-On C-16, jail, and fines: see C-16 and surrounding legislation. My concern is not whether it would be ‘extremely unlikely’ if someone would be fined or ultimately jailed for not paying the fine, my concern is how the law can play out. Could such a scenario happen lawfully the way things are explicitly spelled out in Canada? Also consider that even making a YouTube video questioning the legislation back in 2016 got Peterson in trouble at his university. Teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd was brought before what could only be called an inquisition for daring to show a clip of a TV interview including Peterson to a class at Wilfrid Laurier University. Toronto lawyer Jared Brown also expressed skepticism toward the legislation and how it is being implemented.

-On pronouns: context is important. He had made accommodations for students. I have heard of no cases in which he has refused to call students by their preferred pronouns. As far as I know, no transgendered students asked to be called anything other than one of the two standard pronouns. As far as the singular ‘they’ goes, I have no idea if he has agreed to use it. He has expressed skepticism toward it. I would too if I had to say things such as ‘they was going home’ or ‘they likes that song.’ I have heard of no cases in which any person seriously wants to be referred to with any of the made-up pronouns (from ‘zhe’ to ‘wormself’).

-On Southy: The name-calling does not make the arguments invalid, though it does not help her credibility. Additionally, her arguments do not address key complexities present in Peterson’s work. Some of what she says is either downright misleading or just wrong. Take the following quote for example: “What he’s telling you is that certain people — most of them women and minorities — are trying to destroy not only our freedom to spite nonbinary university students for kicks, but all of Western civilization and the idea of objective truth itself. He’s telling you that when someone tells you racism is still a problem and that something should be done about it, they are, at best, a dupe and, at worst, part of a Marxist conspiracy to destroy your way of life.”[1] He’s actually not saying much of this. What drove me from the (libertarian) left a while back was the tendency for leftist thinkers to conflate things on such a constant basis. Jordan Peterson is concerned with political overreach, anti-individualism (identity politics), as well as the influences of Postmodernism and Neo-Marxism. He is not blaming women and minorities. He goes after ideologues and criticizes those preaching collectivist notions. Peterson’s defense of the West is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. He is a classical liberal arguing that the value of Western Civilization lay in such principles as individualism and capitalism. He has also pointed out that there exists all too many authoritarian regimes in the non-Western world. Europe and the United States are desirable destinations for large numbers immigrants and refugees. Saudi Arabi, in contrast, is not. (Where are the leftists in their criticism if human rights abuses in that country? Where are the feminists to stand against the oppression of women in that country?). Peterson has NEVER stated that racism is not a problem.

-On violence and hate crimes: My general perspective is shaped heavily by the data for overall trends. While there may be limited upticks in violence (which we should absolutely oppose), the overall trend is one of decline. What I highlight on the left is far from small. The far right has its own problems, thought has far less power. Additionally, it is clearer on the right side of the political spectrum what can and cannot be tolerated. My concern for the leftist positions is that there is a lack of clarity regarding that boundary. When has the left gone too far? It is not as easy to determine. Jordan Peterson has argued that advocating for equality of outcome is when you know the left has gone too far. My own position is to look at the political compass from a libertarian-authoritarian perspective. I stand in opposition to anti-individualistic laws, heavy top-down government, and attempts to undermine the basic freedoms in the Bill of Rights. I sympathize with center-left concerns but disagree with many of the solutions because they do not adequately address the potential dangers of increasing the power of the state.

-On chaos and order: Human nature really doesn’t change (in stark contrast to technological innovations). He is not working to maintain an outdated status quo, he is promoting individualism and responsibility. I am concerned with the notion that traditional forms of human behavior are considered outdated in your eyes. I would stand by those early feminists who argued for equality of opportunity. We should stand against legal constraints preventing individuals from living life as they see fit. If, however, a great number of people wish to express themselves in ways consistent with traditional gender/societal roles, they should be allowed to do so without being marginalized. Millions of years of evolution cannot be undone by the political ideals of yesterday.

­-I do share some of the concern you express toward his website. Though I’d like to think he would never go so far as to blacklist people, he would have to tread very carefully. Charlie Kirk has already established a website which lists professors he and his supporters find dangerous. This is not the answer. This is where dialogue comes in. While I sympathize with Peterson’s opposition to the garbage being taught in the social sciences, creating a website with material going beyond the courses to include professor information quickly moves into questionable ground. It should be noted that Peterson has abandoned this plan.

-Peterson’s conception of postmodernism and (Neo-)Marxism is not wrong. These two terms do not exactly have fixed definitions. Postmodernism has splintered into a wide variety of movements (all based, to some extent, on skepticism toward grand narratives and value structures). The evolution of Marxists schools of though follows a similar trajectory: the oppressor-oppressed narrative from Marx’s analysis of the struggle between bourgeoise and proletariat has been applied in numerous other contexts (men vs. women, colonizers vs. colonized, straight vs. non-straight, etc.). Peterson’s analysis is not perfect but does contribute value to the overall analysis of the evolution of these two ways of thinking over the past decades.

-For some of your later comments (yes, I am running out of time and must be brief from here on out): your conception of the alt-right seems based almost entirely on left-leaning critiques. The alt-right is not that big. It has limited support. PragerU is conservative not alt-right. There is a MASSIVE difference between the two. I would not call their videos ‘nonsensical.’ I find myself agreeing with some material and strongly disagreeing with other material. My opinion of PragerU is not based on politics. I am interested in discussion and diversity of opinion. Aristotle once remarked that it is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. My support or opposition to certain views is based on experience grappling with them rather. I think it rash to condemn a conservative-leaning YouTube channel as ‘alt-right’ (based on no evidence). It is necessary to clarify what the alt-right is so it can more easily be opposed, not lump more people in with it based on no evidence.

[1] https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

Written by

Artist | Content Creator | Pantheist | Bohemian | Philosopher | Juggler | Anti-Authoritarian, Pro-Decentralization/Localism| http://www.instagram.com/kevinshau/

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store