Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I think I might have glossed over most of that because these were the two main things that stuck out to me in the article:
|
So, the first quote there is a good example of a tactic used in a hit piece. It's deliberately cast in a light meant to make Peterson sound like a crazy person, through the narrative the author put together about him up in the middle of the night googling bikini photos. It then doesn't bother to explain what he meant by the seven-or-so quoted words, or why he thinks it's a problem. To be clear, I think his explanation would probably be crazy, but it's omitted because it doesn't matter to the author, whose purpose is to smear the guy.
Second paragraph, you have several claims there. First, sexual assault is a consequence of the decline of traditional marriage. That's not actually a quote from the guy - does it represent his views? If that is a fair assessment of his position (I'm confident it isn't), what are his reasons, and are those reasons crazy or defensible? Again, it doesn't matter to the author, because in the world of a hit piece, the subject is automatically indefensible to begin with.
The last two quotes in that paragraph are pretty obviously taken out of context and designed to make him sound like a kook. Maybe they'd still sound kooky in context, but again, they're selected not to make any substantive point, but basically just as a cheap shot.
The last bit I dealt with. If all the article did was take that quote and talk sensibly about why he was wrong to say that, there'd be nothing wrong with that. Again, it doesn't, because the point of the article isn't to rebut his statements or positions. It's to smear him.