Stephen fry and jordan peterson

7.75  ·  5,069 ratings  ·  578 reviews
Posted on by
stephen fry and jordan peterson

Political Correctness Gone Mad? by Jordan B. Peterson

A terrible debate in which the debators failed to define the term they were discussing and as a result failed to reach any common ground regarding the topic at hand.

Peterson tried to steer the conversation to the topic and had none of his points or questions addressed and seemed impatient.

Digression Dyson constantly ranted about whatever he felt like.

Fry was trying to reach a common ground between both sides and merely managed to get Goldberg to empathise with him before they all ran out of time.

Goldberg failed to have a good discussion as she and Dyson were too focused on attacking Peterson.

Overall a non result.

Could have been good if they all agreed upon what they were talking about in the beginning.
File Name: stephen fry and jordan
Size: 63454 Kb
Published 19.01.2019

Stephen Fry's Munk Debate on Political Correctness - Highlights

Stephen Fry

Recently, I came across a surprising book beside the tills in Waterstones. Political Correctness Gone Mad? I thought this one was worth investigating. For two painful hours, the antagonists failed to agree on a definition of political correctness that would make the debate fit for purpose. Even Peterson and Fry were talking at cross-purposes. Yet here it was, immortalised between hardcovers as if it were the Lincoln-Douglas debate of our times. This format is essentially a game, with winners and losers and a set of rules.


Munk debate- My favourite Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry Parts

Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover.

Munk Debate members have access to past debate media downloads. Premium and Basic members have access to all full length video, transcript and podcast downloads. Is political correctness an enemy of free speech, open debate and the free exchange of ideas? Or, by confronting head-on the dominant power relationships and social norms that exclude marginalised groups are we creating a more equitable and just society? For some the argument is clear. Political correctness is stifling the free and open debate that fuels our democracy. It is also needlessly dividing one group from another and promoting social conflict.

Opposing them were University of Toronto professor of psychology and successor to the late mayor Rob Ford as the most famous Canadian in the world outside Canada Jordan Peterson, and English comedian and actor Stephen Fry. It was as much an exercise in cultural anthropology as a debate of the merits of political correctness. Professor Peterson was the only contestant who seriously attempted to address the issue. Professor Dyson delivered a vehement and rapid harangue. As if to convince doubters whose existence he seemed to imagine that there are black Americans who know a lot of long and arcane words and can gabble them out quickly though in his case not always coherently , he poured forth a torrent of righteous anger against slavery and segregation in the United States, which he apparently felt justified whatever strictures he wished to apply to white society, in the U. Dissenters of other cultures could simply be discounted, and, for good measure, excoriated. Goldberg, a fine exemplar of the New York journalistic left, invoked President Trump on four separate occasions.

4 thoughts on “Political Correctness Gone Mad? by Jordan B. Peterson

  1. Stephen Fry, the award-winning British actor, writer and activist, says I don't think Jordan Peterson is a man with whom I necessarily share an.

  2. A few days ago, Munk Debates teamed together two titans of wisdom and eloquence, psychologist Jordan Peterson and actor Stephen Fry. Their opponents were Michael Dyson and Michelle Goldberg. First, I think both Dyson and Goldberg made a solid observation about the framing and.

Leave a Reply