{"id":38550,"date":"2018-10-09T18:46:01","date_gmt":"2018-10-09T23:46:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/162.144.72.159\/~jordapq6\/?p=38550"},"modified":"2018-10-09T18:46:01","modified_gmt":"2018-10-09T23:46:01","slug":"notes-on-my-kavanaugh-tweet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jordanbpeterson.com\/political-correctness\/notes-on-my-kavanaugh-tweet\/","title":{"rendered":"Notes on my Kavanaugh Tweet"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bret stated his belief that there was no good way out of the present Kavanaugh conundrum: \u201cboth outcomes are completely unacceptable.\u201d I took that to mean that failing to confirm Kavanaugh would\u00a0 (1) dangerously embolden those who (1) believe that we should dispense with the presumption of innocence for those accused of sexual misconduct (\u201cbelieve all survivors<\/a>\u201d) and (2) provide a victory to those inclined to weaponize such accusations for personal or political gain; while confirming him would place someone on the Supreme Court whose every judgment would be employed by the grievance industry for decades into the future as a more evidence for the utter corruption of the white male patriarchy and contribute in that manner to continual civil unrest.<\/p>\n Eric then stated, in response, \u201cwe need a genius healer we just don\u2019t have.\u201d<\/p>\n I asked myself a question, after reading these posts: \u201cIs there an alternative to confirming or not confirming Kavanaugh?\u201d When a choice appears starkly binary, a third path appears impossible, by definition — but might possibly still be worth seeking. I tried to place myself in Kavanaugh\u2019s position, while generating a potential answer (and think that I can do so with some justification, having been publicly identified as reprehensible by many people\u2014prominent journalists, activists, and academics among them).<\/p>\n I thought, \u201cHe can\u2019t withdraw, prior to the nomination, because his reputation has been savaged so badly that withdrawal would not only mean loss of the Supreme Court nomination, but demolition of his entire career and future life.\u201d So the only way for Kavanaugh was forward, through the FBI investigation, on to the nomination hearing, and the hope that he would be\u2026 what? Cleared? Not cleared, because it is too late for that, even given the favorable or at least not damning FBI report. A large percentage of the American public does not believe that he is an appropriate choice for the highest bench position in the land (51%, according to NY Mag: https:\/\/nym.ag\/2RwLUGt<\/a>, citing a CNN poll). I\u2019m not claiming, necessarily, that CNN\u2019s poll is reliable. It doesn\u2019t matter. What matters is that there is very widespread opposition to his candidacy, much of it generated not by people’s belief in his innocence or lack therefore but by their objection to the manner in which both parties handled the nomination process.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not a good thing when there is general discomfort with the manner in which something as important as the naming of a new Chief Justice is undertaken. It doesn\u2019t bode well for the stability and peace of the state (and perhaps–perhaps–there is nothing more important to preserve than that).<\/p>\n So I thought, \u201cWhat might I do in such a position?\u201d Withdrawing, prior to a full investigation, did not constitute an acceptable option. But it\u2019s not clear that accepting the position, given the scale of opposition to my candidacy (\u201cmy,\u201d in my simulation of his situation). So what if the FBI cleared me, I received the nomination, but then decided that it might be best for medium- to long-term peace and the good of the country if someone who shared my views but who had not been contaminated, rightly or wrongly, by the horrors of the nomination process in question be put forward as a candidate in my stead? Objections to that might include:<\/p>\n So those were my ideas. And I responded to the Weinsteins in this manner:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This made many people unhappy. Some of them\u2014viewers and listeners positively inclined toward me, by their own account\u2014regarded my actions as a betrayal. And, in response to that, here\u2019s a mea culpa<\/em> (in keeping with my conviction that it is best to look to your own misbehavior if things go sideways): It was an error for me to use Twitter to express such thoughts, particularly in the condensed form that Twitter requires. I was laboring yet again under the na\u00efve misapprehension (and should have known better at this stage in the media war) that I could offer an idea\u2014not a certainty\u2014for consideration on that platform. I should have known better not least because I had already discussed the dangers of Twitter, for example, with my son, who insisted over many months that if I engage in contentious issues online that I should do so with a longer blog post, and link to that with Twitter. I should have known better because Twitter appears primarily to be a forum where errors are magnified and outrage and vitriol almost certain to emerge whenever uncertainty about motive manifests itself.<\/p>\n (I honestly don\u2019t know what to do with Twitter. It\u2019s a very dangerous platform, and may well be doing more harm than good. But I have something approaching a million followers. Do I owe them a certain allegiance? Should I just abandon my account, or should I try to use it properly, whatever that means? I think it would be safer for me to leave Twitter and it would almost certainly better for my mental health and ease of mind and conscience. These new technologies are by no means simple and they are unforgiving. I\u2019m not complaining, by the way: I have benefited greatly from their existence. Furthermore, he who lives by the sword\u2026. I conducted a straw poll during the Q and A after my last lecture, in Colorado Springs, asking my audience to indicate by clapping if I should continue with Twitter–mild applause–or cease using it–much louder applause. And these were definitely people who were positively predisposed to me. Should I take their advice? And if I don’t, is it because I feel allegiance to my Twitter followers or am afraid to be out of the loop?)<\/p>\n Here is a sampling of the Twitter responses:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A flurry of responses also emerged on Youtube, from people such as Gad Saad<\/a>, Owen Benjamin<\/a>, Karen Straughan<\/a>, and Scott Adams<\/a>, all offering their opinions (and reasonably so). A variety of journalists also entered the fray (the people at Breitbart<\/a>, for example, and The Blaze<\/a>. Finally, many people who were positively inclined readers, viewers or listeners prior to this tweet took the opportunity to object to what I had said on YouTube channels where other video content that featured me had been posted. It takes very much to build a reputation and very little to destroy it. And if it\u2019s error that destroys it, rather than falsehood, then no one is immune.<\/p>\n And so I attempted to clarify what I meant on Twitter:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\nThis week (October 5, 2018), I responded to a Twitter thread consisting of a conversation between Bret Weinstein, the American biologist and evolutionary theorist who was once (before the controversy<\/a>) a professor at Evergreen College, and his brother Eric Weinstein, Managing Director at Thiel Capital, and the man who coined the term Intellectual Dark Web<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n