Listened to him on Joe Rogan. Some stuff he said sounded reasonable, and then a lot of it sounded like babbling pseudo science nonsense. I dunno. Whatever.
Is that a bad thing? Because from what I've seen, he says Marxism as if it is inherently bad. And if that is the definition he uses, then the Civil Rights Era was cultural Marxism. Women gaining the vote was cultural Marxism. Basically any push for social justice is cultural Marxism. And, again, the way he says it, it's bad.
I guess it depends how far you take it and how much you lose in the process. Removing bad aspects of society like racist and sexists laws is different than an attack on western culture and beliefs as a whole. Again I am inferring why he was so opposed to the law, not arguing on his behalf. But Oversoul is much more versed on this.
My main point of being here is not to defend JP's POV, since I have only watch a handful of his videos, but to point out the inability to discuss his theories in the thread. Personally I feel people in opposition to his viewpoints are far better served by arguing against them, rather then simply calling him an alt right nazi.
Oversoul
You've been answering and commenting a lot so I don't want to put you out, but I am curious on what drove you to Peterson as a thinker/philosopher/psychologyst/"self help guru". Like, from where and how did you hear about him? What is it that drew you to him and not others in the same fields? Only reason I ask is the types of people I see praise and follow him are those people you mentioned earlier that make really bad reactionary and "red pill" videos that clog up youtube, and you seemingly don't agree with them.
As far as politics go, I have always been somewhat contrarian and centrist. So I greatly appreciate Peterson call to return to critical thinking and common sense in this age of hyper-partisanship.
He doesn't do this at all
You're talking about the guy who thinks Frozen is propaganda and not art because he didn't see the Hans twist comingm
I'm talking about the guy who says stay the hell away from the extreme right and extrme left idealogues and think critically as an individual.
I'm talking about the guy who says stay the hell away from the extreme right and extrme left idealogues and think critically as an individual.
Listened to him on Joe Rogan. Some stuff he said sounded reasonable, and then a lot of it sounded like babbling pseudo science nonsense. I dunno. Whatever.
Jordan Peterson just crumbling when asked to expand on his makeup and workplace argument is absolutely hilarious to read in its entirety, so thank you for transcribing. The dude's evasive as hell if you interrogate his points with any depth.Okay so two things. I had a look at the unedited video.
The first thing I want to mention is... do you not think he is kind of a dick? Like a condescending, histrionic, needlessly combative dude? Why is he so incredibly mad at this guy?
Anyway though whatever. If you like his style, that's your opinion. Let's talk about what he says after the makeup thing, which you think was taken out of context:
PETERSON: I don't see how you could not think that. It's like, makeup is sexual display. That's what it's for. You say, I want to look more attractive. It's like, what do you mean more attractive exactly?
INTERVIEWER: So then what is a better outcome for you, then? A workplace with no sexual harassment, where women wear uniforms and don't wear makeup, much like the Maoists, which you were saying, or a sort of freer workplace in which sexual harassment is an inevitability because women wear high heels and makeup?
PETERSON: Well, I don't say that sexual harassment is an inevitability because women wear high heels and makeup, I didn't say that.
INTERVIEWER: Or that it is more likely.
PETERSON: I said that it... it contributes to the sexualization of the workplace.
INTERVIEWER: What's the difference between "more likely" and that?
PETERSON: [5 second pause] Okay, more likely, I'll go with that.
INTERVIEWER: So more likely -
PETERSON: Sure.
INTERVIEWER: Okay so which one do you prefer?
PETERSON: I don't prefer either of them. Oh... which one of those two would I prefer?
INTERVIEWER: Yeah.
PETERSON: I would prefer, I'd prefer the one where people had the freedom.
INTERVIEWER: Alright so, within that, we've gotten to that point. That people should have freedom to wear makeup, right? But that that will inevitably lead to - not inevitably but is more likely that sexual harassment happens in the workplace? Isn't that sort of saying that -
PETERSON: Well -
INTERVIEWER: Like, how is that not saying that if women wear makeup in the -
PETERSON: That isn't what I said! Like, you're pushing it past what I said by a substantial margin. I said we don't understand the world that govern the - that interactions in the, between men and women in the workplace, right. We don't understand the rules. And so I was pushing a limit case, that's what I was doing. I wasn't saying women shouldn't wear makeup-
INTERVIEWER: No, I was never saying that you said that, either though-
PETERSON: That we could have a question about - there should be a question raised about that. And there is, often, I mean, companies have dress codes, let's say, you know. And they have a reason for that. But... but, the fact that we got tangled up in this conversation is an indication of exactly how difficult it is to have a reasonable, a reasonable conversation about exactly what rules should govern the interactions between men and women in the workplace.
INTERVIEWER: I would object to that a little bit, because I think the reason this conversation has been difficult is because, like, there are certain things where you'll just punt, and say I'm not saying that, and you'll try and be very hyper-specific and there are examples of that where I feel like you were right, like I feel like the Cathy Newman article, er, the Cathy Newman interview I felt like a lot of what you were, that what, that she put words in your mouth. I don't feel like I'm doing that, in fact I feel like I've been extremely careful not to -
PETERSON: And I'm, I'm definitely not accusing you of that -
INTERVIEWER: Okay, so,
PETERSON: I'm just saying these sorts of conversations are difficult, not that you're making it unduly difficult -
INTERVIEWER: Okay, sure. So, I guess, look, this is a test case, right, like we are not here to say "Jordan Peterson says that this is true," we are talking about a specific test case. Like, we agree - well, not we agree, but you are arguing - that makeup is sexualized, high heels are sexualized. Right?
PETERSON: Yeah.
INTERVIEWER: That when they're in a workplace, that the workplace has a higher preponderance of becoming sexualized.
PETERSON: Yes.
INTERVIEWER: How is that - how do we not then take the next step and say that, ergo, if we want to get rid of sexual harassment in the workplace, that your belief is that women should not wear high heels or makeup in the workplace?
PETERSON: Oh, because there's other potential solutions. People could - well, you could allow for a certain level of sexual tension, and not act on it in a reprehensible manner. I mean look, if, let's say you're married to someone, right,
INTERVIEWER: I am married -
PETERSON: Right, so, you go to a party, you ever flirt?
INTERVIEWER: I mean, I don't go to parties.
PETERSON: Oh, okay. Do you ever flirt at all?
INTERVIEWER: [laughing] No, honestly not
PETERSON: Do you know how?
INTERVIEWER: But that is not - no, not really.
PETERSON: Okay, so [crosstalk] not so good. Well look. Look. One of the things that's enjoyable about the interactions between men and women, even of yr married, s an element of flirtatiousness that can underscore the interaction/ Okay. You dont wanna get rid of that. It's too tyrannical to get rid of that. But you're playing with fire. You have to know that you're playing with fire. And so there's going to be some sexual provocativeness in the workplace, let's say, both ways. You're playing with fire. And you have to know what the rules are. And we don't know what the rules are.
INTERVIEWER: Okay, what if I said, it's okay to flirt with your co-worker from time to time, but don't grab them, in the privates.
PETERSON: Well, that seems, you know, I think we can agree that that might be a reasonable start, right. But then, of course, you still have the problem of what constitutes acceptable flirting.
INTERVIEWER: Do you feel like the majority of people, then, in this Me Too movement right now that have been speaking out
PETERSON: Yeah
INTERVIEWER: Do you really think that all of them are saying that, you can't flirt at all, or do you think most of them are saying, you just can't grab me in the privates, becuase just as somebody who has also read about this and studied it quite a bit, who's followed it very intensely, it really does seem like the message is hey, you know, don't pull your robe off, don't grab me in the privates,
PETERSON: No, I think it's worse than that.
INTERVIEWER: You do.
PETERSON: Yeah, well look at what happened with NBC. Now you're supposed to report your co-workers if you suspect them of romantic entanglements.
INTERVIEWER: That's been true of American, like, that is one symptom-
PETERSON: But this is a policy, now. It's a horrible policy.
INTERVIEWER: It's a policy at one company-
PETERSON: It's NBC. It's part of a response to this, yeah, it's a repsonse to it. But it's a bad response. You said is it only about not being grabbed. It's like, no, it's not only about that.
INTERVIEWER: If it was only about not being grabbed would you be okay with it?
PETERSON: Well I'm not in favour of people being involuntarily grabbed, I'm not in favour of sexual harassment or sexual assault, not in the least. I already told you what I think. I'm a sexual conservative. I don't think people should have sex on the first date. I think they should be very careful with sex. Right, so I'm not in the camp of, right, let's grab each other under the mistletoe, at the Christmas party because what the hell. I'm not in that camp. I'm in the be bloody careful camp. And don't step out of line. And don't like, don't like, ah, have designs on your secretary when you hire her. I think that's all apalling. But I don't think we're capable of having an adult conversation about it. Not as a culture. Not even a bit.
INTERVIEWER: Let's say that the result of all of this, of the Me Too movement, is that there might be some polciies which might strike a sort of civil libertarian such as yourself or someone that believes in individual freedom, as a bit oppressive, but that women get stop getting grabbed in the privates-
PETERSON: I don't think that's what'll happen.
INTERVIEWER: That this is the collateral damage from that-
PETERSON: No, I don't-
INTERVIEWER: Is that not a win? Is that not a win for someone who thinks women should not be grabbed in the privates-
PETERSON: I don't think that's what'll happen.
INTERVIEWER: What evi- like, why?
PETERSON: Because I don't think the ideas that are being put forth have the kind of power that will transform people's behaviour in a reasonable manner.
INTERVIEWER: Okay, that's very vague. Can you-
PETERSON: No it's not-
INTERVIEWER: It is. You've essentially said that, that, I don't believe that the ideas are going to work.
PETERSON: They're not concrete enough.
INTERVIEWER: They're not concrete enough? I mean I think that almost every big media organization has specifically rewritten their policies in the past few months with very concrete examples of all the things that are not okay. I mean, like, do you not think that those are concrete enough?
PETERSON: Well maybe, it's possible, I don't know the policies well enough to be certain, ah, my sense generally is that, like, what would you say if, outraged mob activism generally doesn't translate very well into intelligent policy-
INTERVIEWER: But it does lead to change.
PETERSON: We'll see.
So there's the rest of the interview. I spent like half an hour and a significant number of brain cells transcribing it for you.
What, in the above transcript, sheds a more positive light on Peterson saying that women who wear makeup but do not want to be sexually harassed are hypocrites? It's all laid out for you up there. In my opinion the full transcript makes him sound significantly worse. But you're the JP fan.
Seriously I do want to know the answer to this.
Edit - Also holy shit this guy wrote an advice book with a chapter called "be precise in your speech" and this is how he talks ffs
Edit 2 - Also yeah I'm not shocked that this guy has had three sexual harassment cases himself. Also the conflation of sexual assault with casual sex is really shitty.
I'm flabbergasted at that video. Gender equality is a screen for Marxists because they realized that the workers utopia is in the Soviet Union and it is murderous. Like what the fuck. Is there anything about what he calls the transgressions against western thought? The video didn't have the interviewers part about that.
I'm flabbergasted at that video. Gender equality is a screen for Marxists because they realized that the workers utopia is in the Soviet Union and it is murderous. Like what the fuck.
I'm flabbergasted at that video. Gender equality is a screen for Marxists because they realized that the workers utopia is in the Soviet Union and it is murderous. Like what the fuck. Is there anything about what he calls the transgressions against western thought? The video didn't have the interviewers part about that.
I've no doubt it's there too. I think most people that use the word are morons, I directly stated so earlier in the thread.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/rec3.12258
- By Jerome Jamis, 2018
I thought his twelfth rule for life was strange, but then we get into this conspiracy here. I don't know, guys. I don't know how someone can here that and agree with him.
Thanks for the answer!No problem at all. I've been following Peterson for quite some time now. The campus video where he get's yelled at by students and tries to listen anyway was the first I think, but I did not find that interesting.
Than youtube recommended me some excerpts from his lectures, which somehow caught my attention. I have studied psychology, but decided it was not for and quit. Here was a guy who made psychology interesting again by trying to find the psycho-analytical threads in large cultural stories like Lion King and Harry Potter.
It kind of went from there. The strong focus on resposibillity really resonated with me because my life was very unclear and chaotic at the time. I had no idea what to do next and felt kind of lost. I always grew up with freedom as my personal holy grail and was (and sometimes am) a selfish and impulsive person. Peterson made me rethink this conviction about freedom as a goal.
Now, I try to focus more on responsibillity and see freedom as a basic need and a gift that is to uses responsibilly.
As far as politics go, I have always been somewhat contrarian and centrist. So I greatly appreciate Peterson call to return to critical thinking and common sense in this age of hyper-partisanship.
His views on Marxism/Communism are based mostly on the communist countries. He argues that so far, any attempt to establish communism has ended with an unstable system which resulted in reduce living standards, deaths, loss of productivity and generally unhappy society. He uses Gulag Archipelago as well as history to illustrate how the Soviet Union, as well as other communist countries failed.
There isn't a single country in the world which succeeded under communism, but he says that the amount of poverty and hunger has been dramatically reduced under the current system.
And when he puts it that way, even without using any of his psychology justifications and theories how people need some structure and responsibilities to suffer less, it makes a lot of sense to reject communist ideas based on the sheer amount of historical evidence.
Isn't outright dismissing anything from what you consider an extreme, in and of itself, a way of not thinking critically? There's a lot of potential for misuse in labeling things you disagree with as "extremism" so you can dismiss it without actually engaging in critical thinking. Thinking critically as you suggest would mean you'd have to take into account every part of the spectrum, extremes and everything in between. Truly thinking critically would involve understanding that something can be learned or gained even from "wrong" ideas.I'm talking about the guy who says stay the hell away from the extreme right and extrme left idealogues and think critically as an individual.
Their white, heterosexual dreams will be haunted by the gender equality dystopia brought forth by DerridaDo you think in the future children will be scared to go to bed lest Foucault and Derrida grab them in their sleep? This is the future conservatives want.
What is so enticing to self-admitted lost men that they get into Jordan Peterson, cults, self-help gurus, pseudoscience peddlers, and other extremists? There was that guy earlier in the thread (Plok64) whose brother got into JP cause his life was unclear and transformed his life for the better apparently, and now the same is for Oversoul on this page.
They fall into these rabbit holes on Youtube, a platform ripe for extremism where facts and sources don't have to play, and come out the other side as ardent fans who will defend his contrarian conservative take on Disney cartoon movies with a serious face.
You're not answering the questions. You're still thinking we don't have informed opinions. It's still condescension and a distraction tactic.
My main point of being here is not to defend JP's POV, since I have only watched a handful of his videos, but to point out the inability to discuss his theories in the thread. Personally I feel people in opposition to his viewpoints are far better served by arguing against them, rather then simply calling him an alt right nazi.
Can you please quote anyone in the last 100 replies that is simply just calling him an alt right nazi and not adding context to such a statement?
Jordan Peterson just crumbling when asked to expand on his makeup and workplace argument is absolutely hilarious to read in its entirety, so thank you for transcribing. The dude's evasive as hell if you interrogate his points with any depth.
What is so enticing to self-admitted lost men that they get into Jordan Peterson, cults, self-help gurus, pseudoscience peddlers, and other extremists? There was that guy earlier in the thread (Plok64) whose brother got into JP cause his life was unclear and transformed his life for the better apparently, and now the same is for Oversoul on this page.
I thought his twelfth rule for life was strange, but then we get into this conspiracy here. I don't know, guys. I don't know how someone can here that and agree with him.
There is a reason why people keep calling Peterson alt-right or adjacent or whatever. It's because he keeps using terms the alt-right uses. Transgressions against Western thought, Cultural Marxism, railing against the idea of privilege, thinking that the work relationships between men and women was better forty years ago... these are alt-right concepts straight up.
What is Western thought? What are Western beliefs? Why must they be protected?
He does not say that. He says the sentences are either (1) banal; or (2) nonsensical. He does not say that Peterson uses words that are too big or too technical.
Again, he's not complaining about the vocabulary. He's complaining about the syntax.
Critic said:But all this stuff about "intrapsychic spirits" and "the flow of spiritual water" is just said, never clearly explained, let alone proved. If you asked him to explain it, you would just get a long string of additional abstract terms.
Peterson said:Law disciplines possibility, and allows the disciplined individual to bring his or her potentialities—those intrapsychic spirits—under voluntary control. The law allows for the application of such potentiality to the task of creative and courageous existence—allows spiritual water controlled flow into the valley of the shadow of death.
Robinson did read the book. When you critique something, you necessarily have to use examples to make the point your making. Does he have to annotate the entire book to satisfy you. Your response to his critique is essentially, "You just don't get it maaaaaaan. My boy JP's laying down the broken truths and they're just way above your head."
The critic buying his insurance plan against all possible disagreement said:I am dreading the inevitable emails insisting that I just don't understand Peterson
Also worth noting that Peterson has no training in philosophy, which may be why he's not good at it.
You appear to be having great difficulty understanding the article, because you've misrepresented Robinson's critique. An accurate summary of it (I hope this is allowed, since you've suggested above that summaries of an argument are invalid in critiquing it) are:
(1) The things that Peterson says that are true are banal.
(2) Other things that Peterson says are incomprehensible.
(3) Peterson's needlessly emotive and baroque manner of writing obscures (1) and (2).
Critic said:But here the left and academia actually bear a decent share of blame..... Another part of it, though, is that academics have been cloistered and unhelpful, and the left has failed to offer people a coherent political alternative......Peterson is popular partly because he criticizes social justice activists in a way many people find satisfying, and some of those criticisms have merit.
Ah, dismiss a critique by ascribing secret motives to the critic rather than engage the critique. And in the same sentence complain about mind-reading armchair analysis. Irony lives! Poor job, poor effort.
He does acknowledge that Peterson's views have meaning. Just that they aren't very interesting or original. I mean, it's right in the article.
critic said:(Ironically, Maps of Meaning contains neither maps nor meaning.)
An appeal to book blurbs and some more attacking of secret motives? I could say that you're just saying this because you're a butthurt JP fanboy who gets triggered when someone takes a shot at him. But then I'd just be doing what you're doing in reverse and I prefer to play the ball not the man.
critic said:And it's not just members of the popular press that have conceded Peterson's importance: the chair of the Harvard psychology department praised his magnum opus Maps of Meaning as "brilliant" and "beautiful." Zachary Slayback of the Foundation for Economic Education wonders how any serious person could possibly write off Peterson, saying that "even the most anti-Peterson intellectual should be able to admit that his project is a net-good." We are therefore presented with a puzzle: if Jordan Peterson has nothing to say, how has he attracted this much recognition? If it's so "obvious" that he can be written off as a charlatan, why do so many people respect his intellect?
critic said:I share the belief that government legislation requiring people to use particular pronouns would be an infringement on civil liberties.
Exactly. He mostly goes on conservative talks shows. Never the left. I want him to go on Chapo. Also, you can't be a centrist if you tell people to take their children out of school if the school promotes equity, equality, and the end of white privilege.And beyond this, if someone's spouting alt-right nonsense to argue against leftist beliefs, and yet doesn't really say anything against conservative beliefs... I'm not really sure how they can possibly be considered a centrist.
wer the question of why Peterson has received legitimate recognition from actual authorities in academia. How convenient for him for forget about that one. It's easier to just bash and label anyone pushing back against his narrative as a "butthurt JP fanboy" as you so wisely stated.
Thanks, that explains why Jay P's hyper-individualism appeals to people who have lost the locus of control in their lives and are prone to believing that they need order in their lives (hence cleaning up your room with straight shoulders) and chaos (the feminine fearful outside world) is what they have to fight against. It's just too bad this ends up as a reactionary fight rather than caring about others in a collective effort so strive for equality falls by the wayside.If you can stand a probably-stoned bearded slob ranting into his cellphone Matt Christman of Chapo had a really good Periscope about what it is that draws them in and why it works.
It's just too bad this ends up as a reactionary fight rather than caring about others in a collective effort so strive for equality falls by the wayside.
Yeah he's doing a bang-up job of that.I'm talking about the guy who says stay the hell away from the extreme right and extrme left idealogues and think critically as an individual.
Do you think in the future children will be scared to go to bed lest Foucault and Derrida grab them in their sleep?
So, I think this applies outside of Peterson and really any politics in general, and into a broad topic (that I've contemplated making as a thread), but a lot of it also falls on how these thoughts get exposed to people. It used to be you were introduced to these theories and philosophies and politics in safe, understanding situations: schooling and primarily college/university. Things would get contextualized, explained, and explored from many viewpoints where students are asking questions and different professors giving different answers. Now, if introduced too young to some topics, I posit that they just get blown out and distorted (like, you really saw this with GamerGate and the very basic tenets of feminism and general media theory that caused such an uproar with a fanbase that had no idea on the very basics of how media is explored). And, with YouTube, the great extremist maker that it is, the algorithm will give you more of either what you want, or what will illicit a reaction from you (something totally not what you believe that can further cement your feelings or something that leads you down an even darker alley). Without getting context or historical thinking, it can really corrupt a viewpoint to where someone has no idea that these ways of thinking aren't new and novel, and may just be repackaged pseudo popsci jumbo. To be trite: give a person a knife in a culinary class and they'll learn to chop food; give a person a knife on their own and they may just start wildly stabbing things.They fall into these rabbit holes on Youtube, a platform ripe for extremism where facts and sources don't have to play, and come out the other side as ardent fans who will defend his contrarian conservative take on Disney cartoon movies with a serious face.
That fallacy doesn't apply to deliberate association, only loose/unrelated ones.
So, I think this applies outside of Peterson and really any politics in general,
I'm talking about the guy who says stay the hell away from the extreme right and extrme left idealogues and think critically as an individual.
Uh huh:I'm talking about the guy who says stay the hell away from the extreme right and extrme left idealogues and think critically as an individual.
It's true there is a difference between "not understanding a thing" and a thing being "nonsensical." One claims it's the authors fault, the other claims it's the reader's fault. I'm clearly siding with the reader being at fault concerning Maps of Meaning. His other critiques of Peterson's work I tend to agree with but, again, he's trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I also never said the words used were too "technical" or "big" - but conceptually he's just not getting it. That is fact, whether you think it's his fault or Petersons.
And this critics response is "You just don't get it maaaaaaan. Your boy JP has always talked nonesense and you just don't know you're being duped." Or at least, that's what he claims for Maps and Meaning. Me trying to claim there's any value to this book whatsoever is essentially requiring me to call this guy out in this way, because there's no other move I could make.
He even anticipates this move because he knows the trap he laid in which you're forced to either totally agree with him or else he gets to call you out as a duped egomaniac. He's the one who set himself up in this position as some Omnipotent Peterson critic, so don't come crying when I play the only card he dealt me.
And neither does this critic. He has degrees in politics and sociology focusing on African American studies. Where exactly does this leave us when a non-philosophy guy critiques a non-philosophy guys philosophy theory? A whole lot of nowhere.
If the true things Peterson says is so banal (1), then why does the author so happily conceded that he become popular because of these true things?
(1) So Peterson's true statements are overly obvious and boring, yet the left has failed to even offer even these banal truths to provide a political alternative to Peterson? Doesn't that mean these truths aren't banal, because people are highly interested in these truths? And in actuality I agree with the critic here. A large part of Peterson's popularity is filling a gap that the left has refused to fill out of fear of treading on some of the more extremist elements of the left.
(2) This comes down to what I said at the beginning. The fault of the critic's inability to comprehend (specifically concerning Maps of Meaning) either lies at his own feet or at Petersons. You already know where I place the blame.
(3) This is called flourishing language, and it's often surrounded by a context that clarified it.
I didn't ascribe secret motives. These motives are plain as day. The tone of this whole article, with the consistently irreverent jabs and pokes and guffaws clearly isn't to win over Peterson fans - or do you actually think that's the purpose this was written? If so, as someone who appreciates Peterson for some things and not for others, this critic failed miserably in convincing me of much, let alone for someone for who is one of his actual fans.
See, I can quote the article too! This is the overriding tone. Until he starts talking about how Peterson does make some accurate points. But they're boring points. But left leaning people find them interesting. But actually the points are confusing "like a rorschach test", and people only like his points because they think the points must be good due to how confusing they are! Wait, are we talking about Peterson's first or second book? Maybe Peterson's tweets, Peterson's youtube videos? His interview? A long-winded story Peterson once told that the critic copy-pasted into his article? Who knows? Let's just criticize all of the things all at once in a multitude of ways in a single article and hope something sticks to the wall!
Additional huge, beloved, gratuitous irony: this critic agrees with the infamous position that Peterson first publicly took that began his snowball of "antiSJW" popularity:
I just can't, lol.
devastating concession by libtard owned by logic master JP said:In fact, there was nothing in the bill that criminalized the failure to use people's preferred gender pronouns (full text), and I share the belief that government legislation requiring people to use particular pronouns would be an infringement on civil liberties. But since that's a position shared by Noam Chomsky and the ACLU, it's not a particularly devastating criticism of the left.
He never claims to speak the truth or to follow his every word. He explicitely states that he is trying to speak his OWN truth to the best of his abillity and implores others to do the same.
He is also not afraid to listen to others and admit when he makes a mistake. Like when he retreated the whole academia hitlist plan, which he agreed was stupid.
I seriously cannot comprehend how you can view this man as remotely extreme.
The guy claims civil rights marches lead to the gulag. He's as far right as it gets dude. Whether you want to believe it or not.
That is an extreme ideology.
Who even are the extreme left in Canada or USA? If there are any, they have little to no political power.You guys defending this piece of racist shit in this thread really don't even seem to know who he is. It's incredible. You take some completely unoriginal and obvious points about the importance of being an individual and lap up the rest of the crap he spews like it's your job.
And fuck that "extreme left" shit. That is nothing but projection and false equivalence. The extreme right is the biggest threat to countries like Canada and the US. The extreme left isn't.
Trudeau obviously (-:Who even are the extreme left in Canada or USA? If there are any, they have little to no political power.
This is the one he's been losing his shit about on Twitter today, even threatening to slap the author.