[Gabriel54]

I wonder, have you personally been in a university environment recently? Within the past ten or fifteen years? I ask because, as someone who attended a supposedly "good" university in the USA, before going I had an interest in the humanities but was quickly discouraged by the number of individuals who seemed to be possessed by propaganda. I mentioned in another comment, for example, that I saw another student have as their desktop background a photo of Mao and the cultural revolution. So this is the backdrop against which Jordan Peterson is saying, you know, there actually are Western intellectuals worth reading and listening to and thinking about. And yes, on a personal level, I did get to read some of those writers you mentioned. It did not surprise me that they turn out to be much deeper than Jordon Peterson himself, but I don't think he ever claimed to be a revolutionary thinker? I consider him more of an evangelist than anything else. How many intellectuals can we say have truly had an impact with their ideas? The number is small. I think the reason Jordan Peterson suddenly became a phenomenon is because he was at least brave enough to call out ridiculousness when he saw it (at least at the very beginning of his celebrity, I cannot speak for his recent comments because I stopped paying attention once he started going into politics).

[api]

The stuff Jordan says about there being some value in the classics is good. Some of his stuff about meaning is good. Little to none of it is original.

He’s also a raving misogynist. I have two daughters. He can fuck right off with that shit. I mean it would bother me if I didn’t have two daughters, but that makes it more personal.

Peterson is one of those people who sounds reasonable and even compelling at first, but as you keep listening eventually you get to the part where he starts clucking like a chicken. Unfortunately that is his original stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZOkxuNbsXU

People who start reasonable then lead into nonsense always make me think of the Monty Python lumberjack song skit. They had several skits with that premise. The woman who does Philomena Cunk is a modern comedian who riffs on this.

[hollerith]

His wife and his daughter are public personas. Both have Youtube channels. I like his wife's channel quite a bit, and I spent a few hours years ago listening to his daughter. Both have talked about him at length while I was listening, and neither has said anything that would suggest they are unhappy with him or his influence on their lives.

His daughter has a husband and her own income stream, i.e., is no longer economically dependent on him.

I've also listened to the man himself for at least a hundred hours. I would be interested to read an explanation in support of your statement "he’s also a raving misogynist" because I've heard nothing that would lead me to conclude it or even to suspect it.

He probably believes that marriage and motherhood are best for most women. Is that contributing to your belief that he is a misogynist?

[Gabriel54]

> The stuff Jordan says about there being some value in the classics is good. Some of his stuff about meaning is good. Little to none of it is original.

I don't think he ever claimed that these ideas were original?

> He’s also a raving misogynist. I have two daughters. He can fuck right off with that shit.

I feel like this is quite an extraordinary accusation. The tone of your comment reminds me of his interview with Kathy Newman. Everything he said that had even the smallest nuance was twisted into something else. What specifically did he say that makes you thing he is a misogynist?