As the sole arbiter of the true and false interpretations of Nietzsche's writing, its not debatable.

I should have done a better job of adding some caveats to my recommendation of Jung- for example that his perspectives are indeed heavily biased through the lens of his own philosophy, and he mostly ignores things important to Nietzsche that don't relate to his own interests.

However, this type of sneering/mocking tone is unbecoming of HN discussions, and goes against the HN community guidelines.

That you missed the irony of my comment makes me think the one I was responding too may have been correct about your views on Nietzsche.

They are correct.

> That's extremely debatable

I completely agree. People will have different interpretations and perspectives on it, and there is often no way to know which is closer to what Nietzsche was thinking. Jung is certainly not without his own biases, and very unconventional framing of things. I don’t intend to claim that his perspective is perfect. I’d say he was mostly unique in having the courage to think about ideas from Nietzsche that made him personally uncomfortable, and not try to avoid it or pretend Nietzsche must have meant something else.

However it is a matter of degree- a lot of the translations and commentary have really egregious basic misinterpretation and misunderstandings.