Renowned psychologist and modern intellectual Jordan Peterson appeared on an Australian panel to debate Labor Party politician Terri Butler. Peterson and Butler debated on the topic of group identities and the consequences of being judged on that basis.
Peterson unapologetically dismantles the leftist politician’s argument, calling out her nonsensical talking points. Peterson was arguing that individuals should not be viewed solely through the lens of their group identities, pointing out plentiful examples throughout the 20th century where doing so had dire consequences. Somehow, Butler claimed this made Peterson sexist. Watch the intense exchange below.
It all started when an audience member asked the panel the following question:
Martin Luther King’s dream was that there would come a time when people would not be judged by the color of the skin but by the content of the character. How is today’s identity politics consistent with that vision?
Well, I don’t think it’s consistent with that vision at all. I mean, the the problem I have with identity politics as a as a mode of philosophical apprehension is that it’s predicated on the idea that the appropriate way to classify people is by their group identity in whatever fragmentary formulation that might take the multiplicity of ways that people can be divided into groups and classical, postmodern, and I would also say Marxist way of viewing the world, even though those two things shouldn’t be lumped together they tend to be is that group identity takes priority over individual identity. And I think that’s precisely the opposite of what Martin Luther King was hoping for and working for and I think it’s unbelievably dangerous, because partly because when you when you assume that people should primarily be identified by their group, then you can also Attribute Group guilt to them by their group, and then things go downhill very, very rapidly. And we’ve had no shortage of evidence of that sort of thing happening, say throughout the 20th century.
It is there isn’t a problem with groups. The problem is with assuming that the fundamental way that you should categorize people is with their group identity. Obviously, we all belong to groups. The issue is whether or not the individual identity is primary and the group identity is secondary, or the group identity is primary and the individual identity is secondary. If you’re a proponent, for example of equality of outcomes of quotas, then you de facto accept the proposition that it’s the group identity that is primary, and there’s all sorts of dangers that are associated with that. That far outweigh whatever good you’re likely to do.
The woke Labor Party politician hit at Peterson:
Maybe you just think that representative democracy should be representative. Maybe you just think that women should be equally represented in the decision making for our nation. Maybe that’s really just about having proper equality. In a body that’s meant to be representative.
Peterson completely destroyed her argument by responding with the following:
I do believe that women should have equality, I don’t understand your question, I guess. I guess you don’t. Well, how about did you phrase it more clearly, instead of just insulting me? Look at it this way. Let’s talk about quotas. For a minute. So there’s a very wide array of jobs that are fundamentally done by men. So for example of Parliament 99 point 9 percent.
Sorry. I’m having to get my minute to draw 99.9% of bricklayers are men. Should we have quotas for women? Is bricklaying representative democracy? That has nothing to do with the question. The question is if if there’s evidence of structural inequality and oppression because women aren’t precisely represented as 50% in all professions at all levels, and why don’t we have a conversation about having women represented in all professions at all levels? Why do we talk about the C suite for example, why don’t we talk about politics and positions of power? Why don’t we talk about it across the board?
Featured image is screenshot from embedded video.
"*" indicates required fields