What specifically are people attracted to in this guy?

Because he's a wrong thinker. OP would never say that about someone who was woke as fuck, especially if they also happened to be a woman or a "person of color".

> How does one having to go through rehab make them a looney?

That is just one indication there is something not right with the guy, another is that all the while this is going on he is behaving as if he knows everything and has the answers to everything. Am I not allowed to have an opinion on JP? I get it, you like him. That's OK with me.

By the way, when I used the term looney - I am being flippant. I thought you or any reasonable person reading my comments would immediately understand that instead of trying to use it as a counter-argument - which it is not.

yeah "the carnivore diet" aka only eating meat is very crazy, this guy needs therapy for a VERY long time.

That's good from someone who would know. Thanks.

This guy stood up for Peterson for years, sat in on his classes, lived with Peterson and his family for an extended period of time, and was always a huge advocate for the guy. For years and years he found nothing but love for Peterson.

Then, Peterson becomes notorious in Academe and is accused of transphobia. Because the academics are pretty hard-Left, they all condemn and distance themselves from Peterson. Suddenly! this fella thinks Peterson is a jerk.

What a coincidence...

On that point: he was a Peterson-supporter for years (as a close friend) and couldn't see something, but now we're supposed to trust his judgement? I admire people who can be proven wrong and change opinions, but this guy did a full 180 with no real new evidence. He doesn't say, "Peterson changed over the years," he says, "I didn't see this and now, 'miraculously,' I do!" Uh-huh. Either he's going with the flow or his mental processes maybe shouldn't be valued for character judgements.

Also: Schiff claims Peterson remains vague, but from what I've seen, he's pretty clear (mostly - at least as much as an intellectual type).

Schiff brings up an email sent from Peterson's wife. He says it's from Peterson's wife, but then continues on in his writing to equate this with Peterson himself. Now, it's not a stretch to imagine that a husband and wife have similar views, but spouses differ a LOT, too. Yet Schiff's language implies that Peterson's views are on display. That's weaselly language to try and pin extra "crimes" on Peterson. It's "evidence" in rhetoric only.

The style of Schiff's writing is compelling and engaging to read, but his logic is flawed, I disagree with his conclusions, and he's manipulative (as with the email conflation).

I just think that what he is opposing or dissenting is a cartoon version of reality ... in other words it's pretty easy to pick a set up target and go after it. I think the push-back, since it is almost always limited to attacks on the Left is fake. If his opinions went somewhere new or had well-meaning arguments instead of just qualifying statements to make it seem like he was being fair I would feel differently about him.

There are things that JB says that I agree with, just like there are things that Trump says that I agree with, but I guess people should be very careful about getting sucked into a political viewpoint based on a few resonant points. These are kind of like selling points known and written about for a long time. It is known how to manipulate people. What I perceive is manipulation not conversation. Not all the time but enough to feel like there is a scam going.

Exactly, it's the usual candidates failing to see the hypocrisy in criticising JP for his eccentric behaviour, his analogies and 'diets' all the while championing the bravery of women just existing, LGBT science woo and other bizarre things they conveniently gloss over.

I'm not a fan of everything Peterson does and find him to be at times OTT, one thing his critics aren't wrong about. But I can overlook his flaws because he's a rarity, a man who isn't here to apologise.

It was not only beef and greens, it was almost all beef and a few greens. He was also addicted to anti-depressants. Those are facts from Jordan's own mouth, so I guess what that tells you about me is that I am honest, right?

> -He is one of very, very few people who remembers than (white, heterosexual) men are people, too.

Really ... maybe you should get out more or expand the videos you watch. The Brand-Peterson video was a commercial for both of them who are falling out of relevance ... for obvious reasons.

I have been accused over and over of not liking or attack Peterson because he went to rehab ... that is not it. When you are a mess and you set yourself up as an example to others to tell them what to think and how to act and how to see things - that is what I have a problem with.

But it really doesn't matter much what you say to rabid trolls, they will just repeat the same argument back or twist your words, they just care about being vicious destroyers of discussion.

It is funny you're trying to argue me with minutia and trivialities about Peterson, I look at the big picture and do not need to make excuses for him like you and other fans do to prop up your hero. For some reason you have a psychological need to defend this guy to the death ... or at least the fatigue of your fingers and overlook things that people not so emotionally involved would see as red-flags.

I am sure he is not a terrible person, I just have no need to be schooled by the likes of him or to pander to the crowd who does.

Ace_Spade (2849) 4 hours ago

Some of my reasons for enjoying Peterson's discourse over the years:

-He's very intelligent and articulate.
-He is one of very, very few people who remembers than (white, heterosexual) men are people, too.
-His philosophies and ideas are interesting; sometimes they're out there, but always interesting.
-I've seen him challenged by interviewers in good-faith and changes his mind. He's one of the only people I've seen do this. Never in confrontational/aggressive interviews (VICE, e.g.), but I have seen him do it.
-He's a free-speech advocate. I'm a HUGE fan of free speech.
-He's a poke in the eye to holier-than-thou woke types and I like that. This is a VERY minor reason.
-He doesn't "check boxes". He's a nuanced thinker.

So, as to his "looney" stuff...

-The all-meat diet strikes me as a fad diet - nothing more or less. I've seen it advocated by a few people. I think of it the same way I think of "Paleo" or "Keto" diets: probably not as good for you as a balanced diet, but if it's working and making you happy: go for it.
-Re-hab doesn't make you looney. He was treating symptoms with medicine and the medicine turned into poison. This happens to a LOT of people. That's a common story and it's not a reason to write somebody off as maladjusted or a bad-thinker. It means he struggles with stuff.
-The biggest charges against him are the usual thing that Left-wingers come up with when a nuanced/centrist thinker comes along: "alt-right" or "alt-right adjacent", and they say he's stealth-coding in whatever bigotry they want to charge him with. He doesn't strike me as bigotted at all. Most attacks are warped facts out of context (see Cathy Newman interview for details).

I recommend Russel Brand's interview of Peterson. They disagree, but it's good dialogue.