Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

Well, that's good, but that doesn't— What, what? Detract from the seriousness of the allegation. The fact that he was able to successfully wend his way through the thicket.

Well, that's good, but that doesn't— What, what? Detract from the seriousness of the allegation. The fact that he was able to successfully wend his way through the thicket.

Well, that's good, but that doesn't— What, what? Detract from the seriousness of the allegation. The fact that he was able to successfully wend his way through the thicket.

Oh, I see.

Oh, I see.

Oh, I see.

So how the hell did they... complainants get access to the papers? Like, how did they know what the papers were if they hadn't been published?

So how the hell did they... complainants get access to the papers? Like, how did they know what the papers were if they hadn't been published?

So how the hell did they... complainants get access to the papers? Like, how did they know what the papers were if they hadn't been published?

I was just curious because it's strange that A brouhaha of that sort would emerge prior to publication. But there was quasi-publication.

I was just curious because it's strange that A brouhaha of that sort would emerge prior to publication. But there was quasi-publication.

I was just curious because it's strange that A brouhaha of that sort would emerge prior to publication. But there was quasi-publication.

On what grounds do you think this investigation was made? How was the progression of this investigation justified? I mean, there's no established precedent in the scientific community for re-evaluating an editorial decision based on political objection, right? We'll reevaluate if 500 people sign a petition. This isn't the domain of rule or principle or tradition.

On what grounds do you think this investigation was made? How was the progression of this investigation justified? I mean, there's no established precedent in the scientific community for re-evaluating an editorial decision based on political objection, right? We'll reevaluate if 500 people sign a petition. This isn't the domain of rule or principle or tradition.

On what grounds do you think this investigation was made? How was the progression of this investigation justified? I mean, there's no established precedent in the scientific community for re-evaluating an editorial decision based on political objection, right? We'll reevaluate if 500 people sign a petition. This isn't the domain of rule or principle or tradition.

So what's the fear here, do you think? These 1,400 people signed this petition, which is something that takes like two seconds and costs you nothing and has no risk to you whatsoever. And so it's not an ethical statement of any profundity unless you're an activist. So what was it, do you think, that... raised people's hackles about the mere fact that these complaints had been raised?

So what's the fear here, do you think? These 1,400 people signed this petition, which is something that takes like two seconds and costs you nothing and has no risk to you whatsoever. And so it's not an ethical statement of any profundity unless you're an activist. So what was it, do you think, that... raised people's hackles about the mere fact that these complaints had been raised?

So what's the fear here, do you think? These 1,400 people signed this petition, which is something that takes like two seconds and costs you nothing and has no risk to you whatsoever. And so it's not an ethical statement of any profundity unless you're an activist. So what was it, do you think, that... raised people's hackles about the mere fact that these complaints had been raised?

To this second, I don't really know.

To this second, I don't really know.