Jordan B. Peterson (JBP), a professor at the University of Toronto, became world famous after his free speech protest against Bill C-16 that allegedly forced public servants to use people’s preferred pronouns or face a steep fine and possible jail time. Since then, he has become a respected “public intellectual” and a best-selling author twice over for his academic magnum opus Maps of Meaning and his self-help book 12 Rules for Life, telling young men the world over to “clean [their rooms]” before trying to save the world.

But JBP is dangerously incompetent at best or an unscrupulous hack at worst. Here are 12 reasons (with references) why no one should ever listen to Jordan B. Peterson ever again:

  1. Let’s start with the event that made him famous: his protest against Bill C-16 – a bill that proposed to add gender identity and orientation to what is colloquially referred to as “protected classes” in the Canadian Human Rights act.“If they fine me, I won’t pay it. If they put me in jail, I’ll go on a hunger strike. I’m not doing this. And that’s that. I’m not using the words that other people require me to use. Especially if they’re made up by radical left-wing ideologues.”

    JBP characterized the law as forced speech and formulated his protests as a fight for freedom of expression and against forceful suppression and control of speech.

    But the amendment to the law meant that it would become illegal to deny someone a job or a house or discriminate against them in the workplace on the basis of the gender they outwardly express or identify with, just as it is illegal to do so on the basis of religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc.. It did also amend the Criminal Code, but that only pertains to hate motivated crimes and hate-speech, not misidentifying someone as JBP was prone to claim (1). To be crystal clear, Canadians cannot be jailed or fined for using the wrong gender pronouns. Since it passed over two years ago, exactly zero people have been jailed or fined because of the law amendment.

    JBP’s horrible misrepresentation of Bill C-16 notably contributed to hate and antagonism against (and confusion about) trans- and non-binary people.

    I could write this entire article about this point alone, because he’s said a lot more crazy shit about Bill C-16, but suffice it to say that JBP has either not bothered to read the amendment, severely misunderstood its legal implications and/or was intentionally misrepresenting its contents. His reckless and dangerous incompetence (or unscrupulousness) should disqualify him from public discourse alone.

    But wait, there’s more!

  2. If you have paid any attention to JBP, you might have heard him talk about the dangers of “postmodern neo-Marxism”. Not only is he unable to clearly define what he means with this, but as many have pointed out, it’s an inherently self-contradictory term. A huge part of postmodernism was and is critical of the kind of grand-narratives that Marxist theory – with its claim that class struggle and economic inequality shape history –  is about (2).It is also dangerously close to the nazi dog-whistle “cultural marxism” that was popularised by Anders Behring Breivik, which itself is a rehash of the literal nazi dog-whistle “kulturbolshewismus” (Cultural Bolshevism) used by the literal fucking nazis in nazi-fucking-Germany (3). Again, he is either incompetent as fuck or uncaring about the implications of his words.
  3. Although JBP will happily rant away about the evils of postmodernism at any opportunity, he does not understand it at all and severely misrepresents what the most influential postmodernists (Foucault, Derrida, etc) actually thought, meant and wrote (4). This is somewhat ironic considering that his own philosophy can be argued to be postmodern in nature (5). 
  4. Although JBP will happily rant away about the evils of Marxism at any opportunity, he does not understand it at all and severely misrepresents Marxist theory. Which is to be expected from someone who is on record admitting to never having read any Marxist theory ever. 
  5. In a debate against Marxist philosopher, Slavoj Žižek, he only read the Communist Manifesto in preparation (6), which is little more than a call-to-action pamphlet and contains no actual theory. In his 30 minutes opening remark, he laid out problems he claimed to have found in this Communist “Pamphlet” and allegedly thus in Marxism, which is akin to debating a PHD-level subject after only having read the course descriptions of university classes on the issue without ever having attended any of them. 
  6. In his Magnum Opus, Maps of Meaning, a bunch of his own sources directly contradicts the very claims he uses them to make. He also deliberately or unwittingly ignores the historical context of several the examples he uses to argue for his universal archetypes, a context that directly undercuts the point he is trying to make (7). 
  7. In a VICE interview, while discussing women in the workplace, JBP equates wearing makeup (for women) with sexual provocativeness and sexual displays (8), claiming (amongst other things) that the reason women wear red lipstick is because the lips turn red during sexual arousal. While there is certainly a solid anthropological argument here for the cultural origins of makeup, this is insanely reductionistic and is completely removed from the contemporary context, where it is culturally expected of women to wear at least some amount of makeup in public. Women even put on makeup in all-female prisons, and there are reported cases of female inmates exchanging sexual favours for beauty products, the reverse of wearing makeup to get laid. 
  8. In the same interview, he expresses doubt about whether men and women can coexist in the workplace at all. 
  9. JBP is sometimes derogatorily nicknamed the Lobster King, because in his writing he sometimes uses the natural hierarchy emergent in lobsters to argue in favour of hierarchies in humans. In his infamous interview with Cathy Newman (9), he explains “there is this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western Patriarchy – and that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable – and I use the lobster as an example. Because we devolved from lobsters in evolutionary history about 350 million years ago (common ancestor), and lobsters exist in hierarchies and have a nervous system attuned to hierarchies, [a nervous system that is very similar to ours]. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction.”This is such a massive strawman that it is (almost) funny. No serious academic, politician or intellectual has ever claimed that all hierarchies are socio-cultural constructions. What feminists, SJWs, and even anarchists are railing against aren’t all hierarchies ever, but unjust hierarchies, specifically hierarchies based on race, gender, economics, etc.. As YouTuber ContraPoints points (heh) out in her video on JBP, you can use his argument, “the same way he uses it, to justify literally any hierarchy or authority, no matter how unjust.”
  10. JBP’s is almost impossible to pin down on any political subject. For all the criticism Cathy Newman got for misrepresenting JBP’s beliefs and for putting words in his mouth, I do feel sympathy with her. Because her interview is a nice case study for JBP’s particular style of intellectually dishonest rhetoric: he will often say something that is uncontroversial and true, while also implying something controversial. But when confronted on this he will retreat or attack you for misrepresenting him. For example, some people might feel I misrepresent his thoughts on women in the workplace from reason 8, because he never explicitly says that women and men cannot work together. But that is what he heavily seems to imply: “we don’t know the rules [for working together]”, “[the relationships between men and women] are deteriorating rapidly”, “we don’t know if men and women can work together successfully in the workplace”.He frequently, heavily seems to imply horrendous shit, and he is either dog-whistling as fuck or to much of a coward to say what he honestly believes.

     

  11. JBP uses his platform to actively laud and promote his daughter’s ludicrous all-meat (yes, all-meat and only meat) diet as having cured his depression and her depression and arthritis. This claim that has no scientific basis whatsoever¸ and there is plenty of research that shows that this can lead to severe vitamin deficiencies, such as scurvy. This is not just insanely irresponsible, but very dangerous to boot.I mean, I am glad they feel better-and-all, but keep that shit away from your humongous and very influential public platform, for fuck’s sake!

     

  12. There is a YouTube channel called PragerU, an American far-right propaganda channel that lies about and misrepresents everything from feminism, to economics to racial tensions. It has videos with literal white-fucking-nationalists, and I generally use the channel and their guest hosts to know who is not worth listening to.JBP has no less than two videos on this channel. In one of them, he calls universities propaganda tools that “indoctrinate your children” into dangerous “far-left” ideologies, and that you should let your children go there. Which is ironic, because he himself is a university professor.

And with that, I thank you for your attention. I could have gone on even longer, but this has been 12 reasons for why no one should ever listen to JBP ever again.

Written by Emil Olai

Sources:

  1. https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/
  2. https://medium.com/@charlietaylor105/on-petersons-postmodern-neo-marxism-b33f6f425066
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuEccEYvaE&t=2s (“Defending Postmodernism: An Open Letter to Jordan B. Peterson”)

  5. Same as above, timestamp 47:13.

  6. Slavoj Žižek

  7. https://medium.com/s/story/jordan-peterson-is-a-very-poor-researcher-whose-own-sources-contradict-his-claims-464633558b75
  8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9dZSlUjVls
  9. https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=1580

Forfatter

Latest Posts from Unikum

168 Comments

  1. Wow, how salty are you at the professor?

    1. JP is exactly the shifter described in this article & his réthorique though appealing to the delusional rugged individualists (those who believe in the great “I” & casually dismiss the impact of the group & the necessity of the group in generating individual success or achievement) won’t amount to much except for misguided energy…

      1. Very good summary of why nobody should take this man that seriously, just ask other psychologists what they think about the, now former professor.

      2. The irony here is his criticism of bill C-16 is intrinsically individualist and especially individualist (subjective in fact) in court proceedings that have followed it. There are now at least two legal precedents in Canada that could indict people for failing to properly care-take for the subjectively determined identity of an individual and especially a member of a recognized minority due to perceived systemic discrimination in Canada. It doesn’t get much more individualist than that.

      3. The group won’t be with me in my grave.

      4. I think you are correct in every way. JP uses very misleading strategies to win people over. In his books he is always quoting the bible but in public he has as much as said that he is an athirst. He has never once claimed he was a Christian, but he freeloads on Christian values. To lie about such an important question I think shows that he is classless and without good character.

    2. Say what you want, but it seems nobody here actually refuted these points, and can’t. Because they’re true. And all the angry comments won’t make the facts go away no matter how hard you try.

      1. Refute what points? All these points are “well, he’s wrong” with no reasoning. It doesn’t mention anything provable at all. Refute unproven words? How?

        1. this is a hit piece….pure and simple..by a person who has obvious contempt for this man’s principles.
          kind of like saying parents are old-fashioned for wanting their kids home at 10:00.
          or for chores you must do dishes and clean the house.
          I was hoping to be convinced of something except for ..it was just obvious rhetoric.
          sorry!!!

      2. His first point is bogus because the bill believes there is some kind of hate speech. Hate speech is just speech someone dislikes. The bill would categorize most Christian teachings of homosexuality being a sin as hate speech.saying that self identity is not valid proof of one’s gender is not hate speech. Believing people are not the experts on themselves is not hate speech.

        1. hearing a christian say “belief is not proof” Is the funniest thing i’ve ever heard

          1. The Lobster Strawman is itself a Strawman. And The staet of the quote from the interview is intentionally choosen…..

        2. The problem for me is that there is no jurisprudence on this. Dr Peterson may be wrong but those of us who have experienced great blow back for simply discussing controversial issues are wary. There is an argument that refusal to use preferred pronoun may be considered hate speech under C 16. Many disagree. The fact that the ontario human rights code interpretation bulletin states refusal to use preferred pronouns Constitutes harassment. Seems like the thin edge of the wedge to me

          1. There is jurisprudence on this. Bill C-16 simply adds gender identity/expression to categories already tested like race. It covers Federal regulated areas like the military, Airplanes, etc. Ontario Human Rights code covers places where Ontario law regulates, and had similar changes years before Bill C-16.

            The similarities are calling a black person a N* isn’t harassment, you can safely walk down the street calling everyone it or ‘gay’ if that’s your preference. Using the word when denying employment, or to your employees and customers can be harassment.

            Hate speech means calling for things like genocide. You aren’t allowed to call for all the Jews to be killed in Canada. That’s the one big difference between Canada and the US. It’s not just about hurting some ‘poor snowflakes’ feelings. You are still free to hate black people, or Jews, or trans, just not agitate for their deaths.

            As it applies to the workplace it means you can’t deliberately mock someone with the wrong pronoun, not that you can’t use it by accident. And there’s no requirement to address anyone by any pronoun in any law.

            Tl;dr Bill C-16 and other human rights stuff basically applies to job/commercial settings. Closest US laws are ones saying you can’t fire someone for being black, Christian, etc.

    3. Interesting. Peterson is from Alberta, Canada, as am I and we are of the same generation. Alberta has a state education system and almost no private schools or universities because the teachers are unionised and paid well and the facilities are excellent. The universities were well funded and the fees were negligible. I got a small scholarship which he would also have received which paid them in their entirety, about $200. The phone system is government owned with free unlimited local calls. Electricity is entirely hydro-electric from dams on public land. Health care is provided by the state. The province has one of the largest supplies of oil and gas in the world. There was virtually no unemployment and no homelessness. There is a social security system run by the province. It has vast prairies for grain and cattle production. There are immense public National Parks and local public parks with playing fields, ice skating rinks and tennis courts free for all. The government has typically been far right. The population is almost all white European and largely fundamentalist Christian.
      There was a lot of antisemitism, anti-French and general racist sentiment. The indigenous people live on reservations in relative poverty with their children historically removed from their families to be integrated into white society, unsuccessfully, resukring in a high youth suicide rate.
      Peterson is just like many of the kids I grew up with who lived a good life and frankly had little or no interest in or concern for social justice or much if anything beyond playing sports and getting a job and family. This is his background and be is a hypocrite to talk about post-modern Marxism because be benefited from social policies which made him what he is, wealthy, privileged and unfeeling.

      1. Wow! interesting points! Great conclusion! thanks for commenting!

      2. this is a hit piece….pure and simple..by a person who has obvious contempt for this man’s principles.
        kind of like saying parents are old-fashioned for wanting their kids home at 10:00.
        or for chores you must do dishes and clean the house.
        I was hoping to be convinced of something except for ..it was just obvious rhetoric.
        sorry!!!

      3. and now going back to this after reading many of the comments . the only people in the comments speaking against the doctor all sounded jealous and or clueless

      4. The Indigenous economy in Alberta generated $6.74 billion contributing to Albertas economy , the majority of your post is you yammering on about yourself. you make blanket statement about someones character without proof or citing examples. making value judgements , declaring that someone is wealthy , privileged or unfeeling does not make it so, feelings are not facts, nor are OPINIONS. Can anyone provide proof, citations, anything other than conjecture to make theiir points? No. of course not, he has not been taken down by any journalist that has tried, and its only in blogs like this one full of cowards the pseudo wanna b intellectuals that try and malign and defame. I have not seen one video , or listened to any lecture that portrays him in any other way that someone that cares a great deal, not seen any evidence that he is a bigot , racist or utter any hate or contempt for any group . he champions free speach and freedom of expression warning the dangers of limiting either. He speaks in truths, and it is only those with the inability to fully grasp what he is saying that are afraid of this man. wake up to yourself David

        1. I am another Albertian, born and bred, and I agree 1000% with what Mr. Harris says. Peterson suffers from being raised in a culture of the vertical “I” set against the vast prairie. Peterson didn’t acquire his narrow-minded , individualistic, self -serving ethos at University. He was steeped in it being born into a political culture where the Individual is king and to hell with the greater good of the community! I am not saying there aren’t good people from Alberta, I am say though that Jordan Peterson in my estimation is not a good person.

          He despises communal action because it usurps his super-capitalistic world view that claims that status and personal capital or intellectual purity are all and any one or anything that gets in the way of that hierarchical system, well according to Peterson, must be destroyed. He is a sheep in wolves clothing… anyone who has read the timeless fables of Aesop sees him as he truly is… a nasty yet toothless intellectual pauper.

      5. Excellent summary!

    4. Dude is salty as fuck, he Wright with he’s feeling gs more then questioning ingen the thi gs he actually don’t know.

    5. Reason 1) Protesting their protected status turned out to be true. He has been proven right and you have been proven wrong. As a consequence of using a transgenders deadname, he is losing his license as a psychologist. “Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal doctor.” (Which if you actually think about it, Elliot Page became Elliot when Ellen page transitioned, so Elliot never had breasts. Also if gender is a social construct, which it is, then her surgery was reinforcing false gender stereotypes. So her doctor who treated her gender dysphoria by reinforcing false outdated gender beliefs did something that in the future will likely be criminalized based on the leftists own logic. If gender traits aren’t real, which they aren’t, there’s simply no sound justification for physical transition.)

      2) you straw man his arguments of postmodern neo-marxism by addressing only the portions at a time rather than putting even the most basic effort into understanding what he’s actually referring to, you shortcut it to mean what you want.
      3) you misrepresented what he says then complain that he misrepresents others. Hypocrisy much? Then you say his own philosophy can be argued to be post modern. Anything can be argued. This doesn’t refute anything he’s said.

      4) To support number your you literally just lie…”Which is to be expected from someone who is on record admitting to never having read any Marxist theory ever.” He’s discussed Marxism in depth on multiple levels. If he’s wrong about something, don’t just lie about his knowledge, that’s ad hominem laziness. Use quotes. Prove he’s wrong about marxism. I’ll wait.

      5) strawman. He used the pamphlet as a way to break through. It’s a concrete visual that helps to defeat an abstract concept. It’s simple and to the point. Prove he didn’t read anything else to prepare. You can’t.

      6) just like your sources. It’s like your basing your article on trying to be the man you bully online.

      7) You validate his logic, then fail to reverse course. It’s not reductionist to use the primary origin and motivation for a behavior as evidence of cause and effect. The source of the make up does not invalidate the make up’s potential use. You failed to refute his argument. Though admittedly it’s a weird argument, much less weird than bringing up sexual favors in prison for a failed assertion that it would invalidate make up for use in increasing sexual value. It doesn’t. And it’s even weirder than JP, which is an achievemet.

      8) His doubt is valid and he has research to support it. You provide no sound argument to refute that doubt and no strong argument why him being aware of a gender issue is a reason to hate him. I’m aware of lots of gender issues, so you should hate me? I bet all of the people you love and admire are aware of gender issues, does it trump your love for them as a reason for hate?

      9) he is arguing that hierarchies form naturally. You don’t actually refute this logic. Instead you promote it as true. And argue that nobody argues against it. Except I guess, that you are arguing against it, here. You note that he’s right. Then (after mocking him for creating the biggest strawman ever) you begin to argue against immoral hierarchies which you suggest could be supported by his logic, which you’ve just noted is correct logic. The real strawman here is from you jumping to non-sequitor applications of his logic (you agree with).

      10) hard to pin down. Just like every other big name in the world who has had 1 day of media training. Being hard to lin down is a valued skill. This is a compliment. Also it’s not entirely true. He’s got loads of beliefs specifically spelled out. You just can’t find fault with those, so you crave the opportunity to hate him for things you e only imagined about him.

      11) Strawman again. This strawman is another instance of openly lying. Or incompetence of not doing any research. 2 seconds on Google will show you that an all meat diet can work, you can avoid scurvy by eating raw organ meats. He has the right to share his story, same as anyone, and others have beat their medical problems aftering learning of this option. It’s not something most people can stick with, which to me means it’s not actually a health risk. Might want to spend that energy hating on big audience influencers advocating parasite diets or people trying to normalize obesity.

      12) His experience with universities don’t invalidate his views, it informs his views. You make a lot of false claims about PragerU in this one. Opened yourself up to libel. That’s not smart.

      Ultimately this article advocates hate. What is cancelling but group hate. You don’t want people to listen to what he says, and then use what he says to justify why, which is not just hateful but also anti-intellectual and circular logic which leads them to your inevitable strawman basis. “Don’t listen to him” yet do listen to my false representations of what he has to say. Yeah that’s bad from the premise.

      Identity politics at the core is illogical. You want people to believe that who someone is dictates the validity of their words. Real logic is knowing that the source can always be right or wrong and all arguments must be judged on their own logical merit.

      1. Thank you!! Much needed reply to this hit piece.

      2. thx – I`m 100 % with U!
        SH

      3. The first point, FINALLY, someone is saying it…

  2. You have no idea what you are talking about. Basically you gave twelve reasons why no one should take you seriously.

    1. His slightly mesmerizing seemingly calm demeanour reminds me of Margaret Thatcher.

  3. Complete garbage misrepresentation of JBP. Very disappointed in the slanted and shoddy writing in this article.

    1. do you have an example of a point here you disagree with?

      1. i have disproven around half of his points in this article. The writer has a clear misunderstanding of what he has said/why it is wrong/evidence to back it up. For example, in point eleven the writer claims there is no scientific evidence to back up what JBP said. Which if he had researched this would be disproven.

        1. I agree. The writer doesn’t really understand JBP ideas and turns to nothing better than Argumenta ad Homenum to discredit them.

  4. This is very retarded.

  5. The irony when the person who wrote this needs JP more than anyone else. Get out of your deppression

    1. All hail our messiah, the lobster king

      1. Go kiss Hillary’s feet

      2. Why is it that when anyone defends Jordan, people have to insult them and pretend they are just part of the cult.

        1. It’s astounding. You single out the comment “All hail our messiah, the lobster king”, call it insulting (what kind of insult, btw? Did he call anybody names? Is “lobster king” an insult? How over-sensitive are you?) while conveniently ignoring all the comments directly insulting the author of the article.

      3. no no u aint getting away with this sir, he’s truly saved alot of people from depression.

        1. L. Ron Hubbard has saved a lot of people from depression too. Are we to take L. Ron Hubbard seriously?

  6. 7 comments answering your 12 reasoning say it all.
    What else is there left to say other than the glaring truth that you’re truly a miserable human being.

    1. Nobody answered anything, and neither did you.

      If you disagree so much with this author, perhaps show where you do it, and perhaps show where the author is wrong about Peterson.

      1. Reason 1) Protesting their protected status turned out to be true. He has been proven right and you have been proven wrong. As a consequence of using a transgenders deadname, he is losing his license as a psychologist. «Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal doctor.» (Which if you actually think about it, Elliot Page became Elliot when Ellen page transitioned, so Elliot never had breasts. Also if gender is a social construct, which it is, then her surgery was reinforcing false gender stereotypes. So her doctor who treated her gender dysphoria by reinforcing false outdated gender beliefs did something that in the future will likely be criminalized based on the leftists own logic. If gender traits aren’t real, which they aren’t, there’s simply no sound justification for physical transition.)

        2) you straw man his arguments of postmodern neo-marxism by addressing only the portions at a time rather than putting even the most basic effort into understanding what he’s actually referring to, you shortcut it to mean what you want.
        3) you misrepresented what he says then complain that he misrepresents others. Hypocrisy much? Then you say his own philosophy can be argued to be post modern. Anything can be argued. This doesn’t refute anything he’s said.

        4) To support number your you literally just lie…»Which is to be expected from someone who is on record admitting to never having read any Marxist theory ever.» He’s discussed Marxism in depth on multiple levels. If he’s wrong about something, don’t just lie about his knowledge, that’s ad hominem laziness. Use quotes. Prove he’s wrong about marxism. I’ll wait.

        5) strawman. He used the pamphlet as a way to break through. It’s a concrete visual that helps to defeat an abstract concept. It’s simple and to the point. Prove he didn’t read anything else to prepare. You can’t.

        6) just like your sources. It’s like your basing your article on trying to be the man you bully online.

        7) You validate his logic, then fail to reverse course. It’s not reductionist to use the primary origin and motivation for a behavior as evidence of cause and effect. The source of the make up does not invalidate the make up’s potential use. You failed to refute his argument. Though admittedly it’s a weird argument, much less weird than bringing up sexual favors in prison for a failed assertion that it would invalidate make up for use in increasing sexual value. It doesn’t. And it’s even weirder than JP, which is an achievemet.

        8) His doubt is valid and he has research to support it. You provide no sound argument to refute that doubt and no strong argument why him being aware of a gender issue is a reason to hate him. I’m aware of lots of gender issues, so you should hate me? I bet all of the people you love and admire are aware of gender issues, does it trump your love for them as a reason for hate?

        9) he is arguing that hierarchies form naturally. You don’t actually refute this logic. Instead you promote it as true. And argue that nobody argues against it. Except I guess, that you are arguing against it, here. You note that he’s right. Then (after mocking him for creating the biggest strawman ever) you begin to argue against immoral hierarchies which you suggest could be supported by his logic, which you’ve just noted is correct logic. The real strawman here is from you jumping to non-sequitor applications of his logic (you agree with).

        10) hard to pin down. Just like every other big name in the world who has had 1 day of media training. Being hard to lin down is a valued skill. This is a compliment. Also it’s not entirely true. He’s got loads of beliefs specifically spelled out. You just can’t find fault with those, so you crave the opportunity to hate him for things you e only imagined about him.

        11) Strawman again. This strawman is another instance of openly lying. Or incompetence of not doing any research. 2 seconds on Google will show you that an all meat diet can work, you can avoid scurvy by eating raw organ meats. He has the right to share his story, same as anyone, and others have beat their medical problems aftering learning of this option. It’s not something most people can stick with, which to me means it’s not actually a health risk. Might want to spend that energy hating on big audience influencers advocating parasite diets or people trying to normalize obesity.

        12) His experience with universities don’t invalidate his views, it informs his views. You make a lot of false claims about PragerU in this one. Opened yourself up to libel. That’s not smart.

        Ultimately this article advocates hate. What is cancelling but group hate. You don’t want people to listen to what he says, and then use what he says to justify why, which is not just hateful but also anti-intellectual and circular logic which leads them to your inevitable strawman basis. «Don’t listen to him» yet do listen to my false representations of what he has to say. Yeah that’s bad from the premise.

        Identity politics at the core is illogical. You want people to believe that who someone is dictates the validity of their words. Real logic is knowing that the source can always be right or wrong and all arguments must be judged on their own logical merit.

        Copied that for you, in case you didnt read through all the comments. Actually i am not sure, whether you gonna get a notification for that. More so, ehy am I doing this? Maybe because i wholeheartedly think the author of this article is just wrong, misinterpretating the core fundamentals of JBP.
        My personal opinion is, that they (the author) were offended by some points of Peterson, which triggered an emotional response, in this case anger, hate, whatever, to be simple, JBP is their enemy and everything MUST be wrong then.
        Whatever, I stick to my own opinion and give a damn about some unqualified crybabys.

  7. Well summed up. It is clear from all the comments decrying your article, which clearly did not have to be read, only further price for point. The cult doesn’t object to its exploitation and gas lighting by it’s leader, instead they rationalise ways to “love” it and through that, the leader. When this is pointed out, the followers lash out for their figurehead being attacked. Some cults gave been known to call for beheadings over alleged insults to their dead Messiah. This is no different.

  8. funny that you call pragerU far-right, theyre moderate-right dumbass. also here, this vid debunks 7 and 8. I suggest you remove it or else your article will be labeled as misinformation https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jhl5yeZlltl

    1. This is not neccessarily meant to be an informative article, but rather an opinion piece that presents the writer’s opinions. We are all entitled to have our own opinions.

      1. But when his opinion is that Jordan doesn’t know anything about C-16, Marxism, Postmodernism, and he grossly misrepresents a lot of what Jordan has said, then that opinion sucks.

        1. Jordan doesn’t know anything about Marxism, he even admitted in a debate with Zizek to have read only the pamplet, the Manifesto, and in his rhtoric we realize he knows nothing. To begin with the USSR was State Capitalism by self admission, Lenin stated by 1918, the Bolsheviks perpetrated a coup sponsored by foreign oligarchs to remove the Romanovs, it was not a socialist revolution, they tricked their followers. HE also has no clue what post-modernism means, and so don’t you, because if you knew, you’d know he’s full of hot air, he juxtaposes 2 sort of opposing ideologies as if they’re working together in modern society, and they’re not in confluence, they’re not together, they’re separate & distinct ideologies which are not possible to combine … One thing is an opinion without any fundament, like yours, another one is an opinion which picks supporting research or evidence like the author’s, so so far, you seem like a very inexperienced person, who has read little or nothing who needs some humility, and not following blindily an arrogant narcissit as JP.

        2. Did you ever read Bill C16? Probably not and the writer is correct, it never mentions free speech, controlled speech or pronouns. JP is getting hysterical over nothing.

  9. Nah, we just don’t like him being falsely labeled as misogynist https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jhl5yeZlltl

  10. He’s warped so many promising brains with his convoluted rhetoric he’s essentially the 21st century mental fascist cult. I can’t express how much I loathe him, but there’s always plenty of drooling slackjawed dogs yapping at his feet because he told them to clean their room and exactly what they want to hear- that they are important.

    1. That’s pretty much where I stand.
      I can’t help but feel like peterson was a freud wannabe. Glad he got the cult of self-validating morons he was looking for.

  11. You need to learn history and accept facts !!
    And show respect

  12. All hail our messiah, the lobster king

  13. How anyone can have so much hate for a man that helps so many is utterly incomprehensible to me. At the core his message, that is very well received by men and boys, is basically to get your shit together. How can this be bad?

    1. His work is an obstacle of one of the key necessities in Marxist theory outlined by Karl Marx in the communist manifesto, which is to destroy the family.
      You can’t successfully create a system of state slavery with your peasants having their priorities aligned with anybody else’s interests but the state.

  14. gotta say the comments cant take shit , yeah you dont make much of 12 reasons like literally 3 points similar (marxisms one) youre right about his refusals to use pronouns is dumb people are literally ignoring the all meat bullshit theory . 10th point isnt much of a point more like fact

    1. he refused using the pronouns if it was mandated by law that he had to use them, he said he would use them if someone came up to him and asked him personally.

      1. huh its almost like you minsunderstand the law.

  15. Just looking at your list of references is enough to figure out your academic preparedness to comment on the matter. None whatsoever. There are things you can claim JP is incompetent to argue, but I don’t seem to find them on your list. Say, e.g. climate change. And I’d cut the angry profanities if I were you. They don’t help your case, quite the opposite, in fact.

  16. I just came to read and to confirm that freedom of speech still exists, cause l just read a ton of non-facts-based-shit that hasnt been taken down, congratulations, you are the proof even idiots are able to express their opinions. (hope you didnt spend too much time trying to think while writing this article, it sucks).

  17. I recently heard JBP discuss how non-monogamy increases violent crime rates and heralds the downfall of civilizations. It’s an interesting argument, but he didn’t show any of his work. The most docile and empathetic apes are Bonobo chimps. They’re also polyamorous. Perhaps he’s getting his data from lobster cohabitation. Like most unenlightened pseudo-intellectuals, he stops after correlation, because causation requires exhaustive effort.

    1. He stopped because it’s basic common sense, you just have to think.

  18. Emily Olai,

    You sound just like my teenage son used to sound when I would tell him “clean your room”. (think incompletely developed frontal lobe, second toddlerhood etc.) Not a bad kid necessarily, just immature and uninformed. ;-)

    1. And yet you haven’t given a coherent reason why she’s incorrect. Hmmm…

  19. i like how your article is based on not listen to him… that’s telling, i assume that’s because you know if anyone actually does they will find he is a reasonable and articulate human being… doesn’t mean he’s right about everything but he’s well worth listening to.

  20. Great! I started questioning JBP when I saw some really messed up videos he posted about child upbringing. Like, could he really be so stupid to believe a child would fall asleep faster by being bribed with presents? And now reading this, I think he really is an imposter. And I think he harms a lot of people, pretending to be someone who really cares about others.

  21. Alright, what? You’re saying that every nasty person nit-picking from his personal views, is his responsibility. That’s not how the world works. The problem with people who take Jordan Peterson’s statements or opinions word for word, is largely in the poor uneducated American population. It’s true he’s revered by poor right wing Americans and why? Because they largely are raised on religion rather than education. What was religion created to do? Control people through fear. If you’re na adult able to think for yourself and think critically (which every educational institution should teach you) you might be able to see this man’s points and perhaps allow him his own opinions whether you agree or not.

  22. 13. He is an addict

    1. Was, due to getting hooked on pain killers after a long stay in the I.C.U.

      You are an evil person and should be ashamed.

  23. AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
    LMFAOROFL!!!!
    Oh man!!! Talk about incompetent writing!!! You seem to not understand his points. That’s OK. Maybe when you grow up!!

    1. What a toddler answer. It is you that live in an echo-chamber and believe this liar with a libertarian agenda because you are incapable of thinking for yourself and need a cult leader to tell you how to behave.

  24. JP has a lot in common with Kenneth Copeland. Yelling nonsense at a hypnotized crowd that take his every word as gospel.

  25. I feel like all the comments in support of Peterson are coming from my dad.

  26. Jordan Peterson is an incredibly intelligent, insightful and logical person. He attracts vitriol from those who are unable to accept that someone may have a different opinion, i.e. socialists and Marxists who are ironically the epitome of fascism and first to shut down free speech.

    1. All Hail the Lobster King.

      1. hail!!
        Thanks to science , down with post modernism!

  27. This is an appallingly poorly written critique.

    1. That’s funny I was thinking the same thing but about your critique lol

  28. “It did also amend the Criminal Code, but that only pertains to hate motivated crimes and hate-speech, not misidentifying someone as JBP was prone to claim (1).”

    This is overtly incorrect, read case law, especially A.B. v. C.D. and E.F., 2019 BCSC 604.
    And also read Bill Whatcott vs. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, page 4.

    There was also another case where Bill Whatcott referred to a trans woman as a “biological man”, which is a factually true statement, but was still successfully sued $55,000 in the Human Rights Tribunal for it under section 318.

    1. You are blending apples and oranges and making an awful mess of it! The laws you quote are from two very different systems.

      Federal law – That is informed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

      and

      Provincial Civic law – under which Human Rights Agencies take legal action against people who contravene provincial human rights codes.

      Is your issue that the laws are corrupt, or too humanist? Or is it your belief that we should not have human rights legislation at all? Peterson, it seems, opposes any law that protects the unalienable equality of collective human rights under the law.

      “Collective” : the word that little Jordon hates more than any other.

      But boy oh boy does JP love the punitive nature of the justice system on minorities.

      What a good guy this Jordon character is!

  29. Not impressed, Emil.

  30. I have listened to JP for 6 years and all his Harvard lectures and Univrsity of Toronto his biblical lectures and many more videos do not see the a writers faults but I see a man genially interesting and concerned to the well being of the human race that is not afraid to speak his mind on issues of our days. I am a neurosurgeon for 40 years and I have seen my share of inequities pain and suffering and the human spirit at its best and worst and find it difficult to criticize a man as Jordan Peteson

    1. The reason you find it difficult to criticize jordan peterson is probably because you agree with him. It would be difficult to critisize someone for being stuborn due to age (so this is not a critisism of you). While obviously some of jordan petersons message is good, (like his discussions on what makes it dificult to be a man), these talking points are not new. I feel like its also easy (although it could be bad) to judge a figure based off their audience. Why isnt jordan peterson’s audience full of moderates? Why is jordan petersons audience mainly male white christian nationalists?
      anyway i digress, my point being an undertone of neo-facsism can destroy a positive message extreemly easily.

      1. ”Why is jordan petersons audience mainly male white christian nationalists?”
        Because male white christian nationalist think like Jordan Peterson.
        Different demographics, different cultural emphasises.

    2. If course you don’t criticize Peterson, because you are a privilaged elite like me and like Jordan.

      His entire approach to human systems is Hierarchical!

      You are at the pinnacle of the Peterson universe … no surprise you love him. You are his everyman.

  31. There are some good points here but your comments about carnivore diets are anti-science.

    “…and there is plenty of research that shows that this can lead to severe vitamin deficiencies, such as scurvy.”

    But you don’t mention any research. Meanwhile, meat has more than enough vitamin C to prevent scurvy for most people, so scurvy would normally not be an issue even without consuming organs (nose-to-tail carnivore diets) that are richer in vitamin C. Napoleon’s armies in Egypt had used meat of horses killed in battle to treat scurvy. Arctic explorers consumed penguins to prevent scurvy. There’s no nutrition that we need which isn’t present in animals’ bodies.

    There are thriving populations which eat carnivore or near-carnivore, some of these populations have a near total or total lack of diseases such as diabetes and cardio illnesses that are extremely common in industrialized populations.

    It is very common for someone to recover their health via carnivore diet. Some discussion groups for ex-vegans are heavily populated with accounts of solving health issues by eating carnivore either temporarily or long-term.

  32. This man saves lives. Period. I have healed my life time illness through carnivore diet too. Period.

  33. Hello,

    I was willing to read it all but I stopped. Make sure to inform better how lobster nervous system works because it has almost nothing similar to our nervous system. That’s the thing about when someone tries to critize someone, make sure your points are all valid, and what you saying it’s indeed true and if its useful that kind of information that you willing to give.

  34. Emil, when will you print your retraction given you have proven yourself so wrong. Lets start with #1. Perhaps you should write an article on this but be sure to include the court case of a Canadian father in BC that deemed a father’s misgendering of his son constituted “family violence” under the Family Law Act. This is the ridiculous slippery slope that leads a well educated judge in the Canadian judicial system to view speech (misgendering) as “family violence” and in turn restrict parental rights and create the conditions in which the father can be jailed. You can also add Jeanette Cooper (Chicago mother) and Jeff Younger (Texas) to the list of parents that have lost parental rights over the trans and by association mis-gendering issue.

  35. 2-6. Has a problem with those philosophies because of how they behave, objective information on them not sure he has either.
    7-8. He’s a Clinical psychologist, doctor, and husband. I think you should be telling people to watch it instead or be more specific about things you disliked.
    10. Why would an intellectual be bound to a political belief.
    11. He has rarely recommended it to anyone
    12. You judged so much without knowing his stances on any of these. The feminism that manifests itself poorly he sees as dangerous, as they certainly have been for male youths. Has no problem with the idea at its core, but it is very easy to overstep. He isn’t saying stuff he was told to by the government on these platforms or in places of work :/, when he thinks of changes to the government its usually on the lines of “stop and don’t anything to it”(-me) and it isn’t reminiscent of propaganda .

  36. “Canadians can not be jailed or fined for using wrong gender pronoun.” Mistake. It’s not WRONG pronoun, that it is the RIGHT pronoun, youn can BE either male or female. You can only talk about CHOSEN pronoun. JBP refuses the law that makes it a legal problem if you use the RIGHT pronoun, if you say what is a fact that can be proven in a court of law.

    Law can’t be about what you like or choose or feel – but about facts. Like, can you be a Caucasian saying that you feel like African American and demand to enter university under minority quota, because that’s your preferred race, that’s how you choose to be addressed? Nonsense.

  37. I’m glad that this was posted. I can finally find something that I disagree on with Dr. Peterson. Nevertheless, that definitely doesn’t mean someone should never watch his videos again.
    Peterson states his views in such an inoffensive way with a somewhat solid justification behind it such that even if you disagree with him, it’s hard to hate him. If you do, I suggest strongly reflecting on yourself and why you believe what you believe.

    He’s human, of course he says the wrong thing sometimes. However, he says a lot of right things as well, and for me personally, there are a lot of things I can learn from him.

    I hope people who read this article without knowing much about Dr. Peterson are able to give him a chance, because even though a number of his views are disagreeable along with the fact that he misinterpreted bill c16, his values, morals and care for humanity seems to be unlike anything I’ve seen (if he’s acting, he’s a damn good actor). There is definitely at least one thing you can learn from this intelligent man.

    On another note, I hope he becomes more aware of the purpose of fashion, makeup and trends in this era, hahaha.

  38. Thank you for the perfect reason to never read anything by Emil Olai again.

  39. In postmodernism I believe its becoming a society depending solely on unreliable news, misinformation, violence in children’s games (fortnite), schools having morem power than parents, a corrupt government, pharmaceutical companies, CDC, FDA, WHO, competing pressure groups (BLM, ANTIFA, LGBQT,} who all have their own agendas, ulterior motives (gay pride parade) exposing children to lewdness marching in the streets, naked while performing sexual acts, the removal of family values, and actually rebelling against tradition. They instill their preferences and beliefs liberalism and dependency on government, to oppress oothers and force them into a category or class labeled as “racist, homophobe, . Postmodernists gaslight AMERICANS and erase reality, so everything is a lie, a fantasy, and is subjective, made up by the human mind supported by whomever is paying or willing to wave their banner to the point that corporations who are not passionate about BLM, LGBQT, ME TOO movement feel forced to advertise usng rainbows or masked children (covid) so their businsses are not boycotted. THIS IS A NIGHTMARE. Remember the movie Logan’s Run? We nare headed there. The government is the WEALTHY and the middle class is literally WIPED OUT so we have the slaves dependent solely on the one who doles out the bread.

    Postmodernism – Postmodernism and relativism

    As a consequence, if someone is trying to persuade you of some idea which you do not believe, or contradicts what you believe, that person is trying to oppress you, or is a representative of some oppressive group. We are in a mess because as the cross ilegals in with the drugs, and brainwahin our kids through education this new Utopian lifestyle keeps us as slave.

  40. I agree on most points you make, and I don’t like him either. Clearly he jumped on the anti-sjw train, saying obvious things which most sensible people agree to, but then there’s not much after that. Simple psychology at best, often regurgitating the same simple concepts in his various videos, with different wording. I don’t understand how people can even donate to him willingly, given he’s already making hundreds of thousands every week.

    So, I agree at heart that he is a charismatic charlatan; however I would weigh some of the points you made with more caution:

    1. Bill c16 may not directly imply that which he says, and there may very well be 0 imprisoned to date for such issues. However:
    a.) This can set a dangerous legal precedent, and a simple re-interpretation of the Orwellian term “hate speech” and/or a modification of it, will mean you can go to jail for offending a trans/gay/les/bi. This has happened in Scotland and Norway, where “hate speech” means anything that could offend such groups. For example, one guy in Norway went to jail for a private reply to a trans person. As offensive as it may have been, no one is in jail for offending any other “normal” person (I have to use that term, since the law itself implies they are not a normal group and deserve a special attention). So, anyone can offend me as much as they want, and most they get is a ban from a server. But if I declare myself trans that same offence= jail time? Very dangerous, as you may also go to jail for an alleged “insult” you said, or someone said you said. Additionally, it may very well even be argued as offensive for trans that you still consider them men (perhaps arguing their chromosomes are and always be male), and again you could face jail time even just for that.
    The dangerous precedent is that all of this is against any constitution of developed countries. The law should be the same for everyone, period.

    7&8 – although he does generalise and I don’t agree with most that he says, there is an issue with mixing genders at work. The sexual attire between the sexes does create some problems, and often many men and women can take advantage of their sexual looks to gain an edge. This is quite undeniable, and I’m not sure what the best way to work around it is. Surely, just telling men to not be men is not really a viable long-term option. We do have very different drivers, it’s not a simple subject to elaborate on without writing a very long answer (and it’s already long). In short, he does his usual trick: he starts from a true concept (there may often be issues in mixing men and women in the workplace), gathers enough people to follow him based on that, but then he just simply implies -what you said-. I mean, also the alternative that you would have to make separate workplaces would be a huge complication…..

    12. While PragerU is clearly right, they do often argue their points in a civil way, and they often reference clear and debatable pieces of evidence to support their claims. I don’t agree with most of their angle generally, but I think you are a little bit too extreme in that point. I am far more concerned about YouTube auto-deleting my comments (with content such as this one). I know on my own skin they regularly do it when you argue against some points portrayed on mass medias, especially when you prove black on white why they are misrepresenting reality.

    For the rest I agree, he is a charlatan.

  41. Not a big fan of Peterson or his refusal to use plain language when discussing religion or god, but he’s no racist, and no fascist.

    Even if he was, there’s something worse than fascism, or even racism: Marxism/socialism/communism. It is the most insidious and evil philosophy ever conceived by humans, and responsible for more human suffering and oppression than anything Hitler ever did (and Hitler way responsible for a *lot.*)

    Anyone who defends it in any way needs to be called out for what they are.

    1. This is 100% slander.
      You just did exactly like Jordan Greederson.
      You make stuff up on subject you absolutely don’t know anything about.
      The ideology that harmed the most people is by far capitalism. They attack and destroy countries to exploit them. They use cheap banking system that decide how money is worth to countries to make them so poor, they have to work for pennies like slaves for capitalist corporations. There’s so many homeless and poor people in all capitalist countries. And i could write a 1000 pages book on the psychopathic behavior of capitalists, but you’re probably profiteering from the poor to get richer, so you like it because you have zero empathy like most capitalists.
      You are delusional and ignorant, like 99% of capitalists believers.

      1. oh look, someone who believes that capitalism is not a perfect system and thinks they got something.

        Did your brain not realise that when it comes to systems, it’s not about which one works the best, it’s about which one’s the least destructive? And guess which one is that.

  42. Love to see you debate him. Then maybe truth would unfold…

  43. Wow I won’t waist my time defending Jordan Peterson. To all you naysayers. You can’t fix stupid. Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy

  44. Pronounce are the most ridiculates thing the left ever invented, and that article is just typical ignorant left-winger’s rant, I’ll just roll my eyes like Vince from last week VICE discussion ( https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ehtMw79iubo )

    1. It was not the left. It is liberalism which is a right wing ideology by definition.
      Imagine being you and belieiing sjw, the most individualist people, are leftists.
      Open books instead of drinking liars koolaid.

    2. Wow, a bit slow. “Pronounce”? and you think it was something the left invented? I mean if by “the left” you mean societies pre roman? Yes.. the left. My condolences to your teachers for their failure.

      1. desadtis, im going to use big people words so i hope you can keep up.

        pronounce, being the standard 4 He/Him/his or She/her/hers is the natural way humans have identified each other since (pre.roman) times. not really that long ago, maybe use mycenaean Greece instead.

        now the “pronounce” that are, as Desantis writes “ridiculates” is the alphabet soup pronounce. this being xer,hen,zi,they(improper usage),them(improper usage) etc. these are not part of any linguistic development and is instead part of our vernacular due to state sanction. this is why you will never see them used by a majority of people, seeing that most people don’t really care.

  45. It’s cool how you had to warp the picture to make him look like a monster. Some might call that malicious misrepresentation. It cheapens your argument.

    1. If by “warp the picture” you mean simply quoting him, yes. No one needs to misquote or misrepresent Lobster King to make him look like an imbecile. He does that himself, overspeaking out of his area of expertise, under-educating himself on topics and then claiming knowledge, intentionally straw-manning or misconstruing the statements of opposing views.

      He’s a hack, whose ego took to notoriety, and he continues to make a fool of himself on a daily basis for the willfully ignorant followers that he attracts.

      1. You have a tiny penis, Svar. Yes? A very tiny one. Tee-Hee!

        1. You’re really sad aren’t you Sharon,? who’s Svar? It means answer you idiot

  46. This was sad to read. The comments did’nt help. I’m gonna start prepping because this is not gonna end well for us. Humanity is fucked.

    1. I am with you. On the bright side tho, survival of the fittest is the new trend then. Which in an apocalyptic setting requires a lot of traits, e.g. intelligence, adaptability to harsh conditions, etc. Which most ppl of which I read the comments on here clearly are lacking of. So maybe, just maybe, those twitter crybaby snowflakes would crumble under harsher conditions and those, who can critically overthink their own beliefs would prevail, making a better future for humanity.

      ah, a man can dream, can he?
      much love <3

  47. Something is clearly wrong with your mindset.

  48. Lots of Hasbara student trolling going on here.

    And we all know who Hasbara students work for.

    Kalergi Plan propaganda, plain and simple.

    Misdirection and a focal-point lie wrapped up inside a plethora of tiny truths.

    Such is the arrogance and stupidity of these Utopia-seeking nitwits, that they truly believe the ‘Unchosen Ones’ (Dalits, Untouchables, Goyim, etc.) cannot see through the smoke blowing out their arses (Matzo Farts).

    Keep embarrassing yourselves, morons! It’s very amusing!

  49. Smells like David Ben-Gurion matzo farts here.

  50. Nice picture representation. Just about as delusional as your garbage reasoning. You clearly have no understanding of the depth of the meaning of half the things youre arguing and you make no counter arguements. Opinions arent wrong whether you like it or not, but facts sure can be. JBP has well argued all the points you make, and sure you can disagree but even your title is is bullshit. No one should ever listen to him again? Are you suggesting you are the smartest person and know better than everyone else to the extent that everyone else you dont agree with is just flat out wrong and the rest of everyone doesnt have half a brain to think for themselves?

    I pity totalitarian thinking, closed minded individuals like yourself who want everyone to think like you or disappear. You are full of hate and vitriol. Its clear you are a marxist and aren’t well versed in history, just a power tripping enemy of anyone who thinks differently and openly. I love how anyone who disagrees with marxism is automatically a Nazi. Its abhorrent. Speaks volumes about you. Less people should listen to you, honestly. Why dont you spend more time honing your own craft and preaching for that, or outshine Jordan with better ideas? Only people who cant win fairly in a debate will take your approach of a one way arguement rather than having an open discussion.

    Constant questioning is a sign of intelligence—it’s idiots that are constantly sure of themselves. Einstein. But I bet you are smarter than him.

  51. Is this not the proclaimed free-speech warrior who sued 3 WLU employees for daring to use their free speech?

    That was a rhetorical question

    1. the law suit was a defemation suit, in other words W.L.U is getting sued due to them censoring.

      so sueing W.L.U is the “proclaimed free-speech warrior” move.

  52. What a big word salad just to whine about someone who offends you.

    Regardless, do you have any non-ad hominem argument?

  53. The thing about a cult figure like JBP is no amount of criticism will detract from his following. The reason is that his followers are brainwashed and not even so much from JBP as he may well be a victim of a viral infectious disease ridden hateful internet himself. And or perhaps capitalising on it for self gain. Jumping on money making machine born out of popular internet videos.

    JPB mixes good advice with harmful opinions. This has become a problem online. It also make critiquing him more complicated than your average right winger throwing up NAZI salutes. The person who posted this thread is simply pointed out the facts as they see them. And facts are facts. I appreciate helpful writing that explains a little more why I don’t like something. And I don’t like JBP and I don’t like him enough to do the research like this gentle person who posted this has made.

    Thank you for clarifying a few things for me.

    As for all the followers of JPB I ask you this question “just what is it that JBP would say or do that would stop you following him?”. If like many Trump followers the answer is nothing then you do not have any argument. Blind following of a cult figure never works out for the good.

  54. I too disagree with some of his statements, especially the one about makeup. But he’s allowed to say whatever he wants to just like you and me.

  55. Never trust anyone how tells not to listen to an opposition point of view. Anyone who has confidence in there beliefs welcomes questions.Only the weak will tell you not explore the questions and to blind yourself from diverse thoughts.

  56. Dr Jordan Peterson is a Canadian Hero, a Canadian Treasure, and I as a Canadian am proud to support him.

    All you soy boys can go pound sand.

  57. What I can not understand is, your insistence to not let him speak. It appears that they are appreciative of our concerns, but we don’t appreciate theirs. A little bit of kindness is necessary.

    I think, Dr. Peterson is not a disease but a symptom. He may be indicating that, boys of today have no idea about how to thrive in an increasingly non-patriarchal world. It is a concern feminists should address. We can not run away from it.

    For instance; men report; working with females have become increasingly difficult in the office space. Dr. Peterson has voiced that concern.That could be a reason why he is getting such a huge following in the masculine world.

    1. That is definitely the reason, but he’s not helping them, he’s just capitalising on them and building up his own ego as their leader

  58. Jordan Peterson is a grifter and an opportunist, he simply rides the back of a contentious topic sounding like a champion. Basically an old school 1950s male with old values spruiking whatever brain fart comes to mind.

  59. You know it’s going to be a tough ride when you don’t cite anything in a proper manner, and stripe someone’s opinion from their associated rebuttals to common criticism.

    But anyways, you didn’t care to make this an actually readable and respectable piece, given how erratic and ridden with swears and aggressiveness it is. As well as very questionable claims.

    It’s an unfortunate state to witness, and so i recommend to you a certain book that might help broaden your perspective of things, on more than just:

    “does it offend me or make me uncomfortable”-> disagree if yes

    I think it will benefit you greatly, given that spicy word salad of yours that you thought was intellectually sound enough to publish.

    The book is called 12 Rules for Life. The author is Jordan Peterson.

  60. You know it’s going to be a tough ride when you don’t cite anything in a proper manner, and stripe someone’s opinion from their associated rebuttals to common criticism.

    But anyways, you didn’t care to make this an actually respectable piece, given how erratic and ridden with swears and aggressiveness it is. As well as very questionable claims.

    It’s an unfortunate state to witness, and so i recommend to you a certain book that might help broaden your perspective of things, on more than just:

    “does it offend me or make me uncomfortable”-> disagree if yes, and make my whole thinking philosophy spamming ad hominem arguments and strawmans.

    I think it will benefit you greatly, given that spicy word salad of yours that you thought was intellectually sound enough to publish.

    The book is called 12 Rules for Life. The author is Jordan Peterson. You might wanna check it out before you let adolescent anger write things in your name.

    1. You sound like an angry teenager. Of course you do, you’re a Peterson fan. Go clean your room

  61. This was a painfully boring read and truthfully your own hate got in the way of any factual argument made. If nothing else Jordan is one hell of a better writer than the nonsense on here

  62. Yes and yes. He’s a swindler who’s just adept enough at rhetoric to fool a good chunk of the population. If you push just a little bit on most of his arguments, you’ll see there is nothing behind them.

    1. I think it’s completely unethical for Jordan Peterson to use his psychology background to push his political agendas. Whether he takes direct payments from Right Wing financial backers, or has jumped on the profitability of trending topics. He has some good advice, but it’s not exclusive knowledge he has that other psychologists don’t. To lure people in with psychological advice & then twist it to his own agenda is despicable.

  63. No wonder the world’s getting dumber.Peterson’s popularity proves it .

  64. Right wingers ARE soy boys,Bloody MacBeth. I’m a handsome,nearly 70-year-old black Canadian cowboy.

  65. Typical leftist refutation using minutia of Bill c16 for argumentation of which most people won’t read and relying on the summarization that it places compelled speech on the populous. This is not just a matter of a restriction on free speech buy goes beyond to compelled speech. Again typical communist argumentation. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with B***S***.

  66. Wow, this wet rainbow shit aged well. I am a heterosexual male, you call me cis, you get your fucking face stomped in. You want respect, earn it, like everyone else has. Fucking losers. Nobody is taking your shit in 2023. You want to die in a knifefight over a pronoun, you tell me when and where. I will defend my gender and sexuality from your failure to derive attention from more important issues, like hunger or the environment that will fucking kill us all, gender or not. Name a place and time.

  67. Jordan Peterson for president!

  68. Peterson is a goddamn moron. I’ve listened to him extensively and found that nothing he’s said makes one iota of sense. How the fuck did this idiot get to be such a celebrity?????

    1. It’s mind blowing isn’t it? I think he taps into some kind of wound in lost and emasculated men and gets an emotional response from them, even though he speaks nothing but garbage.

    2. There are a lot of stupid people in the world and they need a leader

  69. Because America AND Canada are getting dumber,Bloe. I’m almost 70,and when I was a boy and young man,Peterson wouldn’t have been permitted to clean a university’s boys’ room,let alone be a professor.

  70. One thing I noticed in the original rant as well as the replies (which I wasted a ton of time reading, haha!) was the inability of the vast majority of people participating in the debate to express themselves clearly and intelligently in writing. There was plenty of name-calling and insulting nonsense going in both directions, but not very much actually worthwhile discussion or effort to understand one another’s positions on specific issues. Unfortunately, that seems to be the way our society has chosen to address our problems.

    I don’t always agree with what Peterson has to say, but his opinions are often worth listening to, if for no other reason than to stimulate thought and reasoned debate. When we just decide to never listen to what someone else has to say we choose to close our minds to open debate and follow just one philosophical dogma to the exclusion of all others. Then every attempt at discussion of virtually any topic just becomes a shouting match that is such a cacophony nobody can (or wants to) hear what the others have to offer.

    I think there’s a lot to be accomplished if we just try a little harder to understand one another, relax, and allow each other to voice opinions without fear of being verbally or physically attacked.

    Cheers!

    1. It’s not a debate lol, Peterson is a clown, that’s a fact. The “smart guy for dumb people”.

  71. So i shouldnt listen ever to Jordan Peterson because “In a VICE interview, while discussing women in the workplace, JBP equates wearing makeup (for women) with sexual provocativeness and sexual displays”

    First, he never said that, so that’s stupid…

    OH WAIT! guess you are aiming to uninformed people… ohhhhhhh

    1. Yes he did, the interview is on youtube and there is no ambiguity about what he is saying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU6pHBs5rNY

  72. equates wearing makeup (for women) with sexual provocativeness and sexual displays

    the “for women” is so funny, so if a man is wearing make up IT IS SEXUAL, if it is a women… it’s a reason to never listen to that man…

    Man, check your privilege.

    1. This is a total joke lol. What a pathetic person making a snarky and deliberate hit piece. If he had decided to focus on a single criticism instead of trying to find 12 to match the book title, I would have taken it more seriously. This author hopes that by simply writing something, it will make it true lol. Over half of his criticisms are dead wrong. Bill c16 was legally analyzed by experts at the time: “According to Cossman, accidental misuse of a pronoun would be unlikely to constitute discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but “repeatedly, consistently refus[ing] to use a person’s chosen pronoun” might.[19] Commercial litigator Jared Brown said that imprisonment would be possible if a complaint were made to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Tribunal found discrimination had occurred, the Tribunal ordered a remedy, the person refused to comply with the order, a contempt proceeding were brought in court, and the court ordered the person imprisoned until the contempt had been purged (though he thought such a scenario was unlikely)”. In law, if it is possible, it can be legally argued, and could happen…so even things that are “unlikely” are still troubling. To JPs point they are now going after his license for deadnaming Ellen Page online. They are pointing to this bill as justification. Furthermore, the author’s criticisms of JPS knowledge are petty and childish. For instance, who cares if he mentioned the communist pamphlet, it sounded like it was probably something to say to break the ice to the audience, and that doesn’t imply he hasn’t read other things in the past lol. He likely has read 10x as many books as the author. This is just wild. He makes claims without providing a shred of evidence. Show a quote where incorrectly says something postmodernism, Marxism, etc. Show a passage from Maps of Meaning compared to the source material you claim shows a contradiction….but no that would require actually doing research instead of repeating buzzfeed slogans. Lastly, The vice interview was a complete joke. The interviewer was smug and dismissive, and this author is mischaracterizing several of the occurrences. It’s clear he didn’t actually watch it.

  73. “JBP’s horrible misrepresentation of Bill C-16 notably contributed to hate and antagonism against (and confusion about) trans- and non-binary people.” is one of many lies.

  74. I ended up at this article because I was watching some Youtube video of “Best Lessons Learned” by Afterskool, and saw the speaker was JP. I’d heard he was controversial or bad for some reason, but no real idea why. The video was logical and helpful, the ideas sound and no hate or anything expressed. I think so far, everything I’ve heard from JP has been intelligent and nothing terrible or hateful. I will continue to listen to content I find to be intelligent. I see maybe he’s not perfect, but who is?

  75. Just let ChatGPT be your Master:

    Point 1: JBP’s protest against Bill C-16 misrepresented its content and implications.
    Counterargument: While JBP may have expressed concerns about the bill, it is an exaggeration to claim that he deliberately misrepresented it. There are legitimate debates about the potential consequences of compelled speech, and JBP’s stance was rooted in his support for freedom of expression. It is important to engage in open dialogue and address concerns without dismissing opposing viewpoints.

    Point 2: JBP misuses the term “postmodern neo-Marxism” and misunderstands postmodernism and Marxism.
    Counterargument: While the term “postmodern neo-Marxism” may not have a universally agreed-upon definition, it does capture certain ideological trends that JBP criticizes. It is possible to critique elements of both postmodernism and Marxism without fully understanding every nuance of these complex theories. JBP’s critiques focus on specific aspects he finds problematic and should be evaluated on their individual merits.

    Point 3: JBP equates wearing makeup with sexual provocativeness and doubts coexistence of men and women in the workplace.
    Counterargument: JBP’s statements regarding makeup were reductionistic and oversimplified. However, it is essential to separate his personal views from his broader message. Disagreements on specific points should not discredit the entire body of work or ideas he presents. The coexistence of men and women in the workplace is an ongoing discussion, and differing perspectives should be considered and debated without dismissing them outright.

    Point 4: JBP’s use of lobsters to support the idea of hierarchies is a strawman argument.
    Counterargument: JBP’s use of lobsters as an example of hierarchy is metaphorical, emphasizing the evolutionary roots of certain behaviors. While critics may find fault with this analogy, it does not invalidate his overall argument about hierarchies. It is essential to engage with the underlying concepts and the broader implications rather than focusing solely on specific analogies.

    Point 5: JBP’s rhetoric is intellectually dishonest and evasive.
    Counterargument: JBP’s style of communication may involve nuanced implications, but it does not necessarily indicate intellectual dishonesty. Engaging with his arguments requires careful consideration of his statements in their entirety, rather than isolating individual phrases. Constructive dialogue involves acknowledging differing viewpoints and seeking common ground rather than assuming malice or deception.

    Point 6: JBP promotes an all-meat diet without scientific basis.
    Counterargument: JBP’s personal dietary choices should not automatically invalidate his ideas or arguments in other domains. While there may be concerns about the health implications of an all-meat diet, it is essential to evaluate his ideas on their own merits, independent of his personal beliefs. It is up to individuals to critically assess and make informed decisions about their own dietary choices.

    Point 7: JBP’s association with PragerU, a far-right propaganda channel.
    Counterargument: JBP’s appearance on a platform does not necessarily imply endorsement of every view propagated by that platform. It is possible to engage in dialogue with diverse platforms while maintaining one’s own perspectives. Evaluating JBP’s ideas should be based on his own arguments rather than affiliations or associations.

    In summary, while criticisms can be made against specific points and arguments put forth by JBP, it is important to engage with his ideas in a fair and open manner. Dismissing his entire body of work based on isolated critiques undermines the potential for meaningful discourse and understanding. It is essential to evaluate arguments on their individual merits, engage in respectful dialogue, and seek common ground where possible.

  76. Tell me you’re garbage without telling me you’re garbage

  77. The rhetoric here is too passive aggressive, which means that the author has far too emotional attachment to this topic to provide a balanced view. It is therefore read with a pinch of salt.
    I would recommend the author to add in balanced views with less outbursts of emotion, it’s more likely to be read and accepted.

    I find much of the lefts problem is exactly this. Everything is emotional, it is therefore a challenge for me to take it seriously when there are such acute emotional performances. I personally sit mostly centre-left, but I do have the capacity to listen and balance valid comparative views from both sides without getting my knickers in a twist.

    Much of this does carry the odd fair point, but there is far too many ad-hominim attacks which dilute the whole thing to a rambling of an emotional child.

  78. Didn’t really see the issue with his never having read any Marxist theory ever. Also I cannot see the grounds for saying that he misuses the term «postmodern neo-Marxism». To me it seems to achieves an awful lot with very little — ‘Postmodernism is not your friend’. Well, it isn’t though.

  79. The fact that someone took the time to write this, makes it more evident to me of the importance that Jordan B. Peterson has to humanity and mostly the youth of today. Good luck making a better argument next time.

  80. I just watched his youtube video reading “Why I am Pro Muslim but Anti Thug” – a rant of pure psycho-babble that had me thinking he may end up in an asylum yet. Loved your analysis!

  81. Dr. Pee has turned out to be nothing more the a prarie dime store pastor. After the novelties of his crack pot controversial ideas have wore off, in his desperation, has turned to scripture.
    He knows how to find a weak and easily influenced market for all his donkey self help seminars.
    Because if your a person of faith, it is highly unlikely you will use the one tool evolution has gifted you to really help yourself see the factual, scientific truth…..your brain.
    He is really hoping you don’t use it, and send him $ to help promote his ” Righteous Citizens ” kick he is on about recently.
    Fuckin embarrassed he is Canadian.

  82. You can completely disagree and still sympathize with someone. I believe Peterson has good intentions, and values inner integrity. Honest convictions can be debated, but should not be met with contempt and disrespect. Exactly that is souring public discourse today. This piece is a sad example of that angry underbelly distrust, that propels into intolerance for ‘other’ people’s ideas. And then it’s more about the tone and dismissive nature of your piece, and less about the argument you could have made much more effectively, had you not done that. It’s silly. Show some respect.

  83. The fact that you couldn’t even refrain from using profanity in this casts more doubt on your character than his.

    Also, you never once proved any point you made, only said he’s wrong.

  84. A “literal dog-whistle” would be … a DOG Whistle; an actual whistle that only dogs can hear. NOT an idea or movement, etc. Get your language right.

  85. Idiots, this poster is just another politically correct person who probably havent even researched Sir Jordan properly and twisted his words according to your perspectives and interpretations.

    Many have tried to bring him down, but 12* years worth of his content and not a single solid evidence that is against him.

  86. 6. In his Magnum Opus, Maps of Meaning, a bunch of his own sources directly contradicts the very claims he uses them to make.

    Which of his own sources? Which claims do they contradict?

    Surely you don’t expect anyone to take YOU seriously.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.