Free speech

I love this interview. It's Jordan Peterson vs. Cathy Newman from Channel 4, it was a car-crash for Newman but that aside, if you want to understand why free-speech must include the right to "offend" then watch the exchange that happens from around 21:35 minutes in.

Essentially Newman confronts Peterson with his well publicized views on a recent Canadian law that makes it mandatory to refer to people using pro-nouns of their choice. Famously, Peterson refuses to accept the concept of legislated speech labeling it identity-politics of the most dangerous kind (and he's right). Newman tries to put Peterson on the spot by asking why he thought that his right to free-speech should trump trans people's right not to be offended. With his response, Peterson rather cleverly turns it around by pointing out that Newman is not in the slightest bit worried about offending him by asking questions and making assertions designed to make him feel uncomfortable, she is effectively exercising her right to free speech in order to learn and to probe the truth of Peterson's claims! Then, he twists the knife by asserting that, this is how it should be! (Gotcha!) Her on-screen realisation that she's been perfectly snookered is toe-curlingly wonderful.

I believe Peterson is right, i.e. mandatory speech is a dangerous and unnecessary step for the Canadians. The Government is essentially legislating what specific words it's citizens have to use, this is distinctly totalitarian in spirit and begs the question what other special interest groups may now spring up and demand their own "special" words? Four legs good, two legs bad, it's basically a free-speech slippery-slope argument.

I like Peterson, he has a common sense, evidence driven approach to things that is refreshing and compelling and he's a very articulate speaker. My main area of disagreement with him is around Christianity and his seeming support for it. I do feel his views on this topic, specifically what "truth" means, are woolly and obscurantist. In my view his reasoning is muddled and leaning heavily toward special-pleading, as exposed in the debate with Sam Harris last year. On the complex behavioural topics around what motivates us and makes us happy, especially men and boys, he is very good (see his YouTube video-lecture series), the breadth and depth of clinical and scientific data he draws upon to back up his claims is impressive.