As someone who hides in a corner and blames “Postmodernists” and “Neomarxists” for whenever he is criticized (he doesn’t know what those words mean), this is pretty rich lol.
Seriously, this guy is the epitome of a postmodern sophist. Really have no idea how he can live inside his own head under the weight of his own contradictory word salads.
That’s rich coming from the guy who unironically said “Up yours, woke moralists. We’ll see who cancels who.”
deleted by creator
Are you suggesting that weeping for any reason is always “fragile”?
I am suggesting that this dude is drug addicted while talking about not trying to change the world before you have cleaned in your own house.
I guess you’re taking that sentence of him literally, as sadly most people who criticize do it. Also, you seem to think that taking medication for your illnesses is literally the same as being being a drug addict.
It may have started as taking medication for illness, but he went to rehab for a benzo addiction (xanax if I remember correctly). Benzos are notoriously difficult to wean off of, a true addiction almost necessitates medical professionals to help you taper off, because it can kill you if you get off them too quickly.
Anyone who criticizes anyone else for being addicted to drugs is someone who doesn’t understand how addiction works. This guy is a fucking shitbag and deserves to be made fun of for spreading an insidious and malicious message, but that has nothing to do with his addiction.
I was a heroin addict 20 years ago. I do criticize others for being addicted, because people do understand when it happens what happens, as it was for me. But I also want to help them, of course.
We’re all just human beings. Though, I have to say that lately, Jordan Peterson might succumb to the personality cult that people are building around him. Would be a shame.
I like Jordan Peterson, not because I agree with him, but because he is willing to challenge the consensus and take flak for it. I think his ideas on religion are crazy.
I find this outlook curious. Do you find a homeless person yelling at strangers on the street similarly likeable? What if it’s a politician preaching a hateful dogma? Does simply challenging the status quo, regardless of the harm caused, warrant praise?
What is the status quo that he is somehow challenging?
A couple,
- That religion has no use in society. Even if its not true.
- That the right to not be offended is more important than the right to govern ones own speech.
- That success is primarily a result of birth and not competence. (Within reason of course)
- That you can change the world without first cleaning your own room
-
I don’t think anyone really says that. Most people people in the mainstream would say that religion has a place in many people’s personal lives, just not in legislation.
-
Saying that people should face consequences for harmful things they say is not the same as opposing free speech.
-
The mainstream still thinks that society is a meritocracy, it’s only leftists who’d say that success is primarily based on luck (with birth being a major element of that, because it determines your place on a lot of privilege scales such as economic, racial, gender, and many more)
-
You literally can change the world without cleaning your room. Do you think they hold bedroom inspections for everyone before they’re given power? “Hold on, Mr. Putin, you can’t declare war on Ukraine: your bedroom isn’t tidy enough.”
Saying that people should face consequences for harmful things they say is not the same as opposing free speech.
If it’s in legislation then yes it is.
Please actually read the legislation. Hate Speech is there as a way to make you face consequences of your actions
-
