is people like you that the entire dialog up to that point was repudiating. Naturally that went right over your head. The rest of your post is similar bull shit. Please do not impute infallibility to me when it is child's play to repudiate your bull shit. You make being right profoundly easy when all that being right amounts to is pointing out where you fell off the ship of reality. Try to be more open to what people have to say. Maybe take your ear off your own asshole.
Facebook
Twitter