make better criticisms then. yours is weak and bashing a strawman.
it's a strange way to have a discourse, ya know? Speaker: "I advocate Policy A to address rising anomie and economic problems in society" Critic: "your work on the migratory patterns of sea-birds in Chile is second rate!"
-
-
I'm not talking about his academic work though, am I? I'm talking about his weird self-help stuff, which is why he's famous. I've shown you explicit quotes which somehow are irrelevant because I haven't spent hours trawling through his work
-
yes, of limited relevance because shallow understanding of complicated subject matter does not produce highly relevant criticisms. repeating myself: make better criticisms. practice steel-manning. practice charitable interpretation. engage with material before dismissing it.
-
we're all heavily time constrained so I don't expect everyone to want to or be able to do this. that's totally fine. criticize something else in that case. there's lots of easy political bad-takes to criticize.
-
yes and a lot of them come from Peterson, including the takes that explicitly prompted the thread I linked to in the OP
-
absolutely. he is a shit-take factory. it's a target rich environment and it would be more profitable to pick out the shit-takes as worthy of criticizing. but dismissing psychological explanations of mythical symbology without understanding the context? come on.
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.