[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I disagree. I think we need more public intellectuals, and we need to knock down the boundaries erected between fields and subjects. The notion that you can't talk about gender in society unless you have a PhD in Gender Studies, or about Russian Literature unless you have a PhD in Russian Literature, is one of the biggest factors in the alienation of the Canadian public - including the educated Canadian public - from academia and intellectual culture. Intelligent people should be publicly discoursing about every topic under the sun.

You're missing the point, Cliff. I have no issues with people speaking on a variety of subjects outside their field of expertise. What I do take issue with is them not acknowledging that they're a bit out of their depth and then proceeding to spread information that is incorrect, as Peterson has done on a number of issues.

And I haven't noticed this charge being levelled against beloved figures on the left. David Suzuki has been carrying on for decades about subjects far outside his background in zoology and genetics. Naomi Klein is a university dropout, and the Canadian media gives her a platform to pontificate about everything from global trade to climate change.

I believe I did so in this very thread or another one regarding Peterson. I also consider Klein to be dangerous in much the same way I do Peterson. Hell, if you want recent historical examples of this on the left, go back to someone like Rachel Carson and the damage she caused by being taken as an authority on something she clearly knew little about.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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.

I think that's in the reader's interpretation because that's not how I viewed it.

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?

Yes it is. It's paraphrasing a tweet from Peterson but it is essentially what he believes, and from what I understand similar wording shows up in his new book (I haven't read it so I'm not treating that as gospel.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/...81541849522176