Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Beyond being a peddler and practitioner of pseudoscience nonsense, Peterson's arguments often fall apart under any kind of intellectual scrutiny. It was interesting seeing Cliff argue that no "left-wing" intellectual heavyweights were willing to debate Peterson, but he got exposed pretty badly when he debated Zizek in Toronto. His ideas are often revealed to be pretty extreme and nonsensical once you get past the word salads he uses to dress them up in, and he has a bad tendency to weigh-in (almost always incorrectly/incoherently) on topics he has virtually no expertise in.
|
Peterson started to register on a Trump level of clueless joke in that.
I think it's totally fair to label Peterson an intellectual fraud. He showed that not only does he lack the ability understand even the basics of political philosophy and its relationship to history and the real world in general, he's too lazy to actually read up on a topic he constantly lectures others on. He also a lot of the time doesn't engage the other persons, arguments at all, which is kind if a fundamental skill in a debate.
Some of my friends from the department of political history watch Peterson (as well as other "internet intellectuals") as a drinking game. You can get pretty drunk on "logical non sequitur" alone.