[badpun]

> He also refuses to acknowledge trans people

Have you listened to him? He specifically speaks that he's been in good contact with trans people, who often thank him for his actions. As for the rest of the items you listed, they look like your opinions on him, not facts. I was hoping for direct quotations from Peterson. For example, how do you back your claim that he's speaking "absolutely nonsense racist and misogynistic statements"? I've listened to probably about 100 hours of Peterson and I haven't ever heard any. Please give citations.

[KozmoNau7]

Read these excellent critiques, that'll be easier than just a selection of quotes, or having me rewrite everything in this post.

https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/02/20/why-are-so-many-young-...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerou...

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/jordan-peterson-threatened-to...

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/8kw3ig/jord...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-profound-sadness...

https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-guide-to-jordan-petersons...

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/05/199599/jordan-peter...

Jordan Peterson is not a person to admire nor adore.

[mikedilger]

I started reading these, but they are so full of misrepresentations that I couldn't stomach the whole list. You can't judge someone by reading second hand opinions. From the first link: * Accusations of mysogyny and bigotry without quotations as evidence. Immoral. * Claims Peterson thought bill C-16 was a violation of free speech; in fact he was only concerned about "compelled" speech. Immoral misrepresentation. * Author purports to understand what Jung meant better than everyone else who supposedly have all misinterpreted Jung, with no humility or self reflection whatsoever. Immoral. * Suggests indirectly that differences between men and women come from "questionable data". While literally anything could be questioned, misleads. Immoral. I've only gotten through 3 paragraphs, but my instincts tell me to stop reading this trash. It's clearly not honest.

My impression is that Jordan fears dystopia. He has studied the psychology of totalitarianism, both on the right and the left. He has concluded that the atrocities could not have been committed were it not for the failings of individuals, a failure to remain true, to remain moral. As a result, Jordan is very careful to remain as moral and ethical as humanly possible. He very carefully choses his words so as to not accidently say something that isn't quite true. People are drawn to him because his ethics and morality are many levels higher than anything anybody has seen in generations, and it is striking.

[KozmoNau7]

All of these critiques are full of actual quotes from Peterson. The Reddit thread is even full of direct Twitter links to posts made by him, on his verified account.

The man is a fraud and a charlatan, and you exhibit the clear signs of having been taken in by a convincing speaker, with little regard to what he's actually saying and preaching. A so-called "True Follower", with a complete lack of understanding for criticism against the Adored Idol, in this case Peterson.

I do see the appeal. He's positioned himself as a father figure to disaffected young white men, and he says things they want/need to hear (stand up straight etc.). Unfortunately he also uses that platform to spread old-fashioned misogyny and fear of the Other, and some outrageously wrong-headed nonsense. I suggest you review the Reddit thread I linked.

As per a previous thread, you also thought Gab was entirely above-board, and not an alt-right/white supremacist hideout with the very thinnest veneer of legitimacy haphazardly added on top.

More critical thought about the "hidden" agendas of notorious online presences would be very good practice.

[mikedilger]

I probably should stop replying to you. But you seem to have a few misconceptions. I am not a follower of Jordan Peterson. I've never bought his books or sent him any money or seen him in a speaking engagement. I'm not a young man. I'm not a disaffected young white man, nor do I need guidance from a father figure. I'm a successful, retired, independent libertarian. I disagree with Jordan on a lot of things. I'm an athiest. I don't think symbolism is anywhere near as important as he does. I'm not so keen on boundaries, but I appreciate understanding the right a little bit better through Jordan as he describes how the right care about boundaries.

But your critiques are bad. Really bad.

Gab IS entirely above board. Do you know what that term means? It means not doing anything illegal.

I'm going to assume you are young, and I apologize if I'm wrong. But what you young tikes are getting very wrong is this idea of parallel justice, mob justice, as if you can rewrite everything about justice that we have learned over the centuries and draw up entirely new rules where gab is considered not above board, where saying "women aren't men" is considered hate speech, where people are presumed guilty, innuendo and accusation are taken as conclusive evidence, any offence requires a lifetime permanent ban, and ideas themselves are crime (hate, racism, misogyny... are not crimes for some very good reasons). The idea that racism is infectious is ridiculous -- racism comes from a natural suspicion of outsiders, and is cured by multiculturalism, not deplatforming. Misogyny is mostly rejected men not taking ownership of their own failure, and blaming women instead. You can't cure that by rejecting them yet again. Sometimes I think I must be dreaming; the world can't have gotten this crazy this fast, can it?

Go look into pre-WWII Germany and see how the holocaust came about. It all started with pretty much exactly what social justice warriors are doing today... the willful erosion of human rights. Back in 1933 everyone was cheering Hitler on as the right to free speech was taken away. I'm afraid history is repeating.