(no title)
8vectors | 3 years ago
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...
skinnymuch|3 years ago
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.