[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

But hey, no one wants to be called a bigot so we’ll all just back off instead of being socially shamed.

This is actually the goal. It's much easier to tar people as morally unclean heretics than actually engaging with them. For example, Peterson's whole narrative about heroic figures and evolutionary competence misses more than one point about human relationships, but caricaturing it like this is:

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’d also suggest that toxic masculinity covers the same field that Peterson often talks about, without the scent of Strauss’ “Game.”

If Petersen wants to read that book and develop an academic theory out of it, he’s free to.

... is simply a dishonest and lazy smear against the guy. I think he's nuts, but I also think Michel Foucault was nuts, and Foucault's brand of crazy is featured in many a university syllabus. This cartoon continues to sum up the discourse on social issues.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Corsi did a decent job of summing up some of the issues with Peterson.

I mean, great, I'm glad you agree with me that the foundations of his thinking have no substance to them. But that doesn't justify trying to tar people as closet MRA's simply for being Peterson fans. I appreciate that at least when you're called out on it you tend to back up with a "whoa, whoa, what I actually meant was", and then an actual point... to wit...

An additional issue I have with him is he tends to fancy himself a constitutional law expert and whips his supporters into a frenzy despite demonstrating minimal knowledge in the subject.

I also agree with this. Both Peterson and Gaad Saad (another internet sensation Canadian professor popular with some of the same crowd, but somewhat less divisive) have really come across poorly on this subject. They'll rabble-rouse about the horrible impacts of Bill C-16 on a technical reading, but if you actually get someone who knows the law and how to interpret legislation to explain the nuances and point out where they're going off base, they'll simply say, "well, I'm not a lawyer," before going back to the same rhetoric as soon as said expert leaves the room. I understand and support the principles they're trying to push regarding compelled speech, but they're not honest brokers in this area.

Originally Posted by rubecube

"With all the accusations of sex assault emerging (eg Louis CK) we are going to soon remember why sex was traditionally enshrined in marriage..."
Sounds totally reasonable...

Again I disagree with his statement, obviously, but at the same time I'm actually sort of curious about why he said it. Given his bent for tying everything back into Darwinism, you'd think there's some theory beneath that statement about evolutionary pressure leading people into monogamous unions (which seems intuitively antithetical to the whole project of spreading one's genes). So I disagree with the statement on its face and suspect it's wrong on a deeper level, but at least there's probably something interesting to talk about, rather than dismissing it.

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not saying reasonable people can't agree with him. I'm saying the basic premise of this thread, that somehow he's entitled to a specific amount and type of coverage/platform based on how popular he is, and that somehow the lack of coverage is indicative of some sort of bias is nonsense. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why Peterson doesn't receive acclaim, coverage, etc.

I'm not sure what they are, outside of "he seems to be wrong about a lot of things, albeit in a way many people seem to find interesting". If that disqualified you from coverage, no one would get on the radio. As has been pointed out, taking insane ideological positions is hardly rare among CBC guests.

Meanwhile, the guy has a large international following, and a reasonable topic for a Canadian public broadcaster, it seems to me, would be to explore that and ask "what's all the commotion about", and to do so without the obvious agenda that the interviewer in the first post in this thread held.

So what's your explanation for the - pardon the pun - radio silence? Because I suspect it's simply that they don't want to court controversy, as the inevitable result of an honest interview with the guy that explores what he thinks would result in what you attempted to do to Cliff, above - accusations of misogyny, giving a platform to a bigot, fostering rape culture, and similar hysteria.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I disagree. It could be argued that if you find the CBC is no longer a custodian of of our public forum, that the issues you believe worthy of address are no longer of value to the public at large.

Intelligent people have idiotic ideas. We need not treat the latter any different because of the former.

You really need to figure out that people who see the world the way you do are not the arbiters of what is an idiotic or a good idea, or what the public at large is concerned with. The reaction to the Lindsay Shepherd thing ought to be proof enough of the latter. But in this case, you don't need to look anywhere beyond Peterson's own popularity to recognize that the issues he talks about are of interest to many people. It'd be nice to have him in a forum where the deficiencies in those positions would become clear (not by means of some inquisition, but by an honest discussion about them).