I queued this to what I think is a watershed moment in a fascinating discussion, held from being infuriating solely by Peterson keeping his relative cool and eloquence responding to questions hardly befitting a high school student, much less a puffed up professional journo. She carefully tries to lay traps, but is so outmatched they end up clamping on her own fingers and toes. Like lobsters? It’s not that she’s dumb; clearly she isn’t. But she is obviously utterly possessed by ideology.
I have points I’d like to drill down on myself with Peterson, points of real divergence. I first discovered him some years ago now, and have watched his ascension with fascination, and appreciated his support of ideas and feelings with which I broadly sympathize. He has been and appears to be increasingly wrong on certain things. I find little to disagree with here, also sharing his world weariness about the sheer stupidity of the ideologies that seem to hold our cultural elite in zombified thrall. Ideologies that for all their spun candy floss seems to basically boil down to simply: “White (orange) man bad. Brown lady good.”
JP: “Part of the problem in discussions like this, and the reason I think that it indicates ideological possession, is that it becomes so predictable.”
GQ: “But having a coherent ideology means that it is predictable.”
JP: “You don’t need an ideology.”
Exactly! No ideology – not feminist, not nationalist, not antifascist, not even anarchist. Just questions, faith, and reason. Takes courage, intelligence, and care. Many today would seem to rather trade those in for self-righteousness, anger, and resentment.