I'll echo the sentiment of "useless interview", most of it was ungrounded rambling. I wrote a bit on the parts that actually seemed to have ideas going on. Whi

I'll echo the sentiment of "useless interview", most of it was ungrounded rambling. I wrote a bit on the parts that actually seemed to have ideas going on. While I can't comment on the bill being discussed (not Canadian and it looks boring), the claims this guy is making about it consist of sweeping generalizations about feminist academics and activists, and a weird obsession with Marxism, something that he also describes using sweeping generalizations, but it's weird because I can't put a finger on what exactly he believes is common among and unique to Soviet nationalist and contemporary social justice discourse. Of course, the most credibly leftist of the academics he blames for future human rights violations tend to be skeptical of or outright oppose the weird pronouns he hates, typically citing Foucault's theories about language and "medicalization". But rather than engage with something real, he talks about "revolutionary language", a concept that doesn't exist. The interviewer does make one attempt to reference a real person, Alinsky, but what Peterson responds with makes no sense to me. I think his point about academia is well represented by this quote, which is presented as an explanation of why all fields but STEM are stupid: >If you interfere with the mechanism by which people formulate problems, solve them, and negotiate their implementation, then problems accrue and multiply. That’s what a hydra is – cut off one head, seven grow back. The obvious problem with this line of thinking is that he never clearly specifies the source of interference, whether it's a toxic idea or a group of people. Maybe the bill is one, but it isn't retroactively turning everyone into authoritarian leftists (if we add time travel to the mix, a corrupt academia creating laws that ruin academia does make some sense) >They have a term – patriarchy. It’s all-encompassing. It means that everything our society is, is corrupt. There’s no line, they mean everything. Go online, go look at ten women’s studies websites. Pick them at random. Read them. They say ‘western civilization is a corrupt patriarchy right down to the goddamned core. We have to overthrow it.’ This is one of the sweeping generalizations mentioned. I think it's sufficient to rattle off the names of some oft-cited feminist writers who believe nothing close to this: Firestone, Butler, Baumgardner. Speaking of strawman he then proceeds to strawman one of his own arguments by claiming that gender discrimination NEVER existed in the West, and everything done to women was perfectly rational based on economic conditions. It sounds like I'm the one doing the strawman, but he was directly asked the question. That didn't put me in the mood to read the wall of text about intelligence and work ethic and success, guess I don't have the work ethic.