Comments
  1. You can check the final polled results of the debate here:
    https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Debates/Political-Correctness

  2. So it seams dyson is on the wrong side of the debated issue, the two arguing against political correctness are the ones who act in the most politicaly acceptable manner. The ones defending political correctness do so incorectly.
    Dyson scoffs at the "neverland" of british legislative tradition (disrespecting our culture) he insults the oposing opinions by using racial classification tu respond to well phrased polite arguments. And he quotes martin luther king but is oblivious to the fact that the civil rights movement was sparked by poeple like rosa parks who refused to bend to what was then considered as political correctness. All the progress made by the african american community in america is down to the opposition of what a governing body defined as politicaly correct. And he takes the assumption that because of stephen's homosexuality he must be by default attracted to him.. so he is a racist/homophobic professor (if you bahave in the way of the far left) who does not understand his own cause. But as clearly shown stephen and jordan botb refrain from reciprocating that behaviour because of a) political correctness and b) they are simply decent folk.

  3. this Dr. Dyson is simply blaming every problem in our society to the slavery. The basis of his thesis is based on making people feel guilty .

  4. 1:13:00

    "The mean white man comment was not predicated upon my historical excavation of your past, it's based upon the evident vitriol with which you speak in denial of a sense of equanimity among combatants in an argument. So I'm saying again, you're a mean mad white man and the viciousness is evident."

    It's telling how he doesn't realize the irony in this comment. And he had the stupidity to emphasize is twice. As if the enormous booing of the crowd wasn't enough to return his senses, he thought giving a thumbs-up was in place. What a hypocritical fool of enormous proportions.

  5. Why Dyson’s ending statement is about his personal stuff rather than proper reasoning for his premise

  6. Ok, this is epic getting Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson into the same room to discuss, shame that Dyson kind of ruined it tho.

  7. Louis C.K asked if he could show his dick and was replied with a yes. He lost 35 million due to me2, according to his own statements. And noone will contract a show with him.

    But no men that you cared to check in your cheese bell of insanity lost anything. Are you kidding me?

  8. Dyson is so preacher it's insane, much respect to all these people, great people, great minds, great debate

  9. Never seen such a one sided debate. Mr Fry and Mr Peterson were in a different league. Being British I am proud of just how Stephen Fry comes across, he is an absolute beast. Very articulate

  10. Peterson's first argument is incredibly week and dumb. He says that western society is free and functioning better than anywhere else due to individualism, which is by no means a safe claim to make and is way to debatable to use as a support for an argument, (for example northern europe is statistically the happiest place in the world and is very collectivist and pure individualist ideologies such as the unregulated free market led to the suffering of the industrial revolution and the great depression which were both mended by collectivist policies.)

    Then he says that political correctness is collectivist and neo marxist but does not explain how, and then he says that neo marxism renders people into group categories, which is arguable due to marxist conflict theory believing that history is about oppressors and oppressed. Then he says that in this marxist ideology free speech doesn't work because people only speak for their groups. Then he states that most educated people point out the men held an oppressive level of power over women throughout western history, then he jumps to stating that no hierarchy can ever exist without tyranny (which again is weird marxist argument) then contradicts himself and just says that they only tend towards tyranny and that checks and balances mitigate it, which seems to be him stating that he thinks that men should hold oppressive power over women but that checks and balances keep it safe, which is gross, then he tries to say he's empathetic and that the left's job is to give a voice to the powerless and then he states that they shouldn't proclaim his weird pseudo marxist narrative as the dominant ideology of society because it would lead to tribalism.

    So in effect his argument is that political correctness is bad because its neo marxists and neo marxism is bad, but that hinges on political correctness being neo marxist in the first place which is highly debatable and he should have explained how (For example one could say that being socially politically correct is a way of respecting an individual). I guess his reasoning could be that political correctness (social) causes people to fall into these groups, which is not true because they already exist and furthermore social political correctness is simply respecting the individual, or group of individuals, by not using slurs or saying things that hurt their feelings, in other words it's just not being an asshole. (I'll give my personal opinion here, that I think you are free to be an asshole but other people and private entities are free to dislike you because of it) Does anyone else have a better idea of how political correctness is neo marxists or indeed what you think his point is?

  11. 1:04:10 "was that very individual of you?"
    Yes, it was directed very precisely at your individual self, because Peterson got the same impression most would– which is that you claim to hate group identity, when in reality you relish it, and cannot see beyond it.

  12. dyson got far more time to chat. most of it all bollox, imagine jordan refering to him as a mean black man

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *