And you wonder why Peterson is popular

[Anonymous No.11182007]

LOOOOL, he is literally saying this incel uprising stuff exists. Look at the quote below. THIS is obviously why people flock to him and other rightists. Leftist commentators and the mainstream commentariat are so stymied by political correctness that they take 10 years to come to any conclusions. And they do it through long winded and obnoxious op eds and think pieces and padded out books that try to claim too much.

I'm not saying that he has morally good views or correct ones. But we don't need to wait for the fucking glacial pace of the "critiquers" to come to conclusions that 90 IQ pol users come to in 2 minutes.

>>>
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html


Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”

I laugh, because it is absurd.

“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”

But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.

He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.

In situations where there is too much mate choice, “a small percentage of the guys have hyper-access to women, and so they don’t form relationships with women,” he said. “And the women hate that.”

[Anonymous No.11182019]

>it's another leftypol bait thread

We've already had 5 of these threads today.

[Anonymous No.11182026]

>half the man fail
Does he mean half the man fail to get a partner/get married? It's absurd that he thinks that's actually case.

[Anonymous No.11182043]

>>11182026

>Like, woah man, people fail? Totally not cool!

My God, little numale cucks like yourself consider yourself intellectuals. What a laughable state of affairs.

[Anonymous No.11182044]

>>11182007
activates /leftypol/'s almonds doesn't it? So much so that they celebrate NYT hitpieces devoid of context. More power to him.

[Anonymous No.11182054]

>In situations where there is too much mate choice, “a small percentage of the guys have hyper-access to women, and so they don’t form relationships with women,” he said. “And the women hate that.”

Is there emperical evidence of this? I'm open to the idea but is there actual emperical evidence of the hierachy switch in the sexual marketplace?

[Anonymous No.11182063]

>>11182026
hes referring to this research:
https://investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2041-2223-5-13

I think what Peterson is saying is that the leaving of "enforced monogamy" (ie a society that values monogamy) is leading to situation where a minority of men fuck the majority of woman, leaving a lot of men without sex and in turn shape them into possible killers.

[Anonymous No.11182088]

>He was angry at God because women were rejecting him
Did Peterson ever consider he might actually just be angry at women or would that be to problematic a conclusion for the professor? It seems like he just wants to avoid using words like patriarchy.

>>11182063
The thing is "enforced monogamy" is the historically anomaly and monogamist societies are actually the ones which are exceptionally violent.

>There is a close correlation between testicle and penis size and promiscuous social strutures in our primate relatives. Gorillas, living in harem social structures, retain a diminuitive penis and testicle size. If you are a male and operate in a promiscuous social structure, producing large quantities of sperm through a delivery system likely to sucessfully distribute those sperm (Margulis & Sagan, 1991), for example in chimpanzees, this gives you a decided advantage over other males. If you are a male living in a heirarchially organized social system, a gorilla harem for example, then copious amount of sperm production or a long penis does not increase your chances of producing progeny. Your ability to prevent other males from sexual contact with females, by force or intimidation, positively influences your chances of reproductive sucess. Human males evidence sexual anatomical characteristics suggestive of a promiscous social structure (Wilson & Daley, 1992). There are exceptions. These are those human males living under highly hierarchial patriarchal monogamous social structures for thousands of years (Miller, 1994).
>Though Darwin hesitated to pursue the implications, human evolution may have unfolded following the dynamic that comes with the benefits of female choice. Trivers (1985) notes that female choice tends to reinforce certain characteristics in the male population. Tanner (1981) applies this principle to human evolution and comes up with a compelling argument that with big headed babies requiring years of care, males disposed to making sure that the children are taken care of would be selected by the females as copulation partners. Human anatomy evidences this suggestion. A large penis and big testicles suggests a non hierarchial promiscous social structure, usually characterized by female sexual selection.

[Anonymous No.11182095]

>>11182043
Embarrassing post. I suggest you go work on your reading comprehension. Do not reply to me again.

[Anonymous No.11182100]

>>11182054
Empirical evidence you bluepilled cuck:
https://theblog.okcupid.com/a-womans-advantage-82d5074dde2d

[Anonymous No.11182103]

What is making an "equal society" people just spew this and dont get into specifics. As long as women are getting better positions in society they basically only want people at their level or higher. There isnt enough room at the table for everyone in this world thats just how it is. Unironically sexbots might be an answer. To the so called "incel epidemic" these dudes hate real women anyway so just give them a fake one.

[Anonymous No.11182110]

>>11182007

This is a board dedicated to reading books, not your shitty fucking faggot threads. Don't you have something better to do with your time? Like sucking your dads giant shlong?

[Anonymous No.11182115]

>>11182088
Kek monogomy only exists because of social enforcement through institutions such as marriage.

[Anonymous No.11182121]

>Equality of outcome is evil and pathological but all males should get a female sexual partner from the state.

Why do people keep allowing this profiteering idiot to remain relevant.

[Anonymous No.11182135]

>>11182007
>he is literally saying this incel uprising stuff exists
lots say that, and everyone already talked about incels back when the toronto thing happened, your comments on hide speed are months behind the rest of the world
> Leftist commentators and the mainstream commentariat are so stymied by political correctness that they take 10 years to come to any conclusions.
Nothing to do with incels.
>And they do it through long winded and obnoxious op eds and think pieces and padded out books that try to claim too much.
Everyone does that, Peterson once wrote a 500 page book that was "here's some basic life advice for people who pass out during gaming sessions and hierarchies I guess".
>Sure everything he says is retarded and horrible, but he said it fastest (not true btw).

[Anonymous No.11182137]

Is there a source for learning about archetypal literary criticism like the kind Peterson speaks about but at an academic level?
I feel that there's some substance in his examinations of the bible and mesopotamian mythology but it feels like pop-philosophy at that level he lectures on.

[Anonymous No.11182143]

>>11182121
you are purposely misinterpreting the term "enforced monogamy"

[Anonymous No.11182155]

>>11182007
I disagree with JP on a lot but this is one issue he's quite clearly right about.

[Anonymous No.11182157]

>>11182007
>Mr. Peterson
>Mr. Peterson
>Mr. Peterson
IT'S DOCTOR YOU STUPID CUNT

[Anonymous No.11182167]

>>11182100
That isn't saying what you think it is. Pooperson seems to be claiming patriarchal societies are less violent and postulating sexual promiscuity leads to violence. The thing is all historical empirical evidence points towards females in matriarchal societies selecting for males with neotenous characteristics, males excelling in cooperative behaviors and with less hierarchical posturing. Monogamy is at the root of a lot of those "dominance hierarchies" Pooperson wants to defend but he won't admit it as such.

[Anonymous No.11182171]

>>11182137
He's a scholar of Jung so I would go there, and more specifically Jung's lectures on Thus Spoke Zarathustra, then Jung on religion, then Dostoevsky in general. You can specifically read Jordans Maps Of Meaning which is very dense and academic but valuable.

[Anonymous No.11182208]

Bane?

[Anonymous No.11182238]

>>11182143

Lol no I'm not. You're in denial that after all these years of bluster, your icon is in love with the fascist state after all. He's like babbies first authoritarian complete with nu-Eugenics to back it up. Can't wait for the JRE podcast or some other popsci outlet to let this pseud finish digging the rest of his grave.

[Anonymous No.11182239]

>>11182054
Anyone have that meme of the retarded girl and 'boyfriend'?
>cute couple
>We're just friends.
>proceeds to post actual normie boyfriend

[Anonymous No.11182270]

>>11182239
>"Is there emperical evidence of this?"
>"Anyone have that meme ...?"

the absolute state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.11182284]

>>11182270

It's another reminder that ultimately, lit wants convenient memes and armchair philosophy that confirms their worldview and people like Peterson just comes along, pats their nuts and tells them its okay to be a misogynist (pls donate to my Patreon nao)

[Anonymous No.11182291]

>>11182238
Here's a response and a series of tweets that followed:

https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

Critics of my “enforced monogamy” comments in the NY Times: why do you think polygamy is illegal? Why do you think marriage is essentially a human universal, as described by Donald Brown?

And (part of a very large anthropological/psych literature indicating that monogamy makes men less violent): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2016.1216153

Furthermore, anyone motivated by the NY Times to assume that what I meant by "enforced monogamy" was anything other than social convention favoring stable pair bonding can think whatever they want, as they no doubt will anyway...

The hitpiece stripped everything of context. "Enforced monogamy" is an actual term that has individual meaning (ie: socially incentivised monogamy and its promotion as a value system). The article made it out to be like he wants state mandated/assigned girlfriends.

[Anonymous No.11182292]

>>11182137
Read actual Jungian psychoanalysis and not this watered down Peterson bullshit

[Anonymous No.11182298]

>>11182284
Lit is all of that, but peterson is not a misogynist.

[Anonymous No.11182310]

>>11182238
JBP is not a fascist and would obviously not want state intervention into this. He means socially and to an extent legally enforced monogamy. By “to an extent”, we already have that, in that legally only monogamous marriages are valid in almost every major Western country, I don’t think any accept polygamous marriages.

[Anonymous No.11182311]

Government regulated prostitution is the answer, unironically.

Also the excerpts I’m seeing from this NYT piece seem out of context in such a way to deliberately make Peterson look like an idiot (and I’m not even a Peterson fan). Unfortunate that they publish such stuff.

[Anonymous No.11182313]

>>11182291
Look into the works of Dr. James W. Prescott if you want to understand Pooperson is full of shit
http://whale.to/a/prescott2.html

[Anonymous No.11182320]

Gib sexbots now!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11182321]

>>11182044
lmao. I'm a commie and I totally agree with him, enforced monogamy is the solution to emerging incel problem

[Anonymous No.11182325]

>>11182321
I don't think you understand what he means by enforced monogamy. He certainly doesn't mean state mandated partners if that's what you think.

[Anonymous No.11182326]

>>11182007
Bullshit is usually popular when it aligns with people's preexisting delusions. Some men who have no trouble getting laid abuse and kill women, and most men who are not getting laid don't, so I don't think the involuntary chastity is the problem: it's a symptom, perhaps, in that sometimes women's radar works well enough to keep them away from bitter, dangerous men. These men aren't being passed over by women because they're not buff or wealthy enough (a quick reality check will show that many poor skinny/fat weirdos have had lots of great sex). They're being passed over because they're angry, deluded, and obnoxious, and because they're hopelessly misogynist and really viscerally hate and resent women. They think and speak about sex with women in violent terms that use the language of assault and rape, and speak of women as subhuman or childlike--or malicious and evil. And 4chan is where they go to convince each other that their total ignorance of women is actually some clever insight.

[Anonymous No.11182331]

>>11182291
>Furthermore, anyone motivated by the NY Times to assume that what I meant by "enforced monogamy" was anything other than social convention favoring stable pair bonding can think whatever they want, as they no doubt will anyway...
Jesus, this guy has a hilarious persecution complex going on.
>anyone who assumes that by 'emforced monogamy' I meant 'monogamy that is enforced' must have a sinister anti-me agenda

>"Enforced monogamy" is an actual term that has individual meaning (ie: socially incentivised monogamy and its promotion as a value system)
So it's not actually enforced? Then it's an absolutely horrible term and he should (a) be using a different one and (b) not be surprised if people interpret it in the way that the component words very obviously suggest.

[Anonymous No.11182345]

>>11182043
Holy shit this is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.11182347]

>>11182331
It’s an anthropological term, you retard, he didn’t come up with it. Forgive him for being more educated than his stupid interviewer writing a hit piece.

[Anonymous No.11182355]

>>11182331
I wasn't saying that he's a particularly great communicator especially when faced with opposition. My point was that the NYT article was a hit piece devoid of context and the truncated quotes scattered conveniently across the article illustrate this. They knew what they were doing.

JUst like people wrote articles on the VIce interview saying Peterson wanted to forbid lipstick and high heels in the work place. He never said such a thing, but quoting out of context can be used to suggest that.

[Anonymous No.11182371]

>>11182007
>actually reading the (((New York Times)))

[Anonymous No.11182373]

>caring about the vaginal jew when there are better alternatives now

[Anonymous No.11182375]

>>11182355
misquoting =/= taking out of context

[Anonymous No.11182389]

>>11182373
Does Kalindra still uploads pictures?

[Anonymous No.11182391]

>>11182375
Never said they're the same mate. They can have the same effect though. Also, how is it any more laudable to quote someone precisely, while limiting the context of his utterance so that the meaning is deliberately altered? It's the same as misquoting in this case.

[Anonymous No.11182396]

>>11182007
>I laugh, because it is absurd.

[Anonymous No.11182402]

>>11182110
It's almost like this guy wrote a book or something

[Anonymous No.11182403]

>>11182347
>use obscure terms in front of non-anthropologists and expect them to understand it
You can't even say he is speaking among his peers since the whole recent shit is about him speaking to the mass audience

[Anonymous No.11182409]

>>11182402
And you are not discussing the book, you are discussing the person.

[Anonymous No.11182422]

>>11182355
No one's "quoting him out of context", he constantly makes blatant statements and then tries to walk them back and rationalize them in a much more benign form. He can't adequately articulate what he wants because even though he likes presenting himself as "politically incorrect" he knows there's still outer boundaries which he can't cross if he wants to keep his income flow coming in. The mainstream media love these gentle conservative figures and if he wants to keep getting interviews to cry he's a victim he's got to walk a careful line.

[Anonymous No.11182430]

I’m becoming increasingly convinced that the Peterson hate on /lit/ is mostly by genuinely triggered liberals. I used to dislike Peterson too because he didn’t seem very intellectual, more of a pseudointellectual, based on all id heard about him from this board, and I especially disliked him because all the annoying threads about him and excessive controversy. Since the few videos and interviews and quotes posted in these threads didn’t seem that deep, I dismissed him as a pseud. However, after a point, there was finally too much controversy, and, looking into him further to develop an opinion on him, I realized the guy’s actually pretty smart and /lit/. It’s funny, he’s heavily rooted in some of /lit/‘s poster boys — Nietzsche, Jung, Dostoevsky — and yet there’s so much vitriol against him on this board.

That’s why I really think the seeming huge bile against him on this board is not representative of the board as a whole, but just some particularly angry and loud Redditors and liberals genuinely upset by him.

[Anonymous No.11182437]

>>11182403
>>11182422
See >>11182430
You don’t have an argument, your feelings are just hurt.

[Anonymous No.11182438]

>>11182402
so did sasha grey, doesnt mean were gonna discuss her porn now
this has nothing to do with his shitty book

[Anonymous No.11182440]

>>11182430
>I didn't WANT to like Peterson but the liberals made me

[Anonymous No.11182445]

>>11182438
Have you seen that video where she fucks two old dudes?

[Anonymous No.11182446]

>>11182430
>he’s heavily rooted in some of /lit/‘s poster boys — Nietzsche, Jung, Dostoevsky
And he completely misinterprets them. Maybe if you spent time reading instead of pretending to not be interested in JP you would realize why there is so much vitriol.

[Anonymous No.11182447]

Peterson is for bugmen

[Anonymous No.11182449]

>>11182440
No argument, just hurt feelings again. I’m not an alt-righter, a Trump supporter, an insecure young man, and I hate frog-posters. Peterson is basically a classical liberal, the stuff he says would not have been this controversial at all just 40 years ago, the extreme hatred and vilification of him by modern mainstream media is testament to the genuine insanity of the current cultural atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11182448]

>>11182446
What's their youtube channels?

[Anonymous No.11182450]

>>11182430
>redditors and liberals
I think JBP has pretty solid support from both of those demographics. 12 Rules is a thoroughly normie, bestseller text and JBP is now established as a high-profile public commentator

[Anonymous No.11182454]

>>11182440
it's a meme, like those claiming that they only moved further to the right because libruhls kept calling them racists or misogynists and it really hurt their feelings

[Anonymous No.11182456]

>>11182446
I’ve read them all. Peterson is a psychologist, not a literary critic or philosopher. He doesn’t have to agree with them on everything, he doesn’t have to have memorized all of them exactly. His influence and inspiration from them is clear however, and your point is just nitpicking. I’d be interested for you to give some examples of him misinterpreting them by the way, I’d love to hear them.

[Anonymous No.11182457]

>>11182347
he should have known they were going to take it out of context

[Anonymous No.11182458]

>>11182454
Wow, this place is really turning into reddit. Go castrate yourself if you’re not already a woman.

[Anonymous No.11182467]

>>11182457
given the structure of the article, it's completely possible there was context set up. It doesn't exactly give us the first part of the conversation, nor the ending. Kinda doubtful given the tone of the article.

[Anonymous No.11182481]

>>11182447
so is 4chan

[Anonymous No.11182482]

>>11182456
not gonna happen

[Anonymous No.11182486]

>>11182457
that's what he always does. throw in a deliberately vague or ambiguous statement that heavily implies something, wait for some postmodern neomarxist to say that implication out loud while trying to make sense of the statement, accuse them of misrepresenting what he's saying as part of the liberal media's persecution of conservative thought, wait for his drones to try and flesh out that deliberately vague statement and tell everyone what he ACTUALLY meant (even though it rarely ever resembles what he actually said).

[Anonymous No.11182487]

>>11182313
Lmao

>being polyamorous is the solution guy !

[Anonymous No.11182491]

>>11182449
>classical liberal
well, this is precisely the point. classical liberalism originated as a reformist ideology which proposed a new model in opposition to the prevailing (ie conservative) mode of thought of the day. in the contemporary west, where the neoliberal mode of thought prevails, you can't call it a reformist ideology and it by definition is inherently conservative

the "reformist" beacon that classic liberalism once held now belongs to the models that challenge today's order, which is both the hard Left as well as the various anti-globalization/economic nationalist movements in the West

[Anonymous No.11182501]

>>11182449
Nice ad hominem, "feelings". If you haven't noticed the mainstream media is the one constantly promoting him today because they want to boost his brand of "compassionate conservatism" as a potential counter to the "alt-right". He isn't a "classical liberal" (which is a bastardized term today), he's more of a paternalist.

The issue at hand here (of monogamy) has already been adequately approached by James Prescott but Peterson is a charlatan on all fronts anyways. He hasn't produced anything of substance and was relativity unknown until recently for a reason, he intentionally misinterprets every author he has approached.

[Anonymous No.11182510]

>>11182449
What you fail to understand is that the part of /lit/ that engages in political discussion or subjects that are tangential to politics, is overwhelmingly comprised of communists and Marxists. Not only that, but you also get organised /leftypol/ invasions as part of their subversive activism. So 'classical liberalism' is just as much an enemy to these people as is...well, anything else really.

Engage them carefully if you will, maybe you'll save some impressionable young soul from their reach, but never get personally invested.

[Anonymous No.11182539]

It's sad because there is this whole new generation of men emerging who are lost. Because the Zeitgeist demands of everyone to think that men were always privileged in the past and it's their time for them to step down.

When a woman becomes an astronomer for example, she gets countless interviews in newspapers and she will always, without exception, make sure everyone knows 'how hard' it was for her to get to that position. The funny thing is that most of these women are actually privileged people with rich families and academic connections, but you never hear about that, neither from the interviewer nor the interviewed. So what happens is that men become jealous, why do women get so much attention for such inane stuff? Why should we accept rich bitch women who call normal working class / middle class guys privileged?

On top of that everyone ignores that women have 100% free choice of partners. A woman can go to any random guy in a bar and she'll get laid the same night. There are countless of desperate men waiting for her to start a relationship with them, it doesn't matter if she'll be a bossy bitch, the man will accept it. Everyone has at least one friend with the bossy girlfriend and most of the times that friend likes to be bossed around (but only by his gf). I think Peterson is someone who says a lot of bullshit, especially when he starts talking about 'the central claim of postmodernism' or 'according to Derrida everything is oppression', but here he is spot on. Luckily I'm not one of these guys considering I have a gf but I can understand there will be this huge group of marginalized guys who are just cut off from the dating pool and will die alone and miserable. Or the alternative: they will radicalize and express their frustration on the world through violence. Basically the same what happens with young muslims in shitty UK / Paris ghettos. The difference? The young muslims can expect sympathy from leftists and the young white guys cannot expect sympathy simply by virtue of their whiteness. In the simple mind of an identity politics fethishist all white men are privileged because of invisible systems. Which turns those guys into women haters and white supremacists. This is actually what happens on 4chan a lot. Peterson is very important here because he wants those men to let go of their frustration and work on themselves, yet the media is portraying him as part of the alt right of 'intellectual dark web' or some bullshit like that.

We live in absurd times.

[Anonymous No.11182556]

>>11182311
No you're a fucking retard.
How would a prostitute improve an incel's self worth? How would it provide that female approval they're desperate for?

[Anonymous No.11182578]

>>11182501
Isn't this thread about a mainstream media hit piece about him?

[Anonymous No.11182586]

>>11182578
>hit piece
can you really call it a "hit" when the man shoots himself?

[Anonymous No.11182592]

>>11182586
Well i don't know, but it sure didn't really take a positive view of him.

[Anonymous No.11182600]

>>11182347
Then he is a retard for using that term. If he is so smart he should aware of the connotation around the word "enforced". So either he is an autist or he is idiot, chose one.

[Anonymous No.11182601]

>>11182586
The man shot himself in that his communication wasn't precise enough. The hit part is coming from a journalist who deliberately obfuscated context and was more concerned with how to get him to say something retarded, or controversial, than get him to explain his views in detail. But yes, he was careless and the NYT broad made him out to be a handmaid's tale boogeyman.

[Anonymous No.11182603]

>>11182458
this board is full on reddit
get out while you still can

[Anonymous No.11182608]

>>11182603
Already on my way out. It's sad, really, until the summer got closer it wasn't bad.

[Anonymous No.11182615]

>>11182601
>The hit part is coming from a journalist who deliberately obfuscated context and was more concerned with how to get him to say something retarded, or controversial, than get him to explain his views in detail.
bullshit, i've seen the mans lectures and he's always bad at explaining his ideas, he's constantly vague in his statements and takes detours in his line of reasoning that lead nowhere, you can't blame the journalist for that.

[Anonymous No.11182617]

>>11182601
If he so incredibly stupid that he uses the word "enforced" as a method to be put in practice, while knowing the connotation of the word then that is no hit piece, that is his own retardation. If he is that careless at that simple level then his pseudo level knowns no bounds.

[Anonymous No.11182638]

>>11182088
>Human males evidence sexual anatomical characteristics suggestive of a promiscous social structure

maybe blacks and the irish but thats it. everyone elese has tiny cocks

[Anonymous No.11182643]

>>11182615
The oped article is a result of a long interview (possibly daylong) which was truncated into quotes devoid of context to support her opinion. That's all. I've not said he's a good communicator, but the article deliberately changed the meaning, or at the very least took advantage of his precarious communication.
>>11182617
I never claimed he wasn't careless. He is terrible at speaking with hostile interviewers. Having said that, that term, while it has its individual definition in anthropology, was more than likely preceded by a discussion that contextualised it. Bad idea to lend yourself to opeds coming from people who think of you as an enemy. Your terms should include unedited interviews.

[Anonymous No.11182646]

>>11182430
>Nietzsche, Jung, Dostoevsky
I am legitimately mad that he constantly abuses Jungian psychoanalysis. Nothing about him is /lit/

[Anonymous No.11182648]

>>11182007
why does this guy have communist propaganda and weird art all over his house?

[Anonymous No.11182658]

>>11182615
>h-he's vague

The crutch of nu males who don't understand anything

[Anonymous No.11182661]

>>11182501
>the mainstream media is the one constantly promoting him today because they want to boost his brand of "compassionate conservatism" as a potential counter to the "alt-right"
I’m confused as to your definition of “mainstream media”, because it seems that any google search of him will immediately pull up many articles vilifying him and twisting his words out of context. NYT articles, Washington Post articles, CNN articles, the Cathy Newman interview — the extremely liberal-leaning cabal making up some of the biggest news companies is just absolutely incensed by this guy and constantly running hit pieces on him. It’s some of the worst journalism I’ve ever seen in my life, it boggles me that such huge news corporations have such low standards in reporting. I respect if you actually nuancedly disagree with him. I’d like to hear some examples of him misinterpreting authors, but anyway, I don’t glorify Peterson, he’s not an earth-shaking intellectual and entirely original, I just think he isn’t even given a fair voice.

>>11182491
OK, but what does this have to do with what I’m saying? I’m basically saying he’s not a fascist, not an authoritarian or totalitarian or someone who wants to set up death camps, but you’d think he is if you just read the New York Times and CNN. Maybe “classical liberal” is not the perfect term, but what I’m saying is his political views are actually fairly tame, and would have been seen as within normality/at least not as completely outrageous not too long ago.

>>11182510
Good to know I’m not insane. Ironically I actually care about literature and philosophy much more than politics and stick to literature threads here. This is one of my first times trying to engage in a Peterson thread, I’ve been on this board 6 years, and reading through stuff here, I’m boggled at the genuinely rabid liberals and SJWs here.