A very thorough look at the clarity, reason & epistemological concerns many people otherwise inclined to be sympathetic to at least some of Dr Peterson's views have raised & an explanation of why It is so frustrating & often fruitless to raise them.https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve …
-
-
While I certainly don’t agree with some of what JBP espouses I don’t yet think he is a charlatan. Stefan Molyneux is a charlatan
-
Yes. Molyneux often does cite verifiable statistical data, but his broader claims seem to greatly overreach it, and his past as a de facto cult leader makes me question any action whatsoever thereafter.
-
Of course, overreaching on statistical data is ubiquitous among the SocJus Maoists as well, but both are in the wrong.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm drawn to him bc he speaks a lot of common sense. And I'm a Hispanic female and I appreciate how staight forward he is. People constantly try to put words in his mouth and he calls them out on it and never loses focus on the points he's addressing. Talk about focus!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This article is a far more substantive and intellectually honest critique of Peterson. It makes the very valid point that Peterson's own construction of "truth" provides all the wiggle room devotees could ever need to keep following their guru whatever he may one day become.
-
>wiggle room Come now, surely you can see the same among e.g. the poststructuralists? Peterson is more similar to them than he might wish to admit. >may one day become This presupposes a negative outcome. Paranoid. Better to watch for Maoists, of whom many already exist.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.