Those of us who have been following Jordan Peterson’s work in recent years, have undoubtedly come across a wide variety of interviews, interactions, lectures and speeches across a broad spectrum of topics he discusses and writes about. Some of which we agree, some of which we may not. This is the same mentality that interviewers, protesters and fellow debaters have when engaging with him.
After viewing countless hours of his speeches and debates, and observing how he is often mischaracterised by those who differ with him ideologically, it is quite obvious that he has developed different tactics and mechanisms in order to confront the personal attacks on him and his work, based on these ideological differences, and he is expertly able to distinguish between genuine disagreement, and hostile attempts at character assassination.
The video below is a compilation of him confronting various attempts at character assignation and individuals trying (and failing) to frame his arguments in such a way as to back up their predetermined, often unjustified, mischaracterisation of his arguments.
Jordan Peterson is often thrust into the limelight by the mainstream media because of his various stances that run against the prevalent narrative espoused in their radical circles. He is unapologetic for holding the views he holds and often intellectually surpasses the individuals sitting opposite him in the debate. Once this fact is realised by these individuals, the discussion radically turns to personal attacks on him and shouting political talking points without citing any evidence to back their ridiculous claims.
The idea of feelings over facts is unfortunately not new in modern times. Individuals who believe it is appropriate to disregards facts that provide evidence contrary to their beliefs are often the loudest voices in the room. This is obviously not productive, as this leads to conclusions being based on emotion as opposed to reality and this has dangerous consequences for the world. This can lead to harmful legislation being passed without any evidence justifying it.
Jordan Peterson faces this lunacy head on and this is why radical ideologues who oppose him possess extreme motivation to silence him. He does not stand for this.