Considering he may be one of them, one of the purposes behind this might be to widen Overton Window.

It goes like this: The digital panopticon and social credit score is already a done deal. It is already in the plans. What they need to do now is to somehow sell it to the general public.

Enter Overton Window. A way to coerce people into accepting something they would never thought of to accept otherwise.

It goes something like this and consists of several phases:

1. First that something is simply unthinkable. People go about their lives without even thinking about it. (In our case that would be total suveillance and social credit score.)

2. Then the concept is being entered into public consciousness as remotely possible, but still generally unthinkable.

3. Next step is making it technically possible, but still widely unacceptable.

4. Next comes the debatable phase. It is still unacceptable, but somehow becomes debatable. Various public debates are initiated. Pros and cons are being weighted. <--- This is where we are at now and quite possibly the very purpose of Peterson's speech was to move public perception from unacceptable to debatable phase.

Following phases are as follows:

5. Generally acceptable.

6. Encouraged and favourable.

7. Mandatory.

In any case, it's just a thought. I don't know if I'm correct or not. Quite possibly Peterson genuinely wants to warn people... But if I'm onto something, then other terms to look up would be Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis and Hegelian Dialectic. Or, to simplify a bit, the same old Good Cop - Bad Cop thing we've all seen in the movies.

Also, the fact that it is being published by Forbes - of all fucking places - does not help. Not in the least.

Considering he may be one of them, one of the purposes behind this might be to widen Overton Window.

It goes like this: The digital panopticon and social credit score is already a done deal. It is already in the plans. What they need to do now is to somehow sell it to the general public.

Enter Overton Window. A way to coerce people into accepting something they would never thought of to accept otherwise.

It goes something like this and consists of several phases:

1. First that something is simply unthinkable. People go about their lives without even thinking about it. (In our case that would be total suveillance and social credit score.)

2. Then the concept is being entered into public consciousness as remotely possible, but still generally unthinkable.

3. Next step is making it technically possible, but still widely unacceptable.

4. Next comes the debatable phase. It is still unacceptable, but somehow becomes debatable. Various public debates are initiated. Pros and cons are being weighted. <--- This is where we are at now and and quite possibly the very purpose of Peterson's speech was to move public perception from unacceptable to debatable phase.

Following phases are as follows:

5. Generally acceptable.

6. Encouraged and favourable.

7. Mandatory.

In any case, it's just a thought. I don't know if I'm correct or not. Quite possibly Peterson genuinely wants to warn people... But if I'm onto something, then other terms to look up would be Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis and Hegelian Dialectic. Or, to simplify a bit, the same old Good Cop - Bad Cop thing we've all seen in the movies.

Also, the fact that it is being published by Forbes - of all fucking places - does not help. Not in the least.

Considering he may be one of them, one of the purposes behind this might be to widen Overton Window.

It goes like this: The digital panopticon and social credit score is already a done deal. It is already in the plans. What they need to do now is to somehow sell it to the general public.

Enter Overton Window. A way to coerce people into accepting something they would never thought of to accept otherwise.

It goes something like this and consists of several phases:

1. First that something is simply unthinkable. People go about their lives without even thinking about it. (In our case that would be total suveillance and social credit score.)

2. Then the concept is being entered into public consciousness as remotely possible, but still generally unthinkable.

3. Next step is making it technically possible, but still widely unacceptable.

4. Next comes the debatable phase. It is still unacceptable, but somehow becomes debatable. Various public debates are initiated. Pros and cons are being weighted. <--- This is where've are at now and and quite possibly the very purpose of Peterson's speech is to move public perception from unacceptable to debatable phase.

Following phases are as follows:

5. Generally acceptable.

6. Encouraged and favourable.

7. Mandatory.

In any case, it's just a thought. I don't know if I'm correct or not. Quite possibly Peterson genuinely wants to warn people... But if I'm onto something, then other terms to look up would be Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis and Hegelian Dialectic. Or, to simplify a bit, the same old Good Cop - Bad Cop thing we've all seen in the movies.

Also, the fact that it is being published by Forbes - of all fucking places - does not help. Not in the least.

Considering he may be one of them, one of the purposes behind this might be to widen Overton Window.

It goes like this: The digital panopticon and social credit score is already a done deal. It is already in the plans. What they need to do now is to somehow sell it to the general public.

Enter Overton Window. A way to coerce people into accepting something they would never thought of to accept otherwise.

It goes something like this and consists of several phases:

1. First that something is simply unthinkable. People go about their lives without even thinking about it. (In our case that would be total suveillance and social credit score.)

2. Then the concept is being entered into public consciousness as remotely possible, but still generally unthinkable.

3. Next step is making it techically possible, but still widely unacceptable.

4. Next comes the debatable phase. It is still unacceptable, but somehow becomes debatable. Various public debates are initiated. Pros and cons are being weighted. <--- This is where've are at now and and quite possibly the wery purpose of Peterson's speech - to move public perception from unacceptable to debatable phase.

Following phases are as follows:

5. Generally acceptable.

6. Encouraged and favourable.

7. Mandatory.

In any case, it's just a thought. I don't know if I'm correct or not. Quite possibly Peterson genuinely wants to warn people... But if I'm onto something, then other terms to look up would be Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis and Hegelian Dialectic. Or, to simplify a bit, the same old Good Cop - Bad Cop thing we've all seen in the movies.

Also, the fact that it is being published by Forbes - of all fucking places - does not help. Not in the least.

Considering he may be one of them, one of the purposes behind this might be to widen Overton Window.

It goes like this: The digital panopticon and social credit score is already a done deal. It is already in the plans. What they need to do now is to somehow sell it to the general public.

Enter Overton Window. A way to coerce people into accepting something they would never thought of to accept otherwise.

It goes something like this and consists of several phases:

1. First that something is simply unthinkable. People go about their lives without even thinking about it. (In our case that would be total suveillance and social credit score.)

2. Then the concept is being entered into public consciousness as remotely possible, but still generally unthinkable.

3. Next step is making it techically possible, but still widely unacceptable.

4. Next comes the debatable phase. It is still unacceptable, but somehow becomes debatable. Various public debates are initiated. Pros and cons are being weighted. <--- This is where've are at now and and quite possibly the wery purpose of Peterson's speech - to move public perception from unacceptable to debatable phase.

Following phases are as follows:

5. Generally acceptable.

6. Encouraged and favourable.

7. Mandatory.

In any case, it's just a thought. I don't know if I'm correct or not. Quite possibly Peterson genuinely wants to warn people... But if I'm onto something, then other terms to look up would be Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis and Hegelian Dialectic. In other words, the same old Good Cop - Bad Cop thing we've all seen in the movies.

Also, the fact that it is being published by Forbes - of all fucking places - does not help. Not in the least.

Considering he may be one of them, one of the purposes behind this might be to widen Overton Window.

It goes like this: The digital panopticon and social credit score is already a done deal. It is already in the plans. What they need to do now is to somehow sell it to the general public.

Enter Overton Window. A way to coerce people into accepting something they would never thought of to accept otherwise.

It goes something like this and consists of several phases:

1. First that something is simply unthinkable. People go about their lives without even thinking about it. (In our case that would be total suveillance and social credit score.)

2. Then the concept is being entered into public consciousness as remotely possible, but still generally unthinkable.

3. Next step is making it techically possible, but still widely unacceptable.

4. Next comes the debatable phase. It is still unacceptable, but somehow becomes debatable. Various public debates are initiated. Pros and cons are being weighted. <--- This is where've are at now and and quite possibly the wery purpose of Peterson's speech - to move public perception from unacceptable to debatable phase.

Following phases are as follows:

5. Generally acceptable.

6. Encouraged and favourable.

7. Mandatory.

In any case, it's just a thought. I don't know if I'm correct or not. Quite possibly Peterson genuinely wants to warn people... But if I'm onto something, then other terms to look up would be Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis and Hegelian Dialectic. In other words, the same old Good Cop - Bad Cop thing we've all seen in the movies.