> To be clear, Peterson's commentary is not original. M. Scott Peck, the Buddha, and literally 100s of other philosophers and psychologists have shared similar insights. Remarkably, those thinkers managed to share this insight without offending half the population in order to drive book sales and line their pockets.

What point are you trying to make with this snide remark?

That sources should be disregarded if their ideas “offend” 50% of the population (a claim for which you provided no evidence)?

That sources should be disregarded if they made money from book sales? This would mean disregarding almost all sources.

That a commentary is "unoriginal" if someone in the past has "shared similar insights"? This is pure nonsense.