That's probably exactly right. People gather around ideologies that have advocates. They don't look at two extremes and say, "hm, they each have valid points, maybe I'm somewhere between these two", they say, "hm, this one thing side X says is something I really like so they must think most like me. Even though I don't particularly agree with a lot of the rest of what they say, and even if I disagree with side Y less overall, I belong in tribe X".

Moderation/centrism thus also needs advocates if we want a proper balance.

I hope he does the same thing with people who are flirting with the extreme left. I hope many of them follow his advice and are smart enough to read and understand The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks.

We have serious problems in Western society, but the extreme "solutions" suggested by both of these parties will result in a complete and utter disaster for everyone. Even worse, we are even already seeing some of the effects of some of these "solutions" in action.

As a very contrived analogy, you can dislike iOS and not be an Android fan.

For example, if as a Christian you don't like the idea of gay marriage, you better not mention it in a group, unless maybe if you're Muslim, in which case your oppressed religious status allows that. It's a social minefield that has been created.

If you don't push away the intolerant then those who are discriminated against figure out they're not welcome in the group and so they leave. Those who remain are the intolerant and those indifferent to intolerance. That results in very bad communities.

However, the centrist objection to today's leftist critical theory post-modernist rhetoric is not (as is too often asserted) "well, a little anti-semitism / sexism / racism / homo- and transphobia / genocide advocacy is okay in the interests of compromise and harmony with Nazis". This is clearly absurd, and no one reasonably would believe this. Those who spout reprehensible ideas should suffer social consequences. By all means, do not invite them to participate in your community.

The centrist objection is that the Overton window of ideas that are acceptable to express is becoming increasingly narrow while the reaction to ideas outside of this narrow band of acceptability is becoming so extreme that people who are merely misunderstood will have their lives destroyed.

Never mind "Nazi". Never mind the well-meaning Christian who has no personal animosity towards individual gay people but who sincerely believes their God said that homosexuality is a sin; we're talking a misunderstood joke (Justine Sacco; the fellows who were fired for their overheard "big dongle" joke); we're talking people appropriately using the word "niggardly" (meaning 'miserly', in use since the 1400s).

Calmly stated ideas, even the most reprehensible, must never be suppressed through violence or state sanction. Throughout history, ideas that have moved us forward ("It's wrong to keep other humans as slaves.") were met at some point with violence and suppression. A climate where the majority are convinced that deviation from a narrow band of acceptability must be met with extreme violence will suppress good ideas along with bad ideas.

As for your remark about calmly states ideas: hate speech laws exist for a reason in most of the world. The United States is the exception in its free speech absolutism. A lot more harm can be done by calm speech than by a baseball bat, and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights. I value free speech but I don't value it over everything else, and I don't think State suppression of free speech is meaningfully different from the many other ways in which speech can be suppressed.

->https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1115/Was-Eisenho...

Trump for me wasn't that different to any of the other Republican candidates, they all don't believe in global warming and have pretty much the same agenda. He just didn't dress things up and speak smoothly, like most politicians, but says it as it is.

As for Trump, the discussion was specifically about what people can _say_. Trump said things other politicians didn't dare say, and by doing so he made a big impact on the political discourse. As for his agenda, in a country of 325 million even small differences between republican candidates are really significant.

Then it should be easy for you to supply even one example where calm speech caused a grievous head injury.

"...and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights"

I cannot imagine a single right infringed by someone else's free speech. Again, perhaps you can supply an example?

But point taken. I did misspeak when I said "Calmly stated ideas". I meant, specifically, any idea that is not intended to cause imminent harm. Imminent being the operative word, there. So, to my mind, "I think minorities should be turned into lampshades." is reprehensible and worthy of social sanction, but should not be suppressed. "You should kill yourself!" to a suicidal person is dangerous and potentially criminal.

Let's turn it around:

Imagine someone expresses a racist idea, and then the universe splits in two.

In one universe, the person gets a punch in the nose and their books are burned.

In the other universe, a centrist says, "that idea is reprehensible, and here's where you have failed..." and then outlines ethical, philosophical and scientific objections to the racist idea. There is a calm discussion.

In which universe is the racist more likely to consume an underground press of unchallenged racist ideas? In which universe is the racist more likely to change their mind? Which universe is more dangerous, more likely to lead to violence?

From a centrist point of view, the suppression of stupid ideas is more likely to be dangerous, than having them out in the open.

Germany may be "one of the freest" countries, but they too now have far-right parties in their parliament and there have been hundreds of attacks (assaults, firebombings) on refugees.

Also, Neo-Nazi ideology is still popular in the East, despite all the efforts of the socialist government against it. If people are shoved an ideology down their throats, the alternatives suddenly look much more attractive. I'm firmly convinced that it is the left that got Trump elected, not the right.

Anecdotally I do get the impression that engaging with others about politics ('community scale') is much more explosive these days, on both 'sides' of various issues. I get the same impression when I think about the publications that often come up in conversations. It's like two parallel universes while I know for a fact that not too long ago reading habits included much more 'mixed' publications (also generally of lower quality, but I'd say that's not entirely relevant to the overton window 'issue')

Tolerance is radical "choosing to get along" or why bother?

You don't think Muslims are more oppressed than Christians? They're way more oppressed. It's Christians which get a free pass.

"You don't think Muslims are more oppressed than Christians? They're way more oppressed. It's Christians which get a free pass."

I don't even know what "Muslims are more oppressed than Christians" is even supposed to mean. There's no context.

If we're talking about expressing opinions on campus regarding gay marriage or abortion, I doubt Christians would get a "free pass" over Muslims.

They can only say "what they want" on account of their "oppressed" status. Everybody else has to censor their speech, for fear of offending those groups.

Of course, they can't really all say what they want, but opinion dissenters from the "oppressed" groups are merely written off as "sockpuppets" (i.e. victims) with a chance to repent, instead of being declared an outright enemy.

How about this?

http://www.thetower.org/article/in-the-safe-spaces-on-campus...

How else would you refer to the processes that lead to forcing professionals at these universities to use dozens of novel non-binary gender pronouns, or to shield students from content that may be considered "offensive" or "triggering"?

If you don't think those things are in fact serious problems, then I guess you aren't "woke" to that side of the debate. The "campus left" has done everything to brand all dissenters (including Peterson) as fascists, racists and trans/homophobes. That's an even bigger problem, because it signals cult-like behavior.

Maybe it's not bad at your particular university, maybe the examples in the media are not representative, but they are real.

Sarcasm aside... they aren't getting more respect. You can't force people to respect anything.

Here's what actually happens: People control their speech (but not their thoughts) around those "other" people for fear of social reprisal. They'll simply avoid socializing with those people for the rest of their lives.

Will they hire a gay/trans/black/muslim person? What a minefield! Better find something in their CV that makes them "less qualified"...

Few people will say these things openly, just like how fewer people would admit to voting for Trump. In the real world, Trump is still president.

This is the "anti-racists made me racist" argument. Non-racists don't turn into racists when their behavior is criticized. That's absurd.

Somehow, the media spins "a small group of people wants a place to occasionally discuss very sensitive issues" to "SAFE SPACES HAVE TAKEN OVER AMERICAN CAMPUSES". I dunno, maybe there are one or two campuses that are especially bad in this regard. But I can't help but roll my eyes at this kind of conservative pearl-clutching.

I think he gets postmodernism wrong and frankly, so do a lot of postmodernists. I see postmodernism as "Defense Against the Dark Arts". The postmodernist's tool kit -- the silly word games, denial of reality, and so forth -- are all borrowed from the right, and from capitalist society (in particular advertising and PR). And they play silly word games, talk in circles, and deny reality because they're preparing their students for a world in which the enemy have made that the norm for discourse. So when the postmodernist says "there is no reality" what they're really saying is the reality you know, and the rules for perceiving and inferring that reality, have been compromised. When Foucault says there's really no such thing as science, what he means is that science itself has been compromised, and you can't use science against the enemy because the enemy already controls it and will turn around and use it against you.

But I like Peterson's style -- bombastic without being antagonistic, and highly principled -- and about the psychology bits he has some really interesting things to say.

Forget Foucault (h/t Baudrillard)