We all need to follow this example: Jim Jefferies interviews Jordan Peterson
Jim Jefferies, an Australian comedian famous for sounding like an Australian version of a redneck, using the word c### a lot, and yet somehow making the American left love him because he attacked US gun culture in a Netflix special once.
I found it odd to see Jim Jefferies (JJ) had chosen to interview Jordan Peterson (JP). On the cover it seemed like the highschool pot head deciding to go toe-to-toe with Einstein.
But I watched the interview anyway.
As one expected, 90% of the video is JJ speaking over snippets of carefully cropped footage chosen to support the narrative being painted. Much of it was patently misrepresenting JP, which was hardly a surprise given the audience JJ is clearly pandering to.
But there were two notable surprises in the video.
The first I want to mention is how the video ends, which is with JJ essentially agreeing with JP that people should be allowed free speech. This appears obvious, and it then seems absurd most of the video was spent trying to discredit JP.
The other interesting point is where JJ points out a double standard JP would be holding by saying it's good to force businesses to serve black people but bad to force businesses to serve gay people.
What's admirable on JP's part is he doesn't hide from JJ's (or JJ's producer's) observation. He acknowledges it and says "maybe I was wrong about that." The issue deserves more than 15 seconds of a YouTube clip to parse, but what we do get to see of JP there was him honestly addressing the point being made and having the integrity to admit he may need to change his opinion.
This is a practice both the left and the right are in desperate need of adopting. When we're in an argument, it should be our goal to discover the truth, not win the argument. If truth appears from the person I'm arguing with, I need the courage and insight to stop arguing and agree with their position.