His take was flat out ignorant in the usual Peterson way. He's on a show discussing this specific case and keeps saying "Yeah but who was racist? Who and how? Who? It needs to be specific" When if he'd bothered to spend about 90 seconds looking at the past week he'd have known it's been very specific and names have been named.
To be clear (although I don't think this was directed at me) - I'm not at all onboard with Rafiq's behaviour to that girl. In any way.
Mate, just because the entire hierarchy were implicated doesn't mean it has anything to do with the institution
Yes, I wasn't a fan that he didn't look into the story but I think it would have been easy for them to talk him through it, no? Rather than going down the "structural racism" root to just say Michael Vaughan did this, Alex Hales said this. Tbh that may have been covered in the show, I've not seen it all because I'm working my way through Jimmy Carr's book, atm. I think discussions of structural racism and institutional racism are very valuable and worthwhile and I studied it a lot over my MSc but I don't think they're hugely relevant here. This should not be a story about equality, but rather a story about some bad people, doing bad things and how to ensure that these people are sanctioned and also you prevent it in future on an individual-level. I differ from JBP who rejects pretty much all group-wide analysis but rather I don't think it is appropriate here.
Wasn't directed at you in the slightest mate.
Good stuff!
Did anyone say that it did?
Agree with this!
Disagree with this. He clearly hadn't looked well into the case but he could see well enough that the discussion was going off-course and lo-and-behold, he was right because now somehow his behaviour with the teenage girl or messages about Jewish people (/offensive Jewish stereotypes) devalues his testimony about equality.
Well indeed
This is a good point, tbh - but there is a valid point in there. I.e., surely a connection is being made otherwise why would the story be publicised and discussed now. Why would Rafiq's character be called into question.
I go back and forth whether he is deliberately obtuse. I don't think he is - I just think he has spent a long time in academia and writing academic papers where you have to really agonise over phrasing so that you make your point so clearly that it is actually very unclear to everyone other than Susie Dent.
Sorry, I didn't see that and it does address me but not entirely. I just think it is a shame that it is in the discussion that Rafiq claims to talk about equality but look how he treats women and Jewish people. It should be Rafiq told a persuasive and genuine story and we should take action - full stop. As soon as your abstract things up, it makes someone more vulnerable to this sort of thing. You're right though that part of it is just "media being media", rather than an agenda.
It's much simpler. He's a shitty grifter who lies all the time. Once claimed he didn't sleep for 20+ days consecutively on a podcast.
That's a shame. I really do like lots of what he says.
This is a thought I have all too frequently in life.
Sometimes the spectator sees more of the game - isn't that what this forum is about?