This is a bit long and I really just wanted to share the last few points but I had to quote everything leading up to them so there would be a better understanding. If you know Peterson you know how he expands on things to an almost painful extent. This was taken from a lecture I’ll link to below.
Part of the reason we have political discussion, or, discussion at all is to separate the wheat from the chaff. The reason that free speech is so important, as far as I’m concerned, well I don’t even really think about it as free speech, I think about it, as what; respect for the manifestation of the Logos or something like that. Thats the proper way of conceptualizing it, is that it keeps the balance between those two tendencies (tendencies between the – Left, pathological chaos – and the – Right, pathological order).
You need the questioning and you need the order. And so you think, well how much of each? And the answer is: the recipe changes day to day. And so you think, if it changes day today then how do we keep up? And the answer is: by keeping up, here we are, we’re alive, we can keep up – but we do that by thinking, and we think by talking, and we think and talk by disagreeing. We better disagree, conceptually, because then we don’t have to act out stupid ideas that would kill us.
The abstract territory of conceptual dispute is a substitute for war and death. And it can be a brutal substitute because conceptual disagreement can be very intense, but compared to war and death it’s hardly intense at all. So you keep the landscape open for serious dispute, including dispute that’s offensive, obviously, because if you’re ever going to talk about anything that’s difficult – and why talk otherwise – then you’re going to talk about things that are offensive to people and you’re going do it badly.
You’re going to stumble around when you’re formulating your thoughts, and that’s horrible, it makes people anxious, it alienates them, but it’s better than pain and death, and that’s the alternative.Jordan Peterson