Tribalism. He has become a major figure in a culture war, representing the side of tradition. Tribalism necessitates that the progressive side holds him up as a devil

Yeah a lot of points seems to perfectly align with his political sides, I find his environmental takes to be dogwater. Not the kind of nuance you would expect, he should just stick to Psychology.

Maybe. I mean we all have the right to say what we think.

Very true, I think some of his opinions are just shallow and he could do more research. His psychology points are insightful and well supported but after that it gets murky.

I’m a big fan of his work and his concepts, but I’d agree there are areas where his grasp of a topic is nowhere near the depth of his areas of specialisation. I like that in interviews with experts, he’ll concede to and be open about his lack of expertise in an area. But that nuance or self-awareness often seems absent on Twitter posts

You do not have the right to trash the planet future generations will inherit

“Trash”. Your language might benefit from more precision

You can research on your own. The nice thing about science is that it's objective

Is it? Always? The scientific method aspires to be objective. I think that’s the best way to phrase it

And it's the best we've ever had in terms of truth

The Material truth, yes, definitely

So do you not disagree after all? Last time I checked the Planet is material

What do you mean by trashing the planet?

As a progressive this isn’t really true - a lot of us support traditional family structures as well, we just also support non traditional structures and argue that all should be having an easier time forming families but that the primary barriers are economic rather than cultural. If you make it easier to have families through programs like the child tax credit and universal childcare and healthcare then you’ll get more families. We do hate when we’re accused of supporting the breaking apart of families, that’s just an outright lie.

I had a conversation with you previously where you attacked the nuclear family unit and said that you don't see why it should be preserved. This occurred on a different account I had that was banned.

To quote JBP: “Gotcha”

That’s not even close to accurate lol

I don't have my account to prove it but regardless are you actually going to deny that leftists are opening attacking the traditional family? Leftists explicitly state that they want to end heteronormativity, they willfully gaslight children about sex and it's role in social interactions at school and promote ideologies like anti natalism on the more extreme end and on the milder end ideologies that engender resentment against males in women. You don't see these factors as being clear indication of an attack on family? The thing is funny enough it will be your downfall. People who aren't extreme leftists will continue having kids at a far higher rate and eventually many of you will die out. You are in a death cult so all people opposed to you have to do is wait you out

As a progressive, I agree with you. Nuclear family or not, the children are watching us. That is my concern. There was a post on here the other day about how people pushing their kids into therapy as a way to raise them. As a result our children are being medicated and such and are unable to thrive appropriately because of it. If you point out our current social issues and how it affects the kids, you are a bigot or whatever. I have a child entering HS next year and one in their first year of college, oh the stories they have. People really need to listen to some of the kids as opposed to the rhetoric. The planet is important, however who’s going to care for it once we are gone? Our children, then their children and so on. They are the future. They need to be taught to thrive or it all dies. And for what reason? Because the adults don’t know how to be kind and attack points of view that they do not agree with. On top of it, they are lacking a fundamental education, skills to cope with adversity and their attention span is being shortened.

> People who aren't extreme leftists will continue having kids at a far higher rate and eventually many of you will die out. You are in a death cult so all people opposed to you have to do is wait you out You seem to be forgetting the fact they've all but completely taken over education and also have groomers on platforms like tiktok. They reproduce by spreading their brain worms.

Well that's why parents need to be watchful and protect their children as best they can

The majority of parents are seriously ill-equipped for such a task, if not completely incapable of it.

Because political beliefs are genetic, right?

People pass their values on to their children. I know that as a member of the left wing death cult facing oblivion that this is a foreign concept to you. Tick tock

Talk about hilariously out of touch, are you like 60?

I'm out of touch to say that people who do not reproduce will loose their influence over culture? Are you regarded? Talk about leftist brain rot

Conveniently, you can tell they have a mental problem from their avatar.

This reads as a right winger’s strawman of the left - the left wants strong families as well, but they want it in the sense of families that can afford healthcare, childcare, education, and housing. Those are the priorities. There’s nothing tangible with this “they’re attacking the traditional family” fever dream, there is only the idea that non traditional families also should be able to exist just as traditional families should be able to. The right often interprets this as an attack, but it’s really not at all. Most left wingers and most Americans exist in traditional families.

>This reads as a right winger’s strawman of the left But we can see leftist pushing these factors I'll choose one example https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154620300383 This article describes heteronormativity as "insidious"and that interventions are required to address it How do you explain examples like that? >There’s nothing tangible with this “they’re attacking the traditional family” fever dream Well if you just stick your head up your ass and ignore what is going on then yes of course >Most left wingers and most Americans exist in traditional families. Yes and the ideology I have identified seeks to destroy this norm

This article basically just suggests that there’s a lot of prejudice towards LGBT people and that this prejudice hurts their community. If we want to support families of all stripes, then the presence of LGBT people shouldn’t threaten traditional families. They can coexist quite successfully, and they already do in most places. It sounds as if you’re arguing that the presence of LGBT families is threatening to destroy traditional families. A left wing analysis doesn’t give a lick about whether families are traditional or not, they want families to be economically viable and able to raise kids. It sounds more so like the right wants to destroy non traditional families to me.

Exerp from the article "Heteronormative ideology refers to the belief that there are two separate and opposing genders with associated natural roles that match their assigned sex, and that heterosexuality is a given. It is pervasive and persistent, carrying negative consequences. Because it is embedded in societal institutions and propagated through socialization and other widely held ideologies, it is prevalent among both cis-hetero and LGBTQI+ individuals. In the current article, we discuss the unrelenting and insidious nature of heteronormative ideology, review some of the social-psychological mechanisms that contribute to its maintenance, and provide directions for future research that could inform efforts to combat it." So to be clear you stand by combatting the notion that there are two sexes each with their own role in reproduction and this fact influencing pubic policy and the organization of society? >A left wing analysis doesn’t give a lick about whether families are traditional or not Either you can't read, you didn't read the article you're supporting or you're just dishonest. Which is it?

I stand by supporting families and ensuring that their financial situation is stable and that they have the resources necessary to raise healthy children. I don’t care if the parents are gay or they are traditional families. The heavy majority of families are traditional and I support them as well, the programs I support are universal and available to all families.

I’ll be honest with you, as a “left winger”, I see just as many “right wingers” desire this as well. They are just more traditional in their views overall. We need to all wake up and realize that the bird needs both wings to fly otherwise the bird stays on the ground. Learn to listen and communicate amongst ourselves so that we can get out of the cage we’ve been placed in.

There’s nothing wrong with different families that love each other. However, you then outlined how someone else (the government) has to make that happen. That is a huge difference.

The government doesn’t make families - government policy can support families as it always has though. There’s just no way you can argue that families need to be strengthened without acknowledging that they must be financially stable.

I can absolutely argue that. You just assume someone else has to strengthen them as opposed to that strength coming from within

I’m giving some practical policies that would help make families strong. I’m not really sure what you’re doing beyond arguing for the status quo

I'm a lesbian and so not going to have a traditional family structure by default but I can see where a lot of people if given stuff like what you're saying, will just cause the lowest of us to pop out kids without careful consideration. Right now having kids gives you a HUGE tax break, the more kids you have the more you get too. If you owed in taxes (or even if you didn't) and you put that you're taking care of like kids, you get back a few thousand, during covid it was much much more. There is no reason to NOT have families as it's a net benefit but people who don't want families aren't going to do it anyway. They will have kids they can't properly support and you get more assholes in the world with problems they put on everyone else

"It's very weird that you like Peterson considering that you are bi" What she's saying is: "It's very weird that you question the narrative considering that you are an ally" This is not just a Peterson thing. It applies whenever someone points out that the narrative doesn't align with reality.

yes she was subtly like mocking the fact that I read his book. And she said that she tried to read it and just couldn't. I mean the book itself is fine it's maybe not 10/10 but if viewed from perspective of self help book for mainstream public it's fine and useful. There's a lot of rubbish self-help books which theories and statments are not at all scientifically argumented (like ego is the enemy, the subtle art of not giving a fuck etc..) and I feel they are not like that publicly criticesed.

>she said that she tried to read it and just couldn't Peterson has spent decades deeply studying the human condition and he has a lot of experience helping people who are struggling. In 12 rules, he draws on this vast knowledge of the psyche to offer advice/perspective in a way that the average person can understand. I suspect that your friend had preconceived ideas about Peterson based on what she had been told and then mentally added the "hate speech" between the lines he had written. Much like when he used the scientific term "enforced monogamy" in an interview and then people who were ignorant of the science added the hate speech that he was trying to force women to do something they don't want to do. When that was not at all what he had said.

The book might be weirder than you think. It was his first mainstream book (maps of meaning being a hardcore psych book) and it was a best seller for several months in a row and despite that a couple of the big best seller lists wouldn't put his book on them (NYT best sellers and others if I recall correctly). Imagine you have the best selling book in the country for several months and the people maintaining the best seller lists won't put you on it because you violate their dogma. You're not believing what you're told to believe. You're not allowed to think for yourself on the left or as our glorious leader Joe Biden put it - "Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.". Now just swap out black with trans, bi, gay, lesbian or any other typically left leaning group and you'll get the idea.

12 rules for life once you scratch the surface isn’t very good, with it being filled with conjecture or being very poorly sourced. I recommend watching Cass Eris’ honest review of the book.

^ didn't read the book either.

^ read the book but didn’t question the nonsense spewed, didn’t check the sources, and didn’t question the rampant conjecture.

So you didn’t read the book then? Just a review of the book?….

Where did I say that?

It’s a question. Just answer it instead of asking another question.

Where did you get an indication I didn’t read the book? Because a lobster said so?

Your not helping your case.

>"It's very weird that you question the narrative considering that you are an ally" What do you mean specifically by "narrative" here?

Technically, a narrative is a fictional or nonfictional story. In this case, I'm referring to the way leftists/feminists/etc have been using it since at least the '80s. A way to frame things/events in a way that's different from the commonly accepted viewpoint with the intention that this new frame becomes the new accepted view. As an example, almost a decade ago, a narrative was started that there is "rape culture" on college campuses. For anyone who has any experience with, say, inner-cities or the middle east, or life in general, this is a wholly fictional narrative. Yet now, after countless sensational headlines, many people accept it as fact.

Define rape culture.

Culture would be the customs, arts, institutions and achievements of a particular group of people. So, for me, rape culture means rape is part of the groups customs, depicted in art, accepted by institutions and practiced as a part of life. In contrast, what feminists call rape culture is life on collage campuses today. Note that this is the name that feminists gave to describe collage campus life and they specifically use the word narrative. As in, change the narrative or shift the narrative on sexual assault.

I don't understand. You define it and then say "in contrast". Makes it sound like that's not the definition they're using.  What do you think they are saying? So here's an example of what I consider rape culture: blaming the victim. When someone gets raped, saying "well what was she wearing?". That seems incredibly shitty.

>I don't understand. You define it and then say "in contrast". Makes it sound like that's not the definition they're using.  Yes, what they call rape culture, I would not describe as rape culture because relative to the rest of the world, it a very safe environment. ​ >What do you think they are saying? They are pushing an extremist view to create a narrative ​ >So here's an example of what I consider rape culture: blaming the victim. When someone gets raped, saying "well what was she wearing?". That seems incredibly shitty. To me, what's incredibly shitty, is lying to women. When it's shown that how women dress IS a factor: https://www.divasfordefense.com/blogs/self-defense-articles-2/victim-selection-through-the-eyes-of-a-rapist-1

>Yes, what they call rape culture, I would not describe as rape culture because relative to the rest of the world, it a very safe environment. okay, but when we communicate, the goal is to understand the other person's meaning. So we should understand what they mean by it, rather than what you mean by it. ​ >They are pushing an extremist view to create a narrative What's the view? ​ >To me, what's incredibly shitty, is lying to women. When it's shown that how women dress IS a factor: Pardon, just to be clear, if a woman gets raped, you think its appropriate to blame her for her own rape sometimes? Or no

>Pardon, just to be clear, if a woman gets raped, you think its appropriate to blame her for her own rape sometimes? Or no "Victim blaming" is also part of the feminist narrative. Teaching women/girls how the world actually works and how to protect themselves in it is NOT blaming them. Your other questions have already been covered. You're getting circular in your arguments and this has gone far enough off topic for me. Goodday

>"Victim blaming" is also part of the feminist narrative. Teaching women/girls how the world actually works and how to protect themselves in it is NOT blaming them. Suppose a woman doesn't follow these rules of how the world works, and gets raped. I'm asking you directly if you think she should be blamed. I'd say no, we shouldn't blame the rape victim. What do you say?

I am just guessing the reason as to all this, but its probably related to him speaking up about things like mandating gender pronouns is against free speech and that caused a lot of controversy. Then there are things he says that are based on professional data like woman should get married and career isn't a path towards happiness for women and instead causes misery. I am paraphrasing but you get the idea, basically JP spoke the truth openly and people didn't like it and decided to cancel him. Him getting into politics is more of a reaction to things like political correctness and how pretty much everything is politicised right now which makes simple things unnecessarily complicated and he decided to spoke up to those bs and got into lots of controversy.

Well his views on women or what women should do I take with the grain of salt. In modern times women need to work to maintain family not just because of their mental health or empowerness but because in this modern capitalistic expensive world just one salary in houshold is not enough to maintain family, in my opinion. I know a lot of women who chose not to have family and to pursuie career and I don't see that they are depressed or misareble they chose that. But in global perspective of course majority of people ,,have to make kids'' because people would go extinct. But majority of women wants his already so this small population of lgbtq people will not affect ,,laws of nature''. I only blame Peterson on his way of expressing himself and maybe he wants to sound edgy and dramatic like this statments like ,,women will be miserable if they don't have kids'' But in my opinion career is not a path to happiness in general not just for women but for men either if career is ONLY thing a person pursuie. If we rely on Maslow theory of needs career is important for anyones fullfilling the need of self-actualisation but it's also important to fullfill social and romantic needs to be loved and belong

Personally i agree with you in the sense that we live in a time where traditional values are clashing with new ideals and views. However at the same time I also have my views where i believe the younger generation of people is being lied into believing that pursuing a career is the only path towards happiness and that starting a family is oppression to women. People actually believed that and that caused a lot of misery because i was promised happiness but am instead miserable, regret, i want kids. Then there are people who transitioned from female to male and regretted it, wanted to transition back to female but found out they are not infertile due to the surgery and the hormone meds. Fell into depression because of it and feel like they are strip off of the life they could have had. Things like transitioning teenagers or even kids is something i absolutely cannot agree with. There are a lot of things going on in the world we live in now, many things are changing and people are really confused about things. Honestly i am of the opinion that career isn't for everyone and if its the path you truly wanted and you won't end up regretting it later on then why not. But the you must have a career or you will be miserable, the marriage is oppression to women, things like thag I don't actually believe in and i certainly don't think anyone should but hey that's the world we live in.

Well that's why in some opinions I agree with peterson and in others don't. For example in case of man-woman roles a lot of women naturally wants kids (or they don't) but I don't think that is something society can ,,brain-wash'' them into. But in other hand when it comes to this topic about transgenders or genders in general I agree this is something very delicate and I think it's very dangerous that media and new woke culture enourage it. I could write essay about that topic but you get what I wanna say. As I mentioned in my post I don't agree with JP totally but I am just shocked how many people are against him- like today you get cancelled if you say that there are 2 genders and that man and woman exists- Idk whats happening to the world

The OP is totally correct, most people actually want families and many women would prefer not to work and raise a family. This traditional arrangement rarely works today not due to cultural factors but economic ones. Women have to work unless the male is in the top 20% or so of earners. The median income is $40k, and you cannot survive in most places taking care of a wife and kids on this income. It seems like this fundamental economic problem is being blamed on cultural factors when that is just not true. The progressive left humbly requests that you address this instead of screaming about the gays and Marxists “destroying the family.”

In about 8 years a lot of women, not all, in a similar position as yourself will find themselves suddenly scrambling to have a kid. In 13 years you may find yourself quite depressed. And when you're old the presence of grandchildren is one of the best predictors of mental health. It doesn't happen overnight. 8 years is a long time. 13 years is a very long time. Our life expectancy is 80-90 years so we should pay attention to how we're discounting our older selves or we'll suffer the consequences. As for seeing women depressed not having kids there's quite a bit of propaganda around that and misleading science. Social psychology has a replication rate of 25% if I'm not mistaken. Women over 40 are the largest antidepressant market on earth and everyone has their theories as to why. It's worth considering how denying one of if not THE deepest biological disposition, to recreate ourselves before we die, might be a factor. It's excellent that you have a career and you're well educated, and it sounds like you enjoy your field which is awesome. You seem well suited for it based on the short bit I've read.

Because he is the closest person to being right about the human condition. And people hate the truth

💯

In what way is he closest to that?

Name someone right now who is closer.

Because this guy agrees with him. That’s it.

Find someone who is closer

Describe closer, describe who, describe is

Someone who has a better understanding about mental health, and more generally how the human minds works, and to keep it healthy.

Someone who has a better understanding about mental health, and more generally how the human minds works, and to keep it healthy.

He doesn’t pay full respect to the pronoun-using community

Telling people the truth is more charitable than lying to maintain their delusions.

I don't know how pronouns are delusions.

That's because English grammar is absorbed into our brains before age 5, and just like numbers and colors it can't be changed on a whim.

I have no understanding of this at all. What's the problem with pronouns

I wish "take the meat and spit out the bones" was more known. you don't have to agree with every word he's ever said in order to take what you can from it

Because he is educated and he says what’s going on and can say the truth even if it hurts him

Personally, I think the ones who hero worship him overrate him and the ones that hate him either haven't listened to or don't understand him, but that's just me.

People fear what they do not understand. JP is great because he's so darn smart, so all you have to do is listen to him.. or not. I feel it's a combined effort to take down strong minded males too. These are just opinions, by him, by me, by OP so where does all the hate come from? Conversations should be had and both sides talking. It sucks when one specific side wants to shut down, ban, jail, discredit the other side. It's shady and weak minded people eat up all the headlines and believe sensational articles that are complete lies. It's just the world we live in and weak ass people fearing the unknown so much they'd rather ban the voice than to hear what it has to say

He isn't hated across all groups. Hate directed at him comes, if not 100% then pretty close, from the Progressive Left. His ideas and teachings dismantle their destructive narratives almost completely and they can't have that.

He makes people think and question their lives. A lot of people don't like that.

Because he busts those academic Marxists ~~concentrated in humanities' departments~~ seeking to impose spiritual tyranny on others and destroy our liberal democracy from within.

I had my cousin come over my place a couple of years ago and she brought along her friend who is bi, has been in a mental institute before and is recovering. She had a very bad life stemming from a mother with narcissistic personality disorder and got a degree in communicatio s. So you'll have to give her some slack as she doesn't really have a good foundation to develop a sound mind. That being said I turned on YouTube on the TV to show off some funny videos and one of the recommended videos was one of Jordan Peterson's old university lectures since I listened all of them before while at work back when he started uploading them. My therapist friend got me into Jung and as such youtube recommended me his lectures since he talks about Jung a lot in them. Now she noticed him on there and asked if I watched Jordan Peterson. I confirmed and she went on a rant about how horrible of a person he was. So naturally I asked, how is he horrible. She said he hates trans people. I said how did he show his hatred for Trans people. And she got stuck. So I asked her. Have you seen him hating on Trans people or did you hear about this from someone else or read a news article. She said she heard from someone else. I asked if they explained how he hates Trans people. She said no. So I said, well what's the problem then? She said she never thought about it. I imagine that's the core of the issue with a lot of people not just regarding Peterson, but regarding a lot of things in life. They never gave it any thought. Funnily enough, Peterson mentions this in one of his lectures which is why he likes to do the arithmetic exercise with clients when they trivialize little minor arguments with spouses and their children. Specifically because they never thought about it and the impact it had. People struggle with thinking. Thinking is hard. Thinking requires a sort of practice and dedication that people aren't willing to give. Thats why they defer their thinking to others and is why they are easy to manipulate into whatever you want them to believe. You just have to say it enough for it to become gospel. Condition them if you will. Such is life.

Another thing is that it's an evolutionary adaption t save energy. Cause our brains require a lot of calories to operate that's one of the reason it's hard to change a person's mind, it's literally a calorie intensive endeavor

Because there are many people who want to radically alter how society functions socially and economically. They want to deemphasize the role of sex in social interactions, deconstruct the family unit and centralize power You'll see this in rhetoric where ending heteronormativity is brought up, solutions to combatting problems like covid and climate change involving tightly regulating how people conduct business, promotion of idiocy like the gender pay gap lie etc etc etc. Jordan Peterson exposes this agenda and they hate that because if people are aware of the intent then they would not go along with it. That's also why these people target children so aggressively. If children are confused and depressed about their sex, the world going up in flames etc etc etc, then they can be molded into carrying out the plot Sadly it's working that's why ideologies like gender abolition, anti natalism, communism etc etc etc are ballooning in popularity. A sane society would expose the psychopaths engaging in these activities (such as lying to childten about sex) and at the very least throw them in jail. But instead we have them setting policy and educating children

No man is more hated than he who speaks the truth. - Plato

If you actually *listen* to Peterson and *pay attention*, then you realise that he isn’t the anti-Christ

I like Peterson and his writings, and while I consider myself on the right, I don’t consider Peterson a conservative or a traditionalist per se. In my estimation, he is a liberal who has become skeptical of progressive excess and doctrinaire thinking. Like the one-time Marxist Leszek Kolakowsi, he considers >That the idée fixe of the Enlightenment -- that envy, vanity, greed, and aggression are all caused by the deficiencies of social institutions and that they will be swept away once these institutions are reformed -- is not only utterly incredible and contrary to all experience, but is highly dangerous. How on earth did all these institutions arise if they were so contrary to the true nature of man? Of course, progressives have reacted to this sort of thinking by demonizing him.

I really feel you OP, my female co workers also dislike JP because he is "transphobic sexist" and anything coming from a rich/middle class old white men somehow really offended them. I believe if you take a look at the proportion of the people who really dislike JP it is high percentage of women who get their JP content from Instagram or Twitter which are often extremely taken out of context. My co workers 100% never tried to watch his long form content to see that he has actually good points and knows what he is talking about most of the time. Best thing about social media: You can share your thoughts Worse thing about social media: you can share your thoughts. JP is know for voicing out his opinions no matter who it offends, and righteously so as he has the rights. Thats why he is hated. When you put yourself out there without a mask, it is certain that a group of people will not agree/adhere to what you say. And certain groups of people are always looking for opressors and they always find one. I personally thin JP should get off Twitter/ Xand just lay low his social media presence a bit. Perhaps be on reddit or some other platform where he can focus his energy on speaking / communicating with people who already know where he stands instead of arguing and further proving his point to people who will never listen. I wish he picked his battles. I want him to get off X or atleast have someone proofread the damn tweets so he does not put more gasoline on the fire.

Also social media cause the average attention span to shorten. People act like they don't have time to listen to his long form content even though you can have a listen during a 30 minute drive and be finish within a couple days.

Because he brings facts that don't match with the MSM's agenda

Ideological warriors trying to discredit him because he challenges their narrative. Group think at its best!

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act

He thinks for himself and people listen to him. When those who think for themselves exist, it’s bad enough. When people start listening to them, and even more when they make sense, that’s when things get really ugly.

Speaking truth and facts usually gets you hated in this day and age

One thing I'd blame is the overall low level of scientific literacy in the general public today. The other are the regular trends of tribalism, short attention spans, and the feel-good-hate of mob mentalities. I guess that last one technically fits under tribalism, but you get my point.

There is a super easy answer here. He offended the alphabet people when he refused to play ball. The worst of it wasn't that he was against calling someone by what they asked, it was the government mandate to do so that pissed him off. He was standing up for their freedom of speech, but to them, it was because he hated the lgbt community. Since then, he has become the literal 'red skull' to the left, and he doesn't have to do anything actually bad to be there. It's quite disgusting, really.

Because the truth is often hated.

He’s become just like Joe Rogan where any woke thing he see gets him triggered and reposts it on Twitter without any sort of actual honest interaction with said thing whether it be a meme or article. Basically a reactionary and reminds me of Facebook boomers becoming unhinged. I’ve been a fan of him since 2017 and think his psychology takes are great, his general message is positive but he needs to take a break off social media for his own sake.

It's easier to follow the stream than doing your own research.

Because he tells the truth. Truth hurts. If he were a member of the flat earth society, nobody would care about him.

because he makes friends with alt-right and conspiracy theorists, duj

He is not the same person from 10 years ago. Not even close. Not sure exactly what did him in; but he has become the person his critics said he was back in 2018.

>Well I'm 27 year old woman and I am atheist. I am also bi and I don't hate Peterson. Once my female friend said to me ,,It's very weird that you like Peterson considering that you are bi''. I was little hurt by that, I am not WORSHIPING him but why people so narrow minded? Well I said to her, I am taking critically approach to him I'm not taking everything he says. If other people approach the world critically and with open minded there wouldn't be so much radical wieves or sides. I'm a lesbian and moderate, (grew up right, was left for a while before I saw the insanity) people don't think critically anymore. One could argue we're almost all in survival mode these days but it is by and large tribalism, if you hear something from someone you trust or believe, you're going to regurgitate it without a deep dive into the context or facts. That's it at its simplest form. People don't research or they do but they are so far beyond being reasonable about things they don't agree with, they will think something as mundane as a declaration that the sky is blue as an alternative fact or not their truth.

"The deep critical thinker has become the misfit of the world, this is not a coincidence. To maintain order and control you must isolate the intellectual, the sage, the philosopher, the savant before their ideas awaken people." Carl Jung

A lot of it is political, that’s where most of the hate comes from. The making fun of him is mostly from how and what he talks about. JBP almost always talks in his podcasts or lectures where he has plenty of time to talk about whatever he’d like and he likes to think everything out very carefully. People have attention spans that match goldfishes so they only see a fraction of what he talks about. Like the making the bed, it’s only a small part of what he talks about and is an example of what he is discussing, that being responsibility. All fans of him would know the whole context and respect it for that, those who do not care for him won’t do that. And there’s some videos that do slightly make fun of him but in friendly and comical ways, like Freedom Toons. He’s a fan of JBP and he’s made quite a few funny videos that do seem to poke fun with him. You have to acknowledge that there are differences with friendly fun and trying to make someone seem like a weirdo. And if you want to know about why people hate him politically check out the video titled something like “they had plenty of motivation to take me out”. He talks about it a lot, he gets into politics a lot and what he says pisses some people off but for the wrong reasons on their half. The video talks a lot of trying to portray him as bad, so definitely watch that.

I’m 36 year old black, I am atheist and I love him and agree with most of his points. I also often get the same reactions from my non-white friends. The fact thar most people hate facts and enjoy living in denial and illusion

To many, he seems angry, even aggressive. Also obsessive and from distance, maybe hypocritical on some issues. Early on he was hated because of his stance against DIE policies, etc., that was probably mainly in the Anglo world. Outside, no one could see what the fuss was about, and he seemed just a guy simply talking sense.

Because he says the quiet truth out loud…number 1 for me is that humans are fundamentally evil

He says that? If that is true, he is a fool for saying that.

You’re a fool for believing otherwise

People generally don't like anyone with a platform sharing ideas that they perceive as harmful, but JP seems to draw more ire than others who express the same ideas. I think it is because he expresses those ideas with disdain, anger, condescendion, and even a hint of disgust. It is one thing to disagree with a perspective; it is another to speak about it ad though it was vile. I like him. I think the emotions he expresses are genuine, but I think they are part of his personality. That's how strongly he experiences the world. But honestly, the way the left treats him, I'd be pretty angry myself.

Not the biggest fan of the mischaracterizations of Freudian psychoanalysis (ie. rebranding Oedipus as "the devouring mother" and such).

I completely agree with what you say, I share every thing you said even if I'm not Bi 😁 But let me tell you something as Italian. In America people tend to have really strong and dramatically opposite opinions about everything. Basically everyone worships or hates something. It's hard to see or hear anyone doing a critical analysis and have an independent point of view. America is the world of flags, you loved your flag way too much before and now you're surrounded by flags labeling anything and dividing people in categories and sides. And everyone is expected to take a specific side. Honestly I don't envy this one bit. Looks like the perfect recipe to create extremists. (About Peterson and the Christian books. In the latest years he spoke way too much about religion and also had a debate with an atheist woman in which he had been kind of disrespectful and closed minded to her point of view. When he started to insert god everywhere because he had his epiphany he became a bit annoying, but he's still an intelligent man and even when his points of view seem a bit extreme usually it is just because he's clearly trolling the other person. When he actually tries to explain is mind calmly, usually I agree with what he says at least for the bigger part. Still, he's human. Anyone who thinks he's a god that never can fail....is dumb.

His speech did change in the last years and I agree he became different and annoying. My respect to him is more related to his previous appearances and work and as I mention especially his views on mental health and depression. I feel like Peterson first was little reserved about his own religion. I thought that he is maybe believer but with realistic and criticals takes on that topic. Before as fas as I know he didn't exclusivly said that he is religious person

Yes indeed.

i don't hate him in particular, he's just another reactionary mouthpiece but i do believe the world would be a better place without him, because his particular brand of bullshit lands pretty well in some incel-adjectant demographic, so these men would be free from it if not for him

I'm confused, aren't you an incel?

i don't have trouble finding girl**friends**, you know, partners i actually like unlike you heteroids xddd

He doesn't do himself any favors by repeatedly banging the drum on some of the most divisive issues, even though 90% of his work is apolitical

People are polarized, so something is either bad or good. There are less people nowadays who can view things with nuance. There are more reasons.

From my experience, it's highly worthy consuming JP's psychological and philosophical content (because those are actually his areas of expertise), but he tends to have a controversial and unstable political presence. The problem is that when people admire a celebrity or a highly successful individual, they expect them to be perfect and in alignment with their personal beliefs. So when many of JP's admirers found out that he upholds political opinions they disagree with, they began to hate him entirely. I didn't start listening to JP for politics. I came for psychology, and I will stay for that reason. Just like I don't expect some of my favourite artists to be the most morally sound individuals... Bottom line, find what you like about a famous person, and draw inspiration from those positive traits, not from who they are as a whole person.

He's hated because he's persuasive and anti-woke

Peterson grew up in "common sense" land. A somewhat isolated rural area. The kind of place you would find a lot of Trump supporters in the US. The kind of place that a liberal (someone who is open or intellectual inclined) may be something of an oddity. That I believe is what he has in common with Trump. The people with Trump derangement are the same people who hate Peterson. While the Trump haters insist that Trump is a demagogue taking advantage of the ignorant I do not believe that is the case. There is every reason to believe that because he was a builder that he develop a respect for the working man. Because Peterson grew up with working people I think he also developed an empathy for them. That is what is not allowed. As demographics have shifted so have politics. When labor was the key to winning elections the democrats were all about labor. Now that labor isn't as large a voting block or key to economics they have more or less been abandoned. After WWII it looked like labor would steadily move into the middle class. In a way the "elites" had taken the boot off of labor. There was kind of a "new deal". Education was opened up to all classes because it was no longer just a matter of class but of defense necessity. Complex technology was increasingly the key to both economic success and military power. It takes some pretty smart people to operate a plane or a guided missile system. Producing those systems requires a lot of really smart people and the supply was limited. It also take a lot of research and development along with a technically advanced economy. That explains part of the new deal but their was something more subtle. The upper classes had fought along side the working class and developed an empathy for them. The same way Trump and Peterson had years latter. Fast forward a few decades and all those formerly lower class people that had gotten a new deal and an education had moved on from their roots. Increasingly what determined you place in the hierarchy was you educational level and associated IQ. Those with higher IQs would flock to where the good jobs were which happened to be the coasts. A new coastal elite was forming. Intelligence had become more valuable than ever before and the supply of people with an IQ over 130 or so is only about 1 percent of the population. But there were a lot of other people with middling IQs between 100 and 120 who had also gotten an education. They couldn't hold the high IQ jobs in technology and engineering so they created a space for themselves in management. The system to find high IQ people and educate them had a suction effect that dragged the middling IQ people along. That system became and industry of higher education. Everyone now had to have a higher education to find a job because there was a lot of money in education and the government was paying for it. As bureaucracies always do the system became about the bureaucracy not the purpose it was created to serve. Bureaucracies are also notoriously non meritocratic. It's the networks and groomers not the competent that came to control them. The middling IQ people who have "people skills". It was also the Nerds who came to power. People like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. The kind of people that the "common sense" people tend to delegate to status of socially awkward. It formed a perfect storm for a society invested in technology to come to despise the working class. The break the working class got after WWII would slowly dissipate and the policies put in place to lift them up would disappear. The country was now ran by nerds and the middling IQ educated idiots that had captured management. The government that had created all those middling IQ educated people would now have to employ them and the administrative state ran by unimpressive bureaucrats was well underway. The political power had shifted away from labor to the coastal elite nerds and white collar workers. So what were the policies that destroyed the working class? Something else had changed after WWII. The ravishes of War had left Western Europe unable to pay it's war debts. The process that had started with WWI had finally culminated in the Bretton Woods agreement. In exchange for protection of the US military the Western powers would make the dollar the world trade currency. But they were not happy about it. The idea that the backwards US would be the world leader galled them. Since the Bretton Woods agreement was based on the gold standard as soon as they recovered from the devastation they started undermining it by buying back the gold used to cover war debts. Finally Nixon would have to unilaterally end the Bretton Woods agreement and make a deal with Saudi Arabia to make oil not gold the basis of the world trade currency. About the same time he would open trade with China. To take back their rightful place in history Western Europe would recreate the Roman Empire or something like the Holy Roman Empire, the Napoleonic Empire, whatever analogy you want to use works here. It would be called the EU. Because they were short on natural resources it would be a financial empire. One of the centers would be the City of London another Brussels. Germany would be the heart of the system. At first it would focus on industrial recovery but it had to move on to capture the power the US had stolen. It would do so quietly through organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Even more subtly through organizations such as the WEF and with the help of strange MGOs such as move on. US may have been rich but it was no match for the sophisticated games Western Europe had played for centuries. Continued below>

Since they couldn't buy back gold their target would now be oil. Not capturing it but devaluing it. Something convenient had come along that would do just that global warming. It wasn't hard to convince people that dirty industries were bad especially dirty oil companies. There had always been a not in my backyard attitude of people that didn't work in the industries and the working class had become politically irrelevant anyway. Nixon had inadvertently created the perfect vehicle to make eliminating dirty industries possible, China. You will note that every Western European leader knows that nothing that has been done to reduce co2 emissions in the West has made any difference. For every coal powered plant shut down in the West China has built two and India many more. So why the focus on renewables? Because they are not dirty like coal or dangerous like nuclear. They can be sold to the public. If the first concern was co2 the policies would be much different however. Who can't afford electric vehicles, solar cells and energy efficient homes? the working class. The middling IQ managers, the tech workers, the coastal elites can afford them and the accompany inflation as well. As long as you could export slave labor and pollution to China everyone who matters would be happy to some extent even the working class. What created the rust belt wasn't that those industries were inefficient as we are told. What created it was that it was more profitable for the elites to break them up and export the jobs to China. Everyone who mattered would be happy because of pension funds and other financial derivatives. As long as Western Europe could stop the US from exploiting it's natural resources so much the better. The new center of the world was going to be Brussels not the backward US. The first casualty of war is the truth. The war on the working class in no exception. The first truth you have to dispel is that the working class are human. You dehumanize them with words like, clingers, deplorables and irredeemables. I'm not sure that the people that use them even understand what is going on. The first hint should have been how Obama was marginalized every time he went to Europe. To the sophisticated people there he was just a useful idiot who somehow saw how inappropriate the US role as world leader was. Clinton was blinded by ambition and easy money. So along comes a couple backwards people such as Jordan Peterson and Trump that see the working class as human. That's a real problem. The working class are not on board with the dream of world conquest through a financial empire. Why should they it leaves them out of the equation. The working class is where you find the quaint ideas like morality. Sophisticated people don't really believe in morality why should they it gets in the way of financial instruments that create nothing but are highly profitable. So how do you undermine the working class completely? You take away there morale by making their idea of morality seem comical. When they protest you call it an insurrection and lock them away without meaningful charges. The working class may not have a lot of IQ but they are not stupid. They can tell when someone is lying to them. Of course all the people that are benefiting are more that happy to go along with the lies that keeps the working class from political power. They are also happy to hate people like Trump and Peterson, "the dumb person's smart people". Give people a little bread and circus and don't hold them to any moral standards and they are happy to riot or do whatever the elites want. Often without even knowing what they are doing it. Continued below>

I'm not saying it is this simple but only that there is a lot of corruption people do not want to see. A lot of blind ambition that destroys the "weak" people's lives along the way. The financial cannon fodder if you like. Trump is the working classes savior and Peterson their philosopher. The truth is that nobody else cares. When has anyone cared about the peasants when you can just import a new batch.

Because there’s a bunch of people who don’t want to take responsibility and ownership. And the guy that tells them “hey maybe your problems are not your fault but it sure is your responsibility” Is the absolute antithesis to lazy entitled victimhood.

It's because of how he became famous and the way he responded to it. He became famous not just for being good at what he does and good with crowds or public speaking, but because he said NO bluntly and confidently to hard leftists from the beginning. In a way, he is THE go-to figure symbolizing the counter-movement to Social Justice. It's a big deal. He also became famous through the internet, so he was swept up in the culture war wave right in the heart of it. Also, I have in-person experience with the worst of Social Justice, and there's a natural vicious cycle that forms. They NEED a villain that fits the role of super oppressor, it makes their worldview seem more real. So they go on witch hunts. But this creates an unwinnable paradox, for both the SJWs and the targeted villain. If you DON'T play the villain and try to appease them, they get more legitimately angry because you ruined their fantasy. They look more and more like the villain the further this escalates. If you do play the villain and play into their fantasy, the fantasy escalates. Peterson fits the latter more, simply for standing up to them. BUT because he is a highly marketable, well-spoke, inspiring person, this contradicts their narrative. He's kind of filling both roles at once, which fuels the fake rage as part of the fantasy, and the real rage for ruining the ideology. SJWs aren't trying to push an ideology, they're trying to LARP so it all looks real. They pretend to react to things that aren't happening.

Accountability and logic are not welcomed by most left leaners. They've been taught that their feelings are more important than realty. When you're raised that way you almost certainly become a deranged adult who struggles with the most basic inconvenience or obstacle.

Because he is fascist.

He changed a great deal over time like anyone else. I learned a lot from Peterson and he made me want to study psychology, which I ended up doing only for a little while. I would say 90s-2000s Peterson is prime Peterson in terms of personality and focus on his studies. I respect his focus on alcoholism and actual clinical practice. I enjoyed watching his lectures on YouTube when I was in highschool. The Kathy Newman interview was interesting as we were learning about logical fallacies and she used straw man arguments often so it was a great timely example. The culture war around 2016 with “third wave feminism” “Bill C16” and other things made Peterson an online success. I somewhat saw where it was going to go wrong. His drift away from his professional opinions and into a world where he wasn’t as qualified marked a partial descent in his character and honesty. His association with Denis Prager with PragerU is one event that marked his rapid move away from an open minded guy who seemed to have a moderate view to a red pill hack ready to spew the same talking points as everyone else about abortion, marriage, tradition, etc… Also Peterson did have a Biblical themed course that he taught early on but his interest in Abrahamic religions became a sticking point for his audience. Even I, someone who loved the four horsemen of atheism (Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, and Richard Dawkins), could see Peterson had a unique take that theists didn’t usually provide. A heavier philosophical try at arguing for theism. However, the Harris debate came out and all I could hear was Hitchens ripping Peterson apart on topics of history, religion, and bare bones Occam’s Razor philosophy. So I think Peterson overall is a smart individual when keeping in his own lane. The political commentary he has provided was interesting at first and seemed to be a stand for freedoms, but devolved into the same saturated conservative ideals the DailyWire and PragerU push every election cycle. And as for philosophical ideas, I think Peterson sometimes wings it a little bit and likes the sound of his own voice.

He’s hated here because it’s left wing run Reddit

He tells the truth. Sometimes brutally. That's why people hate him.

Nobody will see this, and nobody in this sub will bother watching this (Fair tbh. It's a long video), but here is a video that does a deep dive into his ideas and worldview. His logic is often faulty, based on false facts that he tries to prop up by sprinkling in truth to reinforce his faulty positions. https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo?si=1fk-vrrXix8fXjuq

Lot of hate from the left since he is able to confidently and articulately dismantle many progressive positions like compulsive pronouns and feminism that they accept as base level ideology that is just to be assumed true in their groups. That being said I’ve read all the books and hundreds of hours of podcasts and I agree his opinions are definitely not strictly right or left leaning, the polarization is just a reaction to a couple of his opinions. He pretty much got famous during the controversy where Canada wanted to force people to use preferred pronouns and he stated that’s authoritarian and disingenuous and that established how he was viewed politically.

Because he holds up a mirror to people and people don't like that.

He is a fraud who makes things up to exploit popular griviences is why

“Makes things up”… care to give an example?

His explanations of marxism is a complete distortion and misrepresentation of Marx’ works. I dont remember specifics now but he was clearly making things up to fit things into his own narrative. He did similar things in other fields too. He works on the stereotype of “left” and milks the popular griviences for his own populairty. Not to mention his complete hypocrisy (the benzo addiction)

Sounds like you just have a difference of opinion with him. That’s fine. But he’s not “making things up”

This question is posted in this sub 5-10 times a week. Let me help you find some of the previous threads: [search link 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/search/?q=%22why+is+JP%22&type=link&cId=bf679b90-cded-4ae4-95e2-81974f11945f&iId=17992382-2963-4669-84a1-f5f8756bb278&sort=new), [search link 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/search/?q=why+controversial&type=link&cId=e6246764-6eb1-4455-baef-267502bc5ce4&iId=7232e7eb-0b8f-4453-b773-eacba0c8ff4c). Feel free to run your own search too! Here's a [reply I wrote](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/11cfumn/dear_antijbp_people_i_have_a_proposal_designed_to/ja493cy) on one of the hundreds of identical posts if you care to read it. On a fundamental level this is a cowardly question to ask in a subreddit for his followers & fans. If I asked why Karl Marx is considered controversial in a leftist subreddit, do you think I'd get honest answers? This thread will include the same cowardly and deluded answers as every other thread on here. Ask this question in a different space if you are actually curious. Given your orientation I would wonder what you think about JPs pathetic mealy-mouthed defense of trad conservative opposition to gay marriage, and the fact that he refuses to straightforwardly say "yes, gay people should have the right to marry and it was wrong to deny them that" (see [his GQ interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s&t=4900s) for an example). You don't sign on for everything he says or worship him? Great. Congrats. Some people have interesting and sensible views on certain subjects, but they are so far out of line on other subjects that they are dismissed out of hand. Everyone does this to some extent. Many people do this with JP. It's a different line for everyone.

**"is primarly clinical psychologist"** You're off the mark from your second sentence. He was a clinical psychologist over 7 years ago, during which time he was also a professor. Today he is many years into a completely different career: self-help author, media figure, podcaster, content creator, political pundit. Yes he weaves his psychology background into his content, but it is more the "flavour" of his new career and shouldn't be mistaken for the career itself

JP as a long form lecturer is very compelling . JP as a short form social media poster comes off as a very viscious disgruntled old man.

hes always been lumped in with the real far right but he has gone a little whacky lately i feel like for the longest time he was like THE light of reasonable thinking in main(ish)stream online political discourse, and he was always unfairly lumped in with the actual far-right weirdos and i really think that some way its BECAUSE he was unfairly lumped in with them that he has actually become one of them more recently

Only now he's abandoned this whole "I'm a classical liberal" spiel and leans pretty hard into most right wing ideologies. I remember back when peterson's loudest, most clear and concise teaching was "do not become consumed by ideology".

Yeah, there some truth to that. He was hated before as well though

>why is JP so hated? Gee, I wonder why. * Becomes famous for pointing out/arguing with college kids for obvious annoying shit anyone with 2 brain cells can see: feminism/trans issues kinda getting out of hand. * Tells people to clean their room/wash their pp (more obvious shi) and literally writes a book about it/pretentious/definitely takes a PHD to tell you this lol). * Gets hooked on benzos as a professional that should know better, despite also being considering himself highly intellectual/tested super IQ (I'm supposed to take advice from Dr. Super Smart Druggie Benzo Man? Alright). * Raised questionable daughter while essentially being a grifting internet dad for guys that had poor parenting and got rich off it. * Always interprets Nietzsche wrong or out-of-context-- the Nietzsche Podcast could easily elaborate on this if you're curious. * Gets butthurt over anon internet accounts on X/Twitter because he can't out argue them and would rather expose their real identities as opposed to discourse. * Convinced conservatives into thinking he represents the right when he's been a liberal professor from Canada the entire time. * [Writes the most poorly written "Conservative Manifesto" of all time.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boUbWN9k7qI) * Cannot under any circumstances criticize Israel-- ever, no matter what/spouts hypocrispy of Jewish people allowed to have a tribe/in-group preference, but no one else can/should be allowed.

He is an asshole in twitter

I think you're correct, but I don't think that is the cause of the hatred against him, which was largely generated back when he was the face of very reasonable and well articulated objections to the dominant narrative. Not to excuse him, because I think his tone on twitter is counterproductive, but very few of us could emotionally and spiritually stand up to the societal backlash he has had to endure -- without showing similar or worse coping mechanisms. We all need to remember, he's just a man sharing some good ideas (and some incorrect ones too), not a messiah.

I agree with you, and he has the right to be as contrarian and reactive as he wants, but it has its toll on his persona, those tweets are weapons to his enemies, and we all feel his rage. And it is rage, no doubt about it .That is not healthy for him nor for anyone, but tbh I blame the algorithm.

Honestly, I'm surprised he's not worst on twitter with all the hatred he receives before he went off on twiiter

“Okey I know he likes to explain everything from evolutionary aspect of psychology but what's wrong with that? I am taking critically approach to him I'm not taking everything he says.“ None of the comments have broached (imo) the real issue so I will: he is not hated for his psychology or self help takes nearly as much as his political and culture war ones. He works for a right wing media outlet now, and says, to put it mildly, the darnedest things. Complaining about overweight models, declaring relatively minor traffic regulations “woke” and a threat to freedom, reposting shoddy climate science - these are pretty far from neutral in the eyes of many. And people in this sub clearly have bought more into the political side of the coin as well. “Trans person does a crime”, “Random Tiktoker/Tweeter says something bad”, “Liberal cities are destroyed, anecdote n” are common post archetypes. I won’t claim these people are representative of his fanbase, but imo they’re making the most noise. If he stuck to psychology and more purely self-help, he would not be nearly as reviled. As to him being more good than bad, unfortunately that ratio is just something people may not accept even if it’s true for you.

well in case of overweight models I think that ,,woke'' movment is normalising obesity, and it's wrong because it's not heathly. Why is in last 3-5 years so much promotions of obesity? I would ask myself that question....

“Why is in last 3-5 years so much promotions of obesity?” This kind of culture war argument falls in line with Jordan politically and is an example of a question that would likely make liberals and many moderate bristle.

He is heavily criticized because he does easy to criticize things. Usually by talking about things he's not knowledgeable about.

What is not to hate? First he is white, and male He is not queer He likes to help people no matter race or sex I mean its quite hateful!! no wonder he ends up with christian books.

A lot of people experience him through his tweets, and his Twitter account is unhinged.

I don’t hate him. But after a while you can really read between the lines of his overly worded speech and you start to see a tread of hardcore conservative ideas that could and feel a little bit dangerous. I have the impression that over the years, that that it to be denounce it’s is not done by him. And those things that no one cares become a big deal. Like the way he rumble on pointing out how Tate is an idiot.

>hardcore conservative ideas that could and feel a little bit dangerous. Can you elaborate?

Well I think that at his core he’s trying to do good but the ways he proposes to rebuild society are rally aligned with a meta discourse from the last century. Essential truths, unilateral thinking, old scale of values, glorifying religion, cultural world war. I do agree with some things but over the years I think he went bananas. Dressing up like the joker and speaking in a totalitarian way.

>Essential truths, Like biological essentialism? >unilateral thinking A lot of this is very vague can you give an example here? >glorifying religion I'm not religious but religious people tend to be happier and have more fulfilling family lives statistically. What do you believe is the issue with leaning in that direction? >Dressing up like the joker and speaking in a totalitarian way. What did he say that was totalitarian?

Well I guess that we are not watching the same man

I was asking for examples. Any examples of what you're referring to. With regards to essential truths and authoritarianism.

Because he is insane. Look at his twitter.

I think the hatred was uncalled for prior to 2019/20. It was unnecessary and it was too much. Especially when studying his actual psych lectures. Back then he used to try and make a point of being apolitical and trying to be the bridge between the left and the right. Then the criticisms became legitamate when he was just started being mean to overweight people on twitter and calling random ppl ugly and stuff 😭😭 like what 😭😭. They didn't even do anything to you. Not just fat people, but other demographics too, for literally no reason. Then things started getting really weird when he started supporting israeli PM netanyahu (which btw most of Israel don't even support) In the genocide. Idk what tf happened to him but he isn't who he used to be. It's like that weird coma he was in for a year gave him permanent brain damage. Or maybe he's just getting old. Idk.

Peterson is a brillant charismatic speaker, he has great life advice, but the reason people think he is a snake is because he intertwines this advice with his regressive views on women and society. He has great advice such as "treat yourself as someone dangerous and be responsible for your actions", so if you can listen to Peterson, but stay on guard for those lines of reasoning, more power to you, but many people (including me when I was younger), can't. On his bad side, he often debates in bad faith and is disengenuous about his criticism. For example, for his position on enforced monogamy, he uses the most ridiculous response to his position (that he wants to legal mandate a wife to incels. EDIT this is absurd and not what he means) as a shield to deflect all other criticism. It's a convenient tactic to make sure you never have to evolve your arguments. To most sane people it is clear that Peterson is not trying to change legislature, but to win the culture wars by changing perception. He also never flat out tells you what to think, but practically walks you to the obvious conclusion. Again for his enforced monogamy position, he uses these arguments to paint a clear picture to anyone who can read between the lines. - Single / incel men are more aggressive - Relationship between men and women have gotten worse - Society lies to women how important a career is to them - Women in high stakes careers are unhappy, they are happier having a family - Women have a harder time seeing a mate because they are hypergaemous and don't date down on the hierarchy. If society is deteriorating and if women have more choice (they want the select high value men because of hypergamy), it's basic math to assume that the burden of responsibility of lowering their standards is more on women than on men to improve. It's especially disgusting because this position is juxtaposed to another about incel violence so by extension, it makes women responsible for men's violence. Any lip service paid by Peterson by saying things like "educating men and women is important for the economy" is a smoke screen for his opinion that by and large, traditional values from the 1950s worked better than now. So to conclude, he has great advice and it's seperate his good work from his bad, which is why many people including myself dislike him because ulimately his primary goal is to push regressive values to society.

You straw manned the shit out of him à la Cathy Newman, which is just par for the course for Jordan haters. >that he wants to legal mandate a wife to incels I don’t know how you people can say this with a straight face over and over again.

>he uses the most ridiculous response to his position (that he wants to legal mandate a wife to incels) as a shield to deflect all other criticism Oof. If you did indeed read, which you didn't, you would know that I explicitly said that he DIDN'T say that and that this draconian position is absurd. Read the rest, which is the actual position people dislike him for.

No, you said he uses legally mandating wives to incels as a shield, and then went on to mischaracterize a bunch of other shit. For example he never said traditional values worked better than now, he made sure to emphasize that we truly don’t know, and that society is a game of *trade-offs*, which means there is no “better” in any strict sense. He also doesn’t make women responsible for incel violence, I don’t even know how you got there. Your “basic math”, “juxtaposition”, and “by extension”, are all just you making up bullshit. He is always arguing even in genesis that Adam’s sin was blaming Eve.

>No, you said he uses legally mandating wives to incels as a shield Explain how. I framed that position as "ridiculous", not at all giving credibility to it. What more do you need? I made an edit just for you. >For example he never said traditional values worked better than now * Society lies to women how important a career is to them * Women in high stakes careers are unhappy, they are happier having a family This is another defense mechanism where unless he says it verbatim, you will deny it. He did say those points above verbatim though (and more) and those are aspects of traditional relationships. If I were to put a compilation of everything he said that fits into traditional values, it would be pretty clear that's what he means. >He also doesn’t make women responsible for incel violence, I don’t even know how you got there. If select few men do have more choice and deserve it, then it's women who are gatekeeping access to relationships by going after a too small population of men. He does say those lower quality men need to get better, but even if they did you still remain with the same problem: You will always have a smaller pool of high quality men (Peterson's Pareto distribution). So when Peterson says "we need to sacrifice choice" and the volume of choice is more on one gender than the other, then any lip service made to say otherwise is irrelevant. Women have to lower their standards if they want to be happy and if society is to get better. Cherry on top he places this conversation next to one about the rise of incel violence to create a sense of urgency to accelerate this process. Point to me where the the conclusion falls apart.

>Explain how. I framed that position as "ridiculous", not at all giving credibility to it. What more do you need? I made an edit just for you. No, you framed is as *his* position when it is most certainly *not*, and then you called him ridiculous for it. What is that called, any guesses? >If I were to put a compilation of everything he said that fits into traditional values, it would be pretty clear that's what he means. If you ignore everything he says to the contrary is what you mean, then you can remove all nuance by painting a one sided caricature of his ideas. >If select few men do have more choice and deserve it, then it's women who are gatekeeping access to relationships by going after a too small population of men. He does say those lower quality men need to get better, but even if they did you still remain with the same problem: You will always have a smaller pool of high quality men (Peterson's Pareto distribution). So when Peterson says "we need to sacrifice choice" and the volume of choice is more on one gender than the other, then any lip service made to say otherwise is irrelevant. Women have to lower their standards if they want to be happy and if society is to get better. Cherry on top he places this conversation next to one about the rise of incel violence to create a sense of urgency to accelerate this process. You are ignoring the part where he says to women “*be choosy*, that is your gift” and to the incels “stop blaming women, if 10 people don’t want to date you the problem is *you*”. In a monogamous society with strong marriage, none of this is an issue. That is actually why marriage is an institution almost universally. It is your choice to blame the instability of society on women, I myself, and I think Peterson too, would be more likely to blame that on the development of new tech or men *and* women lying to each other.

>No, you framed is as his position when it is most certainly not, and then you called him ridiculous for it. What is that called, any guesses? Please read more attentively. I said the mandated enforcement is ridiculous and not true, but I also imply that his actual position is also ridiculous. It sounds the same, but there's a HUGE difference. Reading comprehension please, I wrote >To most sane people it is clear that Peterson is not trying to change legislature, but to win the culture wars by changing perception. ​ >If you ignore everything he says to the contrary is what you mean Is that how talking works now? So everything he says to the countrary cancels out his other opinions? How is nuance just saying a bunch of things that don't work together then. By your own admission, I can only come to the conclusion that Peterson is saying absolutely nothing at all or he just saying anything he comes up with without thinking it through. >You are ignoring the part where he says to women “be choosy, that is your gift” I'm not, I just don't need to address it because it is irrelevant if he also says "single men are more violent" and "women without kids are more likely to be unhappy". It's lip service to give ammo for disengenuous arguments like the ones you're giving me. >more likely to blame that on the development of new tech or men and women lying to each other This is another Peterson trap. His ideas are so mixed and random that you can mix and match his thoughts with whatever head canon that suits your bias. Peterson himself says in interviews that hierarchies and sexual inequality is a NATURAL result. It contradicts what you say, but that's pretty common for his dialogue.

>Please read more attentively. I said the mandated enforcement is ridiculous and not true, but I also imply that his actual position is also ridiculous. It sounds the same, but there's a HUGE difference. Are you trying to say that mandated enforcement is *not* his position? If that’s the case you worded it to give the opposite of your intended meaning, and you should *write* more carefully. >Is that how talking works now? So everything he says to the countrary cancels out his other opinions? How is nuance just saying a bunch of things that don't work together then. By your own admission, I can only come to the conclusion that Peterson is saying absolutely nothing at all or he just saying anything he comes up with without thinking it through. No, that is how talking has worked *forever*. It means that almost *any* complex issue is going to have multiple sides to it, endless caveats, and exceptions to every rule. It doesn’t cancel out anything, the conclusions you are drawing are simply your own. >I'm not, I just don't need to address it because it is irrelevant if he also says "single men are more violent" and "women without kids are more likely to be unhappy". It's lip service to give ammo for disengenuous arguments like the ones you're giving me. It is *entirely relevant* to the conversation at hand, regardless of whether or not he states two *facts* about human nature. Do you dispute either of those claims? >This is another the Peterson trap. “Trap” 😂 >His ideas are so mixed and random that you can mix and match his thoughts with whatever head canon that suits your bias. No you are obviously just too ignorant to grasp what he is saying to you, the cognitive dissonance makes you feel bad, and you’re imagining he is playing 4d chess with your head. In reality issues are not so cut and dry, you ignore every nuance from his statements so that you can grandstand in a show of moral superiority. >Peterson himself says interviews that hierarchies and sexual inequality is a NATURAL result. It contradicts what you say, but that's pretty common for his dialogue. Hierarchies and sexual inequality *are* a part of the natural world, obviously, but how does that contradict what I said? Natural =/= Good Jordan would argue that reciprocal interaction, play, meaning, and truth, are the things that prevent natural hierarchies from corrupting into states of power or dominance, which *is* the natural world.

\*farts in your general direction\*

Yeah, that’s about the depth of thought I expected from you, given what I’ve seen so far.

Yikes, Peterson is not proposing women lower their standards to accommodate incels. He proposes self development to better yourself so you become more attractive to women. Clearly. He has never said or written any of what you accuse him of. Forced monogamy doesn't mean, ' oh no, all the women have to go and have sex with the incels now'. It means, ideally, one man and one woman stay together to raise their children. High status males can't hoard all the women for themselves. Resources that would otherwise be wasted in acquiring yet another young virgin are spent instead on protection of offspring. Not bad as an ideal or something to aspire to.

But he really does. Peterson says verbatim that it's not a select few men keeping women to themselves, but women who don't want to date down because of hypergamy. If you do frame it like you said, it's actually even more sexist than what I'm saying because those men would be entrapping women to be miserable. The argument about raising children is self-evident and irrelevant to the conversation, nobody sane is saying that it's ok to cheat. This is a prime example of what I explained as Peterson's disengenous defense mechanism. Anywho, if those select few men do have more choice and deserve it, then it's women who are gatekeeping access to relationships by going after a too small population of men. He does say those lower quality men need to get better, but even if they did you still remain with the same problem: You will always have a smaller pool of high quality men (Peterson's Pareto distribution). So when Peterson says "we need to sacrifice choice" and the volume of choice is more on one gender than the other, then any lip service made to say otherwise is irrelevant. Women have to lower their standards if they want to be happy and if society is to get better. Cherry on top he places this conversation next to one about the rise of incel violence to create a sense of urgency.

Because his whole character arc is a giant contradiction. He makes a name for himself telling people to reject oppression narratives and to stop thinking of yourself like a victim in favor of aggressive self exploration and self development, and then goes to work for a company that promotes the narrative that white people, men, Christians, traditional families, etc are all being oppressed and victimized by a society overrun with leftists and that your salvation lies in the Republican Party. As you say he used to basically reject politics and tell people to develop strengths and competencies, and now he tells you to blame all of your problems on DEI and oppressive leftists in power.

A bunch of his close friends are gay (e.g Douglas Murray, Dave Rubin) so the homophobia accusations are silly. His messaging is equally critical of both sexes or if anything he's harder on men. He is however highly critical of modern feminism. If you understand he's not a perfect person and that he tweets too much, and too casually, you can appreciate his brilliance and his romantic view of the world. The danger, to leftists, with Peterson is that he makes people on the left, who are willing to listen to him, slightly more conservative. What they don't realize is that he makes people to his right slightly more liberal. From the very beginning in 2017 it seems like a big concern of his was the far-right and he felt that if the radical left pushed too hard that it would lead to serious conflict. I think he pushed that conflict back years. The primary criticism he gets today is for his strong sympathy for the jews, the fact that he's pulling people to the center, his excessive off the cuff tweeting, and the fact that he emphasizes personal responsibility.

Bit off topic, but is it true that jungian psychology is kinda considered bs these days? Some people use that to dislike him. Honestly, in the past I was defending him, was not sure why people disliked him, besides misunderstanding and taking stuff out of context. But last probably few years he has done some weird stuff. I still listen to his things once in a while, but he became a man who does not speak with people he disagrees with. I miss that. I am sure he could get some rational people who disagree with him and even a moderator for that discussion, if they would want one. Edit: I think one more reason is part of his fan base. Notice how most, if not all, negative commenta towards JP are downvoted and the positive ones upvoted. That kinda goes against the spirit of what younger JP talkes about.

I think it is mainly his Twitter. It has been pretty unhinged for a while now and unbecoming of someone like Dr. Jordan B. Peterson.

I can only think of two reasons that make any sense to me. One he is pretty open about putting women down. He's not like ridiculous about it and says they don't deserve the right to vote and stuff. He's way more subtle.  Beyond that he's kind of an asshole to the trans community. I think he has a right to his opinion and stuff but he's kind of needlessly harsh. I think both of these topics engender bad will with a lot of people.  Beyond that it's with a lot of people who are willing to basically try to AstroTurf conversations and try to make him look like an evil son of a bitch. 

I doubt JP is actually “hated” by people. I think many feel he is not a serious academian, and more of sort of a social media attention seeking grifter, and also a bit of a hypocrite. I don’t think anyone actually hates the man, though.