[flagged]
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.
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...
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.