> Even earlier than that he espoused beliefs of yearning for the old days when a man could make a living for the whole family and casually beat his wife (look up his redpill fedora access/public tv video for this).

If you're posting such a serious accusation, you should at least provide the link yourself...

It isn’t a serious accusation. Peterson hasn’t never been secretive of his bigotry and right wing extremism. Going more mask off now just makes him more extreme, not a different person.

I said what to look up. If this is such a big accusation as to respond asking for a link, why not type or copy paste the few words mentioned?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=TWsxFKF__is I have the uninterrupted clip saved locally, but here’s a video talking about and showing some of it. There should still be actual full clip ones too.

I found the video you refer to (https://www.reddit.com/r/justneckbeardthings/comments/mdmlm0...) and it does not contain any of the things you listed. Did you even listen to what he was saying? His point was only that, as flawed as 50ties men were, the ones current culture is producing may be even worse for women and that people demolishing traditional values may have thrown out baby with the bathwater here.

Now, is he right? It's hard to tell, but the phenomenon he describes definitely exists to some degree.

Did you miss the part where he yearned for the days when 50s men could come home and repress [sic] women? He brought up 50s men again later. Sure I exaggerated since he doesn’t explicitly say hit your wife. However if one is to say imagine a 1950s testosterone filled man comes home after being the sole bread winner and oppressed his wife, there will be a non zero amount of people who will think that can or will involve hitting your wife.

He didn’t say much about their flaws. He kept hedging for how they are the good and better ones. He for sure never phrased this as “as flaws as 50ties men were” in the context of the whole thing.

Knowing Jordan Peterson’s sexism, racism, religious bigotry, homophobia, transphobia, disregard for the poor, and his own hypocrisy of his own mean advice and sayings on drug addiction, if a statement about a 50s guy coming home to repress/oppress his wife doesn’t scream a big issue to you, nothing will. You will be able to turn anything he says into a positive, and I will not see his sneaky wording as anything but that.

I mean in his Kyle Kulinski discussion recently and before that too, he talks about how “remember when [gay] pride used to be a sin?” As if that’s an indictiment on being gay. And that gay and trans advocacy is tricking people into being gay and trans. It’s insanely baffling to appreciate someone’s words when they actually are saying straight cis people are being tricked into being gay or trans. No less to the point of a morale panic. I can’t give any benefit of the doubt to such an overt bigot.

> Now, is he right? It's hard to tell, but the phenomenon he describes definitely exists to some degree.

He’s probably wrong. His own philosophies with all this are bankrupt to begin with. He talks about hierarchies being natural and the best with the alphas rising up. Yet marriage is the opposite of that. It forces exclusive monogamy and is pushed down through culture and society. He has been asked by Rogan and others about this contradiction to his work. His answers are quite wanting. It’s obvious there’s no answer except monogamy benefits him and many of his fans who aren’t the most playboy types and are likely conservative leaning thus want “traditions”.

I think you are twisting the truth and slandering someone who has dedicated their life to trying to help others improve their own lives. I think what you are saying here is basically evil. I can't tell if its based in fear or hate, but I am pretty certain it is wrong to its core. I find it extremely disturbing.

I hope you can become more curious and less whatever this is. For your own sake and for the sake of the people in your life you care about.

Instead of going into any specific rebuttals you say generic stuff. I pointed to specific things Peterson has done and does. You didn’t do anything except do a bunch of assumptions and passive aggressive stuff like “I find it extremely disturbing” or “less whatever this is”.

Here’s another recent Peterson tidbit of being a bad person and not improving people’s lives. In one of his recent Daily Wire stuff, he said Russia is attacking Ukraine for trying to be more woke like America. Which is incredibly wrong when Ukraine has lots of non-woke stuff and is not “woke” haha. Secondly, what an awful thing to say to defend Putin’s evil invasion of Ukraine and the deaths of innocent people.

Even Peterson’s fans on his subreddit and on the YouTube video and other comment sections were upset at his callous and wrong take on the Ukrainian invasion. Just like many of his fans are upset with his joining Daily Wire and being so completely mask off these days.

Some more issues of when he is saying stuff that doesn’t appear to improve lives: what about when he insults women who wear make up. Or insults women he finds unattractive? Or when he hypocritically doesn’t call out his own daughter for wearing make up.

What about when he insulted a dead patient (RIP) of his for using up his money on drugs and then dying from them? Meanwhile he went ahead and spent a lot of money to go to Russia to be put into coma. He blames people for getting addicted to drugs, but when it is him, there is an excuse.

how is his bigotry against lgbtq people helping them? Is this stuff not “evil”? Since you claimed I am saying evil things —- without any specific backing of how.

—-

I can keep giving actual examples of Peterson not being a good person. No need to resort to personal attacks, gaslighting, and making narratives up.

If you aren’t satire and aren’t acting in bad faith, please give some actual info on how I’m being evil with the specifics of what I’ve said. Or specifics of my slandering. Also please respond to any times you believe I’ve said the truth about Peterson. Of course that won’t happen, much less a response at all.

I at the very least had my first response to you include me being happy for you getting better even if it’s from Peterson. You on the other hand have shown no semblance of good faith in this last response.

Finally. Just because I find Peterson to be a bigoted hate filled individual, doesn’t mean I think that about you. An attack on Peterson is not an attack on you. So there’s no need for you to push such harsh attacks on me.

I said he isn’t controversial now and not in the past. Key word is “and”. Both things aren’t both true. According to you, you have now slandered me by twisting my words. According to you, that’s evil.

How do you think I have so many specific examples of Peterson? I’m speaking from specific examples of hearing him speak.

You did a whole thing of what you find slanderous. You didn’t explain why. Everything you write are some vague stuff. Nothing specific or substantive.

Are you saying Peterson isn’t a raging bigot against lgbtq people? I’ll stick to one example because you consistently do not respond to any specific critiques. I gave examples of Peterson specifically being a bigot against lgbtq people. Including very recently with his Kulinski interview.

Either he is or he isn’t a bigot [against lgbtq people].

> Are you sure it serves you to hold the opinions of him that you do?

Him being a bigot isn’t an opinion. It’s quite messed up imo to call his homophobia and transphobia “my opinion”. You’re insulting a whole lot of lgbtq people. Some would think that’s basically evil.

—

You’re afraid thing doesn’t make sense. He hadn’t helped a whole ton of people in 2016 yet. He wasn’t famous when he began his narrative BS on the pronoun bill. Having a made up narrative concerning someone like me isn’t good. Some would think what you are saying is basically evil.

I am not going to say it better than this:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/22/what-t...

Or even better... this:

https://medium.com/the-hit-job/why-jordan-peterson-is-not-ne...

I don't think we should continue this debate here, its not appropriate for HN as evidenced by our comments getting flagged.

The last thing I will say is that I am still very confused why and how you can say he isn't controversial. I am starting to wonder if we are using the same definition of controversial...

—- Controversial confusion —-

I said he was not: “( controversial now ) and ( not before )”. That can be re-written as: “( he is controversial now ) and ( he was controversial before )”.

The logic key is the “and”. It requires both statements to be true. If part of the statement is not true, it makes the entire statement not true.

IE: “( I am a human ) and ( I am god )”. This statement is not true. I am not god. Confusion cleared?

—-

Your flag argument is concerning. One person can make a comment flagged. How is that representative of HN? Why not stick to that logic for me, one person, saying Peterson is not appropriate for any one because he is a bad person? There’s a certain lack of awareness.

A point of hypocrisy is linking to bad articles. I read the second. It doesn’t touch upon my critique of his Kulinski interview. You asked if I had actually seen any of his stuff or just base off what others say. Then follow that up with being “afraid” I’m being duped by listening to others. Then you link to this as your side.

This gets worse because this writer writes like you. They are “concerned” like you were “afraid”. Neither of you are saying your own original ideas. Picking up typical right wing moral panic BS that frequently weakly masks the bigotry behind it.

The article doesn’t say why he’s a benefit to lgbtq people. Why is he a “blessing in disguise”? It doesn’t give a proper argument for him not being against gay marriage. It says he did not answer the person’s question. That means he’s not for gay marriage.

You say he's been lying about the laws, and for proof you offer the fact that no one's been arrested for it yet. Is that really how it works? If the government doesn't prosecute, then the law that is written should not be discussed as written?

I casually mentioned no one has been prosecuted. That wasn’t my proof. The proof is the law itself and what Peterson said about it.

Your Q is irrelevant here as Peterson wasn’t discussing what was written as law, but his narrative.