This will be my first post on this website. I've been lurking for some time, and finally decided to join the fray. Wish me luck!
I've been reading this thread ever since I heard about Peterson's very unfortunate bout with benzodiazepines. I wasn't quite aware of the criticism against Peterson that didn't come from the lunacy of the SJW's, which is why it was both surprising and refreshing to read the sperging being spouted in this thread - there are undoubtedly some exceptional people in it, that's for sure. To hear people criticize Peterson for things other than, say, "he's just telling people to, uhm, wash their benises; where's the novelty in that (oh, by the way, Drumpf is a nazi and it would be great if you could accompany me to the MyLittlePony-convention)‽". So I read the article you posted, hoping that it would offer little more substance than that of your typically deranged leftist Ingsoc rambling. It barely did.
The article is quite lengthy, and so I won't go over it point by point. I'll admit that the author might have a point when deriding Peterson for being overly verbose, but that's really only nitpicking him for his authorship. Other than that the article is mostly a collection of over-simplifying and mischaracterizing Peterson's statements - vague as they can sometimes be considered - in order to justify his obviously antagonistic agenda towards the man, and more than a little dose of self-congratulatory grammar followed by delusional closing statements such as "[...] so since it's obvious that Peterson is an unintelligent buffoon with the wit of a hamster, why then would people listen to him?!" (I'm paraphrasing, of course). The only saving grace of the article is that it tries to, at least on a surface-level, give a barely nuanced portrayal of the phenomena that is Jordan Peterson. Every sentence that - supposedly - tries to objectively summarize Peterson's statements, what "they might mean", and for whom they are directed and what impact they might have on the audience, falls flat almost immediately by virtue of the authors obvious desire to shame Peterson. If I were to in good faith take the word of some of the seemingly more reasonable posters here on their word, there is apparently ample material to do so without falling to dishonest ramblings and misrepresentation. Given that so many of you apparently found this article to "be great" though, I'm really starting to doubt that there is any valid criticism against Peterson other than perhaps his desire to capitalize on his online self-help courses, and for the perchance "banality" of his ideas (it really can't be all that banal though, given that it clearly resonates so well with so many people, no matter how much the author insists that its only because the audience is "fooled" into thinking Peterson's word are meaningful - perhaps it's true that the degenerates of the world that can't stand Peterson only have themselves "to blame" for his surge in popularity, as the author claims?). The author is clearly not arguing in good faith.
I'd like for you to google the name of the author: Nathan Robinson. He's just the kind of person you'd expect him to be, and his mannerisms and choice of words further reinforces that the only ones that truly have a beef with Peterson are the perpetually offended, meandering, self-loathing and virtue signalling members of our society. You will also find that he has an arguably somewhat unhealthy obsession with Peterson and those who fancies listening to him. Oh, and he's also a self-professed socialist, and argues fervently in favor of the ideology.
Now, before you lash out, I'd like to stress that I'm not some ardent follower of Peterson that draws fanart of him and posts it online. I have no problem with discussing his potential shortcomings, and have otherwise no stake in the game, so to speak. If the "criticisms" (if you can even call them that) that's leveraged in the article is what constitutes as "great" for the majority of you though, then I can only conclude that there really isn't much of importance that one can criticize Peterson for. Peterson emerged when the SJW lunacy were at its peak (hopefully), and provided some much needed counterbalance in the public discourse. The smears he's gotten for the most innocuous statements from people all over the political aisle if nothing short of extraordinary. At the end of the day, Peterson is a very innocent presence, and the positive ramifications of his contributions to public discourse quite obviously outweigh the negative, whatever they may be. He might very well be severely overrated, but there is absolutely no need for the exceptional antagonism against him. He's most definitely not "lolcow" material (...), and most of this thread is a mistake.
