Freedom of speech goes to die in favour of the rainbowtards. America as a continent deserves annihilation before this fascism disguised as libertarianism spreads to better places.
Freedom of speech is between a person and a government, not between a person and a private club they pay yearly dues to be a member of.
The confusion is that in the US the professional organisations are a part of the government. In Canada, the government gives authority to private groups to manage themselves, and they basically get to be in charge of a job title. Jordan Peterson doesn’t practise psychology anymore and hasn’t for nearly a decade.
Yet he’s kept his professional membership going. This way, he can say “As a psychologist, I think [some bullshit about something that has nothing to do with psychology].” This is more than enough for the College to properly reprimand him, as he’s bringing the entire profession into disrepute - but they didn’t even do that, they just asked him to attend a couple courses.
He could always quit the profession. He’d still have all the qualifications and accomplishments, he’d just have to talk about it in the past tense, ie when he was actually relevant.
Freedom of speech IS a freedom from consequences. Sadly most people using freedom of speech term today don’t understand that it doesn’t apply to the context of the discussion. The whole article is just complete nonsense.
The idea that you can say reprehensible things then have your rights violated because others don’t want to associate with you anymore is the complete nonsense. Further, Canada doesn’t go by ‘freedom of speech’, it goes by freedom of expression.
If we all followed the teachings of jordan peterson we would be living in a world perfectly suited to jordan peterson. I would sooner live in a world which made jordan peterson suicidal.
I’m sharing this article because it changed my perception of Jordan Peterson, and exposed him as intellectually dishonest at best and more likely a fraud artist. Starting with essentially his dissertation. It is a long read but it is incredibly well researched and written:
It’s hit and miss. It’s always a bit Juvenile and sometimes I find in a little detractive from the message. As in there are a lot of people I wouldn’t automatically show it to because of the humor despite how well researched and presented everything is. But I generally enjoy the schtick for what it is. This stuff would get rather dry an hard to get through without it sometimes.
It’s a good article. I’ll admit that Jordan Peterson is a good psychologist and knows many words and stories, he can make many people feel smart or dumb through his incantations of nonsense. But that’s it, all the rest of it is bunk.
His essays read like an anthology of writings someone made to finish a book report due tomorrow, after not sleeping for 3 days yet somehow feeling wide awake from the crazed panic.
Also see this screenshot on Firefox Mobile (Est. reading time 63 - 81min). Readers will be well-advised to skim over the copious amount of Jordan Peterson excerpts. Lol.
Reading 12 Rules for Life recently and I’d agree that Jordan Peterson is not a good writer that he uses too much words for the ideas he’s trying to say. He’s also too religious for my taste. However it’s a exaggeration that “he has almost nothing of value to say”. There are some insights of value if you skim through his words and it appears to me that he genuinely meant good for the advice he gives. I think he just needs a better editor.
The article was from 2018 and I also have not read “Maps of Meaning” (as it sounds boring as fuck) so I can’t really compare what I see with what the article is saying. I was hoping for more recent examples.
You haven’t read the linked article, because the author does adress this. They point out that Peterson specifically does hide obvious and banal ideas in his sentences, so that when people finally find some blatant truths in his word salad, it makes it seem like the ideas are much more profound than the platitudes they actually are.
Here is a quote from the article:
The inflating of the obvious into the awe-inspiring is part of why Peterson can operate so successfully in the “self-help” genre. He can give people the most elementary fatherly life-advice (clean your room, stand up straight) while making it sound like Wisdom.
And remember the author actually shows this with numerous in-depth examples from Peterson’s writings. A better editor would do nothing, because Peterson writes like that with intent, the intent being to disguise what a cultish hack he is.
I read the article and I agreed that Jordan Peterson used too much words as I said. I just don’t agree that “he has almost nothing of value to say” as I said.
The point that is being made, though, is that those things that do have value that exist in his writing, did not originate from him and are available elsewhere to the point of ubiquity. If you only heard about them from him, you should read more.
The article was a fun read, but for readers who don’t have time, I believe Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” describes the same problem with marginally fewer words. My favorite excerpt, though, really nails exactly the BS your article mentioned:
Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Here it is in modern English:
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
This is a parody, but not a very gross one.
Peterson’s writings are worse than Orwell’s own parodies.
The philosopher of language Paul Grice introduced the concept in his pragmatic theory, argued such:
Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.[1]: 45
I completely disagree. Based off of your comment it seems that you did not absorb the article whatsoever.
There are many good examples in the article of Peterson presenting opinion as indisputable fact and obscuring ideas with complex language. Particularly when he is challenged based on those ideas.
Not to mention the examples of how he treats children and others. It is an absolutely wild read. Lengthy but eye-opening.
Edit: it also exposes how the ideas that his core philosophy is built on are simplistic at best and often flat out wrong or intentionally disingenuous.
I don’t think it has anything to do with the education system. It’s simply that the commitment involved in the request is much higher than normal. I don’t read every 50-page article or 2-hour video I come across. But I can be compelled to when the value proposition is higher than normal.
I think my comment was misunderstood: it was kind of a half-joke about Peterson’s writing.
Everyone learned to make their concept as long as possible in school because they were better-received, and that’s what Peterson is doing: talking in the most convoluted way possible to make his otherwise bland ideas feel smart.
Eh, I think we have to recognize that many people using this site are doing things like taking the train, using the bathroom, or waiting on something. That often necessitates browsing to be short.
I didn’t mean it to be a jab at the users, but I might’ve written it too ambiguously.
Obviously in most cases it’s better when something you read on the internet is short and concise: my gripe was with a lot of news sites (and, in this case Peterson) who do the exact opposite of that to seem smarter. The “joke” was that it’s a behavior learned in school, where the more you write the better, even if you could’ve expressed the same concept in a much shorter way.
Nobody is forcing him to be a member of the profession – to paraphrase one of his tweets that was complained about “You’re free to leave [the profession] at any point.”
Jordan Peterson really is free to leave the profession - he doesn’t need the money. Meanwhile a psychologist who isn’t independently wealthy can’t express controversial opinions without risking his livelihood. I don’t think “only the rich can exercise freedom of speech” is good policy.
People forget that free speech also includes freedom of association. You can say what you want but others have the freedom to choose not to associate with you because of it.
I’ll find your limits (if you’re honest, which, given this is the Internet, is highly doubtful).
Here’s a foretaste:
“The pursuit of happiness…”
If my happiness involves making other people miserable, well, either you’re a fucking sociopath for supporting it, or there is an intrinsic limit: “…provided you don’t interfere with the happiness of others.” And with that one safe-seeming limit, we open a can of worms in defining just the word “interfere” there.
All of them. Any that have any sort of limitation imposed upon the user by anyone automatically turns that right into a privilege granted to you by other people, and by extension easily removable by others at any time for any dumbass arbitrary reason.
I know you’re going to say this means all rights are privileges. And you’re right. We don’t have any rights. We need them but don’t have them. This is how humanity has chosen to carry itself through this life, and the future. We lost the plot on rights a long time ago and we might not ever get them back.
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” ― H.L. Mencken
I understood what you were saying. It was just 100% unrelated to what I said. Next time respond to what’s written before you, not to the voices in your head.
Lol okay, tell yourself that. You’re the one getting your panties in a twist because you’re angry you’re embarrassing yourself. Calm down and then come back and re-read everything.
Dude, you clearly either didn’t read or didn’t understand my example. Come back when the voices in your head stop telling you what I actually said and when you address what’s actually written, OK? Until then, take your meds and see your shrink.
Meanwhile a psychologist who isn’t independently wealthy can’t express controversial opinions without risking his livelihood
Oh fuck off with that. The opinion he expressed was, and I quote, (about child deaths) "it's just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyways". A licensed medical professional should never say something like that, period, even in jest.
The comments that formed the basis of the complaints against Dr. Peterson included comments on a podcast in which he commented on air pollution and child deaths by saying “it’s just poor children…”
This quote is the most disgusting out of context character assassination I’ve seen in a long time.
I got suspicious because while Jordan does say things that women and/or trans people often find deplorable. I know that he’s a strong supporter of the poor (at least in rhetoric) and as a family man I assume of children as well.
The full context can be found on Spotify. Episode #1769 of “The Joe Rogan Experience” start from about 15:30. He’s the one that brings up how 7 million poor children die from indoor particulate pollution. Joe doesn’t believe him and gets a fact check, which eventually leads to Jordan sarcastically saying “Well, it’s just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyway…”
It’s such an insane mischaracterization of what he said, you can’t take the article seriously. Probably would have to write off the entire website that article is from, honestly.
I don’t know the context for that quote and I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to my argument. Even if we assume the worst possible interpretation, H.L. Mencken still said it best:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
You’re right, that’s why I support genocide. There are too many oppressive laws aimed at oppressing the rights of fascists, or as I’ve taken to calling them, people with genocidal thoughts they’d like to turn into actions. You can’t start oppressing them, otherwise someone could use those laws to oppress me!
He isn’t free to leave the profession because part of his con is that he is using his professional status when he writes something or says something as a psychologist.
His worth as a propagandist is that he can attach that professional status to his messages, if it’s “disgraced” psychologist, or “struck off” psychologist then it has less impact because he has been found to have broken his professional conduct to the point where he lost the title.
I think there are plenty of people who aren’t already Jordan Peterson’s fans but wouldn’t want to be forced out of their profession for something they said outside of work. His fight will appeal to them whether or not he wins in court.
Which means they don’t understand the situation and never will. This is not ‘forced out of their profession for something they said outside of work,’ this is ‘an electrician declaring electricity doesn’t exist and encouraging people to cut down power lines.’ This is not ‘oh no he said he likes pizza rolls instead of pizza,’ this is ‘a professional in a field has stopped updating his knowledge in said field and has actively advocated against large parts of his own field based on nothing but his own mental and moral failures.’
Peterson was free to address his ‘concerns’ in a scientific way, giving him the basis to actually argue his points as valid, if alternative scientific fact. The truth his nothing he has ever stated is scientifically defensible; and when you’re licensed to use science in a way that can help or kill people, you need to stay up to date with the science and only use the most up-to-date peer reviewed science.
He is free to speak however he likes, he is free to get almost any profession he likes and speak how he likes, he can’t essentially go against 70 years of scientific advancement because he wants to make money on the side catering to people with 1860s beliefs on science.
I have no high regard for the guy, but are you seriously, like seriously seriously, trying to tell people that Jordan Peterson depends on his professional title for… literally anything?
Are you saying that without it, he will lose a non-trivial amount of… anything?
He won’t lose out on his current game as people watch him already, but when he wants to write a book and say J. Peterson, psychologist he won’t be able to and that is a selling point for books and being taken seriously.
So if the argument were about whether a license was important, in the general case, as a selling pointl for books, I would have no choice but to concede.
My favourite Jordan Peterson story is how he got himself addicted to benzodiazepines and then felt he knew better than all of western science so he flew over to Russia to be put into a medically induced coma to overcome withdrawals since it was “too hard on him”
Unsurprisingly, the procedure had many complications and left him requiring extra medical attention for him to recover from the procedure.
You forgot the best part. Before doing that he was (and probably still is) against medicating yourself out of addictions because it’s the “easy way out”. His entire shtick is about the right way of living and then he acts contrarily to his own teachings.
For some perspective being thrust into public eye world wide and having your daughter and wife with life threatening medical issues will do a number on you. He is still a dingus but things are rarely black and white.
My favorite is when someone asked him “Do you believe in God” and he was caught between his reputation as an “intellectual” and the fact that the apes he grifts are gonna hoot extra loud and fling extra poo if he says no. Recognizing that he was between a rock and a hard place, he gave one of the most amusing non-responses I’ve ever heard in my life. What he said was, from memory, “That depends on what you mean by ‘do’, ‘you’, ‘believe’ and ‘God’.” He then blathered on for a minute about how he thinks of God as a symbol for the human capacity for goodness and he believes in that, and no one asked why the symbol for the human capacity for goodness hates trans people and needs money, so everyone left satisfied.
He’s the perfect post-modern intellectual, which is rather funny when you consider how anti-postmodernism he is. He’s a media image of an intellectual, all big words and expensive suits, but his big words don’t really mean anything. The fucking “chaos dragon of feminity” is a hilariously stupid concept that rivals the shit Freud came up with when the cocaine was extra pure, but they eat it up. He and the rest of the so-called “intellectual dark web” provide a thin veneer of logic and rationality to the visceral hate that the alt right runs on, and it makes sense to people who really want and need it to make sense. He gives people the ability to be led around by their emotions and still feel like not only are they not being ruled by fear, but that they’re actually on a level above everyone who doesn’t accept the “cold hard truth” that we all need to be racist, homophobic, xenophobic and basically terrified all of the time.
I just don’t know what he meant when he said “Don’t debate with women because they can’t think”. It’s a great big old mystery because he’s just so smart and I’m here in my messy room with the feminine dragon of chaos and no one has peed on my face recently.
Realising how precarious a pedestal the far right built him would be a rare moment of self awareness. He’s B-grade meat to them, so they’d Milo him in a heartbeat.
“…being subject to a code of ethics or having to be more responsible and thoughtful in how one expresses oneself in public forums is part of the package one accepts in exchange for the privilege and benefits that come with being a licensed professional”.
Indeed. If Mr Peterson wants to present as a practitioner of a regulated profession, they have to follow the rules. They are not owed a right to practice, they are given a privilege to practice.
It pained me to discover that my brother liked one of his books in 2020. I’m very careful to not stress our relationship because he’s otherwise a decent person. I shudder to think what other content he might expose himself to over time and what that will mean for our relationship.
If it helps some kid clean themselves up, get a career, and get out on their own, and generally get their life together and pointed in a better direction, how is that a bad thing?
A lot of sects can help you clean yourself up and get your life together. Is it a good thing if you’re being brainwashed into strange believes (like transphobia) at the same time? Maybe it still is but maybe there are better ways to help people.
Have you read my comment? I’ve said that maybe it’s good but maybe you can teach those things in a better, less toxic and less sectarian way. I don’t have issue with his old teachings but I think following anyone blindly is stupid and with JP from the very beginning I’ve seen a lot of it.
It looks like you believe I have some issue with you personally finding some value in Peterson’s writing. I don’t. You’re basically paraphrasing the same thing I’ve said. Can his writing help people? Yes, probably. Can you approach it in a healthy way, avoiding the toxic part and not becoming part of a cult? Yes, I’m sure it’s possible. Did most people approach it like this? Well, my sensation is that no, they did not. The community that grew around him became part of the right wing toxic masculinity and transphobic movements. And he never renounced it, it keeps playing a right wing guru. So yes, I don’t have any issue with people that read some of his books and found something valuable in them. But I also believe (and I think most people that are against him think the same) that he did more harm than good overall and that the world would be better without his philosophy. But of course it’s impossible to measure, it’s a subjective point of view and you can disagree.
Wait. He wants us to believe that he is intelligent? I’ve known toddlers that have an easier time getting words out.
I thought his whole shtick was portraying himself a bumbling idiot to bring out the hyperemotional crazies who get worked up about people not being just so? It is always fun watching the hyperemotional crazies.
I believe the lobster bollocks is actually Rule # 1. ‘Stand up straight’ or some shit (which lobsters also do not do because, well, they are lobsters).
I have read the book yes, and the lobster stuff is in chapter 1 indeed.
I don’t think that chapter was particularly enlightening, as far as I remember it was mainly about how evolutionary selection results in hierarchies in al species (hence the lobsters), and standing up straight gets you higher in the hierarchy because of something something confidence.
The evolution stuff is not wrong, and the stand up straight is… Eh… weird psychology stuff? However it didn’t mention women or gays as you said.
And how do you understand “hierarchies” in the context of human sociology?
Your message is notable in that it’s the first time I have realised that his readers may not even be reading this drivel at the level at which it was written, which is already laughably stupid.
I read one of his books before i knew who he was, and found although the advice was mostly common sense (if a bit context free) advice, followed by long rants about traditional family’s, and backed up by bible. I found myself thinking “what about behaviourism research?”, you know there has been progress in the last 100 years. I’m ashamed that the traditional family shit didn’t tip me off.
I’ve found him come up in my google feeds often too, It’s insidious.
In terms of convincing your brother about how off this guy is, generally there are how to approach things on line (i.e. you can’t always take a logical approach). I’ve also encountered this kind of thing in my extended family, I’ve got distant aunts that likely voted for trump, and they are otherwise decent people (i.e. not racist, and supportive).
It’s a wild statement to insinuate that your family voting for Trump somehow makes them bad people. Likewise, Peterson has some decent advice that I think should not fully be written off due to his personal life.
I haven’t really seen anyone in this thread disqualify his argument based on merits and only using their own feelings to say he’s wrong.
In all honesty, I don’t have a horse in this race, but I don’t think Peterson is a terrible as everyone seems to think. Maybe I’m crazy
You cool with him shilling for fracking billionaires now too?
most of his “good advice” is just bland generic shit. the awful shit he puts out there far overshadows the generic advice that you could get from mister rogers
Seriously. I don’t understand this shit, I’ve even heard this kind of “good advice” garbage about Andrew Tate and “work ethic”. Are you telling me you can’t find a single other person in your chosen field to look up to? You can’t come up with your own personal advice through observation? Why are all these young dudes so desperate to idolize someone?
I mean, just voting for Trump doesn’t objectively make you a bad person… That’s the definition of being subjective. Also, I’m confident in my intelligence, please don’t make lemmy the dumpster fire that is Reddit.
I’m not saying that Trump is a good person, again this is a discussion of Peterson, but one could argue that aside from Trump’s character he wasn’t the worst president the US has had.
Your argument is purely semantic and not really substantive unless you define what a “bad person” is. That’ll be different to everyone, so without a common operating definition of a “bad person” your point, while technically true, doesn’t really mean anything.
Voting for for trump does make them worse people, they are objectively supporting a racist. Trump family stole money from childrens cancer charity. That’s bad. Likewise I didn’t write off Peterson for his personal life I wrote him off cause his arguments are rooted in the bible.
Really what makes peterson and trump so bad is that they are completely self centered, and self gratification is their only goal. They care about nobody else.
Off duty, but still fully willing to be introduced as a clinical psychologist at the start of the podcast, and to consistently refer to himself as a practicing clinical psychologist in these interviews.
It’s not because of his drug addiction, interesting. It’s because he was being shitty towards poor and trans people. Glad to see he’s being reprimanded for something.
The comments that formed the basis of the complaints against Dr. Peterson included comments on a podcast in which he commented on air pollution and child deaths by saying “it’s just poor children…”
This quote is the most disgusting out of context character assassination I've seen in a long time.
I got suspicious because while Jordan does say things that women and/or trans people often find deplorable. I know that he's a strong supporter of the poor (at least in rhetoric) and as a family man I assume of children as well.
The full context can be found on Spotify. Episode #1769 of "The Joe Rogan Experience" start from about 15:30. He's the one that brings up how 7 million poor children die from indoor particulate pollution. Joe doesn't believe him and gets a fact check, which eventually leads to Jordan sarcastically saying "Well, it's just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyway..."
It's such an insane mischaracterization of what he said, you can't take the article seriously. Probably would have to write off the entire website that article is from, honestly.
Maybe, I don't know. How do you know? You seem so eager to believe lies. How do you know that everything you think you know about Jordan Peterson isn't all lies?
Because thinking in absolutes isn’t scientific. Is it possible some of the reported are lies? Sure. What do we do with that? Verify. But you’re phrasing the question in a black and white way, awfully reminiscent of petermanston himself. Do you know people wear lipstick for more reasons than signaling sexual arousal, as an example?
he's a strong supporter of the poor (at least in rhetoric)
"Well, it's just poor children, and the world has too many people on it anyway..."
Never mind how laughable that first quote is, it is inherently incompatible with the second, since the entire Malthusian myth is based in classist eugenics
My guy, they don’t care and you aren’t going to convince them to care. This isn’t about misinformation. This is about their little civil war they’re gearing up to kick off next year. That’s all they care about because their minds are made up.
I think Jordon Peterson is a giant pile of shit, but you’re being downvoted for calling out a shitty article for misrepresenting obvious sarcasm, and that’s bullshit. Misinformation is misinformation regardless of whether or not it confirms our bias, if the Fediverse community doesn’t want to learn this it has no business pointing at misinformation on other platforms like Reddit.
No, he’s being downvoted because he’s adjacently defending JP. If you don’t know how JP is human garbage at this point, and you’re willing to come to articles to defend him, you’re a fan. And therefore, a twat.
Edit: yes the article is BS but that doesn’t change what he’s selling.
It is if you’ve already made up your mind that Jordan Peterson, for example, is a piece of shit and therefore nothing anyone says about the matter really matters anymore.
The people downvoting him already made up their minds. They already came to the conclusion they think is correct, and so debate is no longer needed. To them, you’re needlessly drawing out an argument that has long since ended in their favor, and why would anyone do that unless they had an ulterior motive?
That’s how they think. They’re not really wrong; whether they’re upvoting misinformation or not really IS irrelevant to the grander question and that grander question is whether JP is a fraud, and to them that answer is unequivocally yes, debate over.
Don’t waste your time arguing with them. Their battle lines have already been drawn.
I mean, in the other comment he then went even further beyond and actually did started to defend JP. So, you know, I guess he was right in calling him out in the end :p
You know just as well as I do that he’s cherry picking the article for inaccuracies to defend JP. Nobody is defending the article ffs.
Yea the article is shit, we already established that (and I don’t recall anyone stating otherwise in our exchanges). That’s not what we are talking about. If you continue to make it about that, you’re just as much of a twat as the idiot above.
No matter how much of a wanker Peterson is, and I agree he is one. You should always be wary of misinformation. By spreading something so easily disproved because it feels right, you just give him ammunition to argue that people are lying and defaming him when defending himself. The bloke has said tons of stupid stuff worth criticism, focus on them.
What the hell were they supposed to say? Should they have agreed that the article was good just because JP is a PoS? Despite the clear and disgusting BS inside it? Is that really what you want?
Misinformation is misinformation and needs to be cleared up, no matter who the target is.
I don't know how to reach these people or whether they're reachable at all. Yes, my main motivation by a very long shot was to correct absurd levels of misinformation in a community where I believe most members care about not spreading misinformation.
What worries me is that so many people seem to be living in an echo bubble that's radicalizing them to hate people they shouldn't be hating.
So yes, there's a lot of not so great things about Jordan Peterson. But all things considered he's not that bad. And I haven't paid attention closely for the last few years, but I wouldn't be characterizing him as a piece of shit.
The author of the article is a worse piece of shit than Jordan Peterson. People who seem to take pleasure out of Jordan's suffering due to his Benzodiazepine addiction are even worse.
But, looking at some of Jordan's twitter comment, he's definitely a bit of an asshole. But 95% of people seem to be assholes when they go on twitter.
The only really bad thing about him is his political views. But even there, there seems to be less malice and less self serving talk than most right wingers (other than the apparent or effective grifting). But even the grifting, in my opinion, is not as bad as most people (both on the left and on the right). Still, right wing ideology is a very problematic from a liberal perspective (which is my perspective). But at the same time today's mainstream and increasingly radical left ideology is also problematic from a liberal perspective. Regardless, I still don't think that someone's anti-liberal social views necessarily makes them a piece of shit regardless of if they're on the left or on the right. But it does make it easy to become one.
Sorry but I have to vehemently disagree. I find this views on transgender people abhorrent. He misgenders and deadnames people out of spite and disguises it as intellectual honesty.
His views on the role of women are outdated as hell, he disparages the humanities despite his participation in them, promotes toxic masculinity, and is a climate change denier. He holds all these views while wearing a mask of impartiality and aloofness, but his talking points are no different from and scarcely better supported than any other bigot’s.
So while I am against misinformation, I still feel quite confident in calling him a piece of shit as I believe he promotes hateful and backwards ideals.
How can we expect anyone to critically examine the media they consume if we fail to do the same when it suits us? Peterson is a flaming pile of pseudo-intellectual garbage, but there’s plenty of ways to prove that without intentionally taking sound bites out of context.
That and body shaming people you don’t like really aggravate me. Shit humans do shit things, attack that and leave the rest alone.
The double-standards on body shaming drive me up the wall on this website. The number of “ugly, fat, small penis” comments I see from the same people who say you can’t call a medically obese person “obese” is insane to me.
I am sorry, but I dont understand where is the misinformation? The article doesnt state nor imply that JP has said that poor children deserve to die. It stated, that that particular comment was used in a complaint against him in court. So if you are upset at the people who formed the complaint then thats fair. But why be mad at the article? They only stated what has happened, unless I misunderstood?
This is why I’ve kinda stopped consuming other people’s political writing, and only shitcomment about it. People of all stripes cannot resist the urge to make the story just a liiiiiitle better.
Add comment