View from
The Left

Jordan Peterson Is Fair Game for Criticism

“…where Peterson is fond of citing the brutal nature of chimpanzees as proof of nature’s pitiless character, we should recall that the Left can just as easily cite the relatively co-operative nature of bonobos.”

Where does one start with Kambiz Tavana’s recent piece in Merion West, “The Viciousness of Jordan Peterson’s Critics”? In it, Tavana reproaches Matt McManus and me for—over the course of our many articles for Merion West that address his work—having been “unfair” to him. As far as I can tell, Tavana marshals four arguments (I use this term loosely) in support of this point:

  1. That we’re narrow-minded left-wing ideologues whose polemics against Peterson are—perhaps unbeknownst to us!—facilitating a totalitarian agenda
  2. That it’s mean to criticize Peterson because he helps people
  3. That it’s mean  to criticize Peterson because he’s ill
  4. That our blind advocacy of “equality of outcome”—something we supposedly share in common with Slavoj Žižek—may seem benign, but that this geniality is offset by the historical frequency with which “totalitarian-inclining governments […] arise in welfare states.”

One does not have to be a logic professor to see what these criticisms share in common: that they’re all, at bottom, diversionary fallacies. It’s perhaps for this reason that Tavana felt the need to intersperse his leaden diatribe with meandering summaries of existential literature, as if the mere mention of the name of Camus or Sartre were proof of one’s profundity. All the while, Tavana lacks the wherewithal to make a basic argument.

Given the bad faith with which Tavana has chosen to engage with us, it’s perhaps most important to respond directly to the claims that he makes in his article that are categorically false. Neither Matt nor I have ever advocated for “equality of outcome”—nor has Slavoj Žižek, who expressly disavowed that equality of outcome was something he sought to establish in his debate with Peterson. Of course, this allegation is partly easy to sidestep because it is—by its very nature—a poorly defined caricature of the Left. Who, after all, thinks that all discrepancies between peoples could be done away with? Not Marx, certainly, who confined himself to advocating for the abolition of social class—and who wrote in the Paris manuscripts that the problem with capitalist society is that inequality of wealth has a distorting effect on the endowment of other privileges (so that an ugly man can purchase a beautiful wife, and so on). 

We should go further in critiquing this entire falsifying opposition between equality of opportunity and result. Upholding the need for the latter (rather than the former) is only useful as a clarion call against the Left, if one believes that its transformative demands are being put forth in support of equality of outcome. But are they really? From a global standpoint, it is clear that nothing resembling equality of opportunity genuinely exists. To give an obvious example, someone born in a poor community in Rwanda obviously does not have the same level of opportunity as someone born to an affluent family in New York. The same is true, albeit to a lesser degree, to the discrepancies that can be found in any modern American city, where dilapidated slums can be found side-by-side with impeccably curated gated communities. Thus, the most fundamental demand of the Left—for a more equalized distribution of wealth—can easily be subsumed under the category of “equality of opportunity.”

Indeed, the non-Western nation that made the greatest relative economic strides in the twentieth century—China—began its surge after the communist revolution of 1949 (it posted annual GDP growth rates as high as 19.3% during the Maoist era).

In attempting to refute calls for wealth equalization, Peterson tends to resort to one of two strategies. The first is to argue that inequality is a natural characteristic of animal and human societies (as with 12 Rules for Life, when he cites Price’s Law in defense of it). The second is to observe that global inequality between nations has been diminishing under our current capitalist system. Putting aside the partial incompatibility of these points, neither are very strong. The first fails because it’s just too sloppy: In order to argue for the universality of inequality, Peterson is forced to yoke together the general nature of inequality with the specific nature of wealth/class inequality. This is almost akin to arguing that slavery is inexorable and should not be opposed because, you know, inequalities have always existed. Moreover, for every example of inequality that we can find in natural and human history, we can easily cite a counterexample. For instance, where Peterson is fond of citing the brutal nature of chimpanzees as proof of nature’s pitiless character, we should recall that the Left can just as easily cite the relatively co-operative nature of bonobos. And the second fails because it’s clear—from a historical standpoint—that increasing economic global equality between nations cannot be attributed wholly to capitalism. Indeed, the non-Western nation that made the greatest relative economic strides in the twentieth century—China—began its surge after the communist revolution of 1949 (it posted annual GDP growth rates as high as 19.3% during the Maoist era). China remains a partially closed economy to this day—specifically, in order to stave off Western neo-colonization and the payment of extensive rents to foreign firms.

Discussing the vast economic fissures that define our global landscape is one thing. But what’s also clear is that many of Peterson’s tirades against the Left are more specifically directed at the kinds of activists he encountered in his career teaching at the University of Toronto: the “SJWs” (Social Justice Warriors) or “postmodern types.” Should Peterson wish to argue, for example, that the demands of university-educated female activists in developed nations for greater gender equality amount to calls for equality of outcome, he’s certainly on a firmer footing than if he were to make this claim about calls for greater wealth equality tout court. Still, the arguments he makes in this respect leave much to be desired. Peterson is fond of citing a psychological study by Gijsbert Stoet and David Geary that indicates that women in more gender-equal nations such as Sweden and Finland are less likely to go into STEM fields than women in less gender-equal ones. For Peterson, this fact proves that women are simply naturally less interested in said fields and, thus, should not be coerced by equalitarian apparatchiks into becoming scientists. This study has now been debunked. But even if it hadn’t been, how would such a study ever afford proof that women are naturally less interested in technical fields? It could also just as easily demonstrate that women are not socialized to take interest in the same things as men, potential opportunity be damned. If this were the case, it would be indicative of how far we have to go to achieve genuine equality—not just how far we’ve come.

Tavana’s article is so impoverished in terms of intellectual content it was necessary here to digress and discuss Peterson (who at least makes arguments). But let’s get back to Tavana. Tavana implies, in his piece, that even seemingly harmless efforts to engender equal outcomes can be destructive because left-wing “totalitarian-inclining governments so often arise in welfare states.” This has literally never happened. Indeed, every self-identifying communist nation typically deigned “totalitarian”—from China to the Soviet Union to Cuba—was feudal or semi-feudal and autocratically governed prior to a communist takeover (something that might alert a keener thinker to the notion that the cause of autocracy in these nations was not purely communistic governance). He also claims that “today’s Left” tend to disavow the violent excesses of twentieth-century socialist nations on the grounds that “that wasn’t true socialism.” Who is Tavana talking about? While it’s true that the likes of the China or the Soviet Union did not conform to Marx’s predictions of how socialism would arise, I’ve never claimed that they weren’t “true socialist” (whatever that means). The same can be said of Slavoj Žižek, who has described “the search for the moment of the Fall, when things took the wrong turn in the history of Marxism” as one “of the most devious traps which lurk for Marxist theorists” and prescribed the submitting of “the Marxist past to a ruthless critique.”

I’ll address one final issue. Tavana takes issue in his article with the ostensible “viciousness” of Matt McManus and me—the way that we’ve leveled “relentless” criticisms at Peterson, who is merely trying to help people and who is currently ill. As regards to his illness, it’s worth noting that much of what we’ve written on Peterson—including our forthcoming book, Myth & Mayhem (which includes contributions by Ben Burgis and Marion Trejo)—was written prior to when news of Peterson’s illness was diffused throughout the media. Even if this were not the case, though, there is no reason to think Peterson should somehow not be exposed to criticism because he’s sick. Peterson is expected to make a full recovery.

The most insulting thing one can do to an intellectual is not to be harsh towards him or her; it to refuse to engage earnestly with his or her ideas.

In the meantime, his books and lectures continue to be digested and profited from, and his influence—and I would argue, pernicious influence—continues to percolate through the Internet and society at-large (perhaps the only point Tavana’s amateurish tangent really proves). Nor is it the case that we ever claimed Peterson’s work cannot be of help to people. But this is not the focus of our writings: We focus on his arguments. And Peterson’s arguments do share a genetic similarity with those types of arguments also made by the Alt-right (though again, the concept of logical argumentation may be foreign to Tavana). As for Jim Proser, Peterson’s bozo far-right biographer, the less said the better. Tavana may feel that Proser’s comically awful Savage Messiah—a book in which Proser actually cites scores to try to discredit Peterson’s opponents—is a sweeping literary classic, worthy of deep hermeneutic study. However, if Tavana feels attacked by our criticisms of a man who, more than being a bad writer, is also repugnant—Proser has written that women have a “last f—able day” and also bemoans the onset of anti-White racism in Savage Messiah—it’s Tavana’s job to inspect why he identifies with Proser. It’s not our job to nurse Tavana’s hurt feelings. 

Tavana’s claim that Matt and I have been too “vicious” to Peterson, coupled with his faux-benevolent tone, points to a larger problem within his piece. The most insulting thing one can do to an intellectual is not to be harsh towards him or her; it to refuse to engage earnestly with his or her ideas. In addressing the substance of not just Peterson’s arguments but also those of his online acolytes, Matt and I have shown more than a soupcon of respect. Tavana, with his gallery of fallacious, straw man arguments, has not. It may be true that Peterson has helped some people improve their lives. But, judging by the results, he has not helped them improve their arguments.

Conrad Bongard Hamilton is a doctoral student at Paris 8 University pursuing research on the relationship between agency and the value-form in the work of Karl Marx. He is a co-author, with Matt McManus, of the forthcoming text Myth & Mayhem: A Left-Wing Critique of Jordan Peterson.

66 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson Is Fair Game for Criticism

  1. The author has a very poor understanding of Jordan Peterson. The argument against the first rule in JP’s book, is a misunderstanding of his point with the chapter. He has never justified that heirachries are good because they are natural but that they are inevitable. He sees the opposition of heirachries not as those who want to flatten them, because even he accepts “those stacked at the bottom” have a reason to break the rigidity of the structure. He rather demonstrates that heirachries are not an invention of the “Western patriarchy”. Its not a jab at your classical Marxist but at the neo-Marxist or social constructionist left.

    1. It’s true that Peterson’s commentary on hierarchy qua lobsters is more of an apologetic than a straightforward justification (though the line between these in Peterson’s work is often fuzzy). Though do note that in his debate with Zizek, he claimed that Marx makes the mistake of seeing hierarchy as a consequence of capitalism (which is not a correct reading of Marx).

      1. Your correct that JP does conflate Marxist theory and the neo-Marxist, SJW university tropes. He would find himself on more reasonable standing to avoid dabbling in Marxist theory as his knowledge in that was not as succinct as displayed in the Zizek debate.
        Nonetheless you should look more into the so called “debunked” paradox and learn what corrections were actually made rather than the obviously biased GenderSci/Slate collaboration divulges.
        Theres still no evidence that at the extremes, women have similar interest to men in STEMs. The more further women proceed in STEM education, less remain. Their choice in STEM, being largely medical over computer science largely indicates their behavioral differences.

        1. I kinda covered my bases here by pointing out that even if the study were true, Peterson never adequately demonstrates that said disinterest relates to anything essential about being female sans cultural sexism. Indeed, for a lot of Peterson’s arguments about men and women to make sense you have to presuppose either a dubious evolutionary psychology, a Jungian metaphysics of gender, or both. People used to claim that women were innately unable to achieve in STEM fields. The next phase of this argument is claiming they’e innately uninterested. Brilliant.

          1. For crying out loud. Set your biases aside before you pollute your opinions with them. Peterson has always been agnostic about why there are less females in STEM or if the studies prove much of anything in any absolute sense. He’s not stupid. He doesn’t have to prove anything to the stupid who give too much significance to studies and play the my study is right and yours is wrong game. Be less of a pedant and you might hear what he actually says.

          2. “Scandinavia has the most developed gender equality… why do you believe that the ratio of men and women [in engineering vs. nursing] differ here? Because of the data and that’s crystal clear–as your societies become more egalitarian the biological differences between men and women in temperament and interest magnify.” — Jordan Peterson, “On the Differences Between Men and Women”

          3. You’re just dense. Citing what someone says without homage to why they say it is what makes you a pedant.

            Some scholars realize some things are not so knowable–like the human male/female psyche. They cite studies they are most interested in as part of the continuous exercise of understanding. That’s not the same as knowing. All you have to do is put your biases, and needs apparently, aside and watch the interview with Cathy Newman to see that Peterson is one of those scholars. You are not. Peterson is not a dogmatic ideologue. You are.

            As I told Matt, debate Peterson or shut up.

          4. Lol Fred yes thanks for repeating my argument, that these issues are complex and not as simplistic as Peterson presents them (it’s certainly not “crystal clear” that more equal societies straighforwardly tend towards the manifestation of biological impulses qua professional choice, for instance).

          5. I didn’t repeat your argument. and I didn’t say Peterson presents anything simplistically. That is extremely dishonest of you. God will get you for that.

            It was crystal clear from the data. That’s not the same as saying the data or the interpretation of it is in any way absolutely correct. There’s a third dimension you fail to grasp. If you did you would enjoy Peterson as much as everyone else instead of being a jealous reactionary to his words.

            My guess is you’re on the agnosia spectrum.

          6. As a mathematics and physics teacher of girls for over 20 years, I believe the cultural sexism argument is the last refuge for researchers. I’ve taught hundreds of girls who could have chosen STEM fields but opted for medicine / education instead. They were adamant they were not coerced or culturally manipulated in any way.. what’s so terrible about men and women having, on average , different career choices.
            If I’m mistaken, then show me the data.

          7. Exactly, but you can always count on an “intellectual” to ignore the most obvious explanation. Forget about Occam’s Razor as soon as they get in the field

          8. Ya, because the most obvious explanation is biology when women were almost wholly excluded from STEM fields just a few decades ago. Anyway, I didn’t say why I think this difference exists–I just pointed out that Peterson’s arguments aren’t strong enough to support the position he adopts.

          9. Wait, so your argument that cultural sexism isn’t at play is the fact that 1) that lots of girls choose non-STEM fields when they could choose STEM fields, and 2) that they (some unspecified person or assemblage of persons) say they aren’t coerced or culturally manipulated? Cool, brah

          10. Conrad wouldn’t know because no woman has spoken to him in years because they are so repulsed by his complete lack of a phallus

          11. I think we shouldn’t let Conrad succeed in his desperate bid to get attention. If he wants to get attention, he should have to write better stuff than this. Just ignore him. He’s not worth discussing.

          12. “they (some unspecified person or assemblage of persons) say they aren’t coerced or culturally manipulated” right, because GINI coefficients don’t mean anything and it’s obvious that countries leading this index are the most enforcing of gender biases and stereotypes… it’s not like you’d ever use those same nations as the basis for your sociological comparisons with America or ‘capitalist’ societies. Bruh, your lack of research and understanding of the study of social inequality is pretty astounding. Above in your article you state “Not Marx, certainly, who confined himself to advocating for the abolition of social class” and then down below in the comments you again argue “he claimed that Marx makes the mistake of seeing hierarchy as a consequence of capitalism” … you yourself admit to Marx’s fundamental attribution error (A psyc term for you baby boy) where he assumes that social class is a byproduct of a capitalist market. It’s an unbelievably shallow attempt to address much deeper issues of biological inequality. You claim that this social class allows for a man to have a beautiful wife despite his lack of sterotypical attractive behaviours. In the wild a big ugly fucking monkey could snap a could pretty friendly monkeys and he would have an unequal advantage. You’re not acknowledging the truths of the biological world in which we live. These inequalities are for more pervasive than can be fixed by your limp wristed “social policies”. The same laws can exist in different countries and be followed completely differently, Jordan peterson is not trying to force his opinion of the outcomes of these things, he’s simply acknowledging their extraordinary complexity. as you have consistently failed to do. Good luck playing god and ushering in the utopia where you give everyone the social power and credit they deserve. When someone wants more and stabs your back turning the world into hell, you’ll know your consolidation of power into a single authoritarian position will have facilitated the rise of tyranny. Good job man :) don’t worry you got it though, you’re a “good person” other people clearly aren’t , keep it up.

      2. It’s just so obvious. Just like not a ton of men want to go into cosmetology, not a ton of women want to go into computer science. What’s really sexist is implying that women can’t choose for themselves what professions to have

        1. Marx’s didn’t seek to abolish hierarchy tout court–in any society there would be a hierarchy of differentiated capacities–but class-based hierarchy specifically.

          1. What the sam heck is a hierarchy of differentiated capacities if class is not an aspect of it, no matter how marginal the differences in class? To make it at least somewhat concrete, since you have an issue with that, would skilled workers be better off materially than unskilled workers?

          2. If we’re going off Gotha Programme, only in the lower stage of communism. In the higher material gain wouldn’t be a basis of self-advancement (though personal property as opposed to private property would still exist). Which isn’t so unimaginable, when you consider all the other things which motivate people (agonistic competition–in sport, etc.–a desire for knowledge, physical beauty/sex, etc.) Of course all of this Marx would acknowledge is highly speculative and is neither here nor there to the economic/scientific investigations of Das Kapital.

          3. “In the higher material gain wouldn’t be a basis of self-advancement”
            Aren’t we a little old for pretend time.

  2. I’m obviously well left of center and no fan of Jordan Peterson (from the bit I’ve seen of him), but, Mr. Hamilton, you are truly a petty person to write an article like this. You can make every “argument” you want but how about trying to rediscover a little basic humanity. Not everyone agrees with you, and that’s okay, but you don’t need to write something like this. Spread some peace brother, instead of this


    Hines Ward

    1. Professor Peterson is not a Conservative. He is perceived by most as Left of center. I would hope that the Leftists with some residual common sense might find something that would help them understand why they are facing a hard fail. And then fallback to a more reasonable position and thus save themselves from the most painful of repercussions. But, I am probably unrealistic. There is going to be a bloodbath in the near future.

      1. He isn’t a conservative as such, but I wouldn’t go so far as to label him left of centre. I’d say he falls into the category of the Libertarian right more than anything.

  3. “It’s perhaps for this reason that Tavana felt the need to intersperse his leaden diatribe with meandering summaries of existential literature, as if the mere mention of the name of Camus or Sartre were proof of one’s profundity: because he lacks the wherewith to make a basic argument.”

    Dude, you just precisely proved his point that you are “vicious”

  4. If there is one thing that Kambiz Tavana said is true, it is that you are cruel. The “rebuttal” to your text proved just that. This is the democratic sense of the left: I do not need to disagree with those who think differently, but to destroy them in the lowest possible way. The left peace and love acts again.

  5. Lol these comments. What a bunch of rubes. That was a great response, textually supported and well argued. The Tavana article was laughably terrible. I’d be cringing to see a student present an argument like that in discussion in class. I commend the author for not putting up with that bullshit and crafting a ruthless counter argument.

    1. To quote Conrad Hamilton..”Cool, Brah”
      Reminds me of the character in Goodwill hunting. The Harvard bar jock with no original thought, craving validation.

  6. I never really liked Jordan Peterson, but every Conrad and Matt article makes me like him more and more. The lady doth protest too much

  7. Not that I found Tavana’s initial salvo justified or that intellectually robust, but I agree with a lot of comments here that Mr. Hamilton’s riposte exhibited more nastiness and invective than anything Tavana wrote. I also think a lot of the pushback against McManus’ months of writing against Petersen does little or anything to address the main line of criticisms McManus levels against the Canadian professor.

    As a man of the right, I must say, however, it is perplexing that intellectuals like McManus and Hamilton — serious thinkers that they are — go after the small fry of conservative thought. There is a marked pattern of targeting against mainstream conservatism and its figures, most of whom aren’t tenured intellectuals or university scholars but are popular with a certain young, millenialish men who “awoke from their dogmatic slumbers” in the last half decade. Typically, I would think the contemplative life is above condescending oneself down to the level of firebrands like Ben Shapiro, YouTube Vloggers like Stefan Molyneaux, and controversial film makers like Dinesh Dszouza.

    Hamilton emphasizes it’s far more insulting to not address an intellectual’s arguments. On a related note, I wonder why then he and McManus are spilling so much ink not on the luminaries of conservative thought but on shock-jocks and cranks. If their mission is to deal damage to conservatism as an intellectual movement, why go after the low dangling fruit so often? What’s wrong with picking on those who are formidable conservative thinkers or are trenchant critics of the left, such as Roger Scruton, Robert Nozick, Thomas Sowell, Russell Kirk, Leo Strauss, Robert P. George, Leszek Kolakowski, and Alisdair MacIntyre, etc.? Why the lacuna of engagement with their work? I thought intellectuals entertain and critique the strongest form of an opposing position’s argument, not the fury and furor of political commentators riling the masses. I’ve heard mention of Scruton and MacIntyre, read an approving review of Patrick Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed, swaw some exploration of Oakeshott, as well as some mentions of Edmund Burke for his historicism, and a critique of Friedrich Hayek here on Merion West by a handful of leftist writers who are clearly chummy with one another. Most of the criticism for figures expounding conservative political theory are for those scary, “reactionary” thinkers like Joseph de Maistre and the unrepentant Nazi, Carl Schmitt, who McManus has spent a fair amount time expounding upon because I suspect, largely due to the influence of Continental Critical Theory on him, he see their specters lurking apparently within right-wing political victories and trends like Brexit and the elections of Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, the Law and Justice Party in Poland, and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil.

    That’s the skinny here. Their popular writing is a form of activism, but for them, activism is intimately connected to their intellectualism (“The philosophers have variously interpreted the word; the point, however, is to change it.)” even though there is a dialectical tension between the lives of the activist and the intellectual. In short, I gather that they’re operating out of the Western Marxist tradition. There’s too much collaboration, and McManus quotes Fredric Jameson a little too frequently and a little too approvingly for them not to be.

    1. Exactly, love to see McManus and company take on a real conservative intellectual like Burke or Disraeli

    2. Of course, Conrad runs away from Man of the Right who raises such a great point and doesn’t respond to him because he is a complete coward. Proves Man of the Right’s point that Conrad won’t address his strong argument.

      1. What? I was the only one who made real arguments in this exchange, even generously digressing to discuss Peterson

  8. I remember that Prine song “some humans ain’t human.” I never liked that song b/c it seemed so wrong to say that about another person. But after reading this, I see what Prine meant. The type of person who would write an article this cruel…that’s the kind of person Prine was talking about

  9. One word: inconsequential.
    In as much as intellectual thought can change the world in a positive consequential way, this ain’t it. This stuff fascinates me, personally, but it is largely inconsequential. Clearly McManus and Hamilton don’t see that.
    “It may be true that Peterson has helped some people improve their lives. But, judging by the results, he has not helped them improve their arguments.”
    Good arguments are more important then results–a true academic. Peterson has helped people and that puts him far above his critics, no matter how reasoned their arguments might be.

    McManus and Hamilton go far out of their way to misinterpret Peterson to form their strawman arguments.
    “Neither Matt nor I have ever advocated for ‘equality of outcome’–nor has Slavoj Zizek,”
    Peterson’s point, in general, is the SJW Left promotes equality of outcome, regardless of what they might say. Saying that three people don’t believe that is irrelevant, narcissistic, and ridiculous.

    As Man of the Right illuminated and clearly many concur, McManus and Hamilton are moths attracted to the light bulb of Peterson’s popularity. They wrongly think they can gain popularity that way. It’s easier than accomplishing something consequential.

    1. “…it would be indicative of how far we have to go to achieve genuine equality…”

      “Neither Matt nor I have ever advocated for ‘equality of outcome’…”

  10. You do know that he and his fans are well aware that he is fair game for criticism and that his pursuits inherently elicit and invite criticism? He very clearly intentionally seeks argument and discussion. So, I’m unsure of the point of this article.

  11. Once again the diatribe of these two protagonists of academia’s hysteria about JP’s influence and impact is all the evidence any equitable and nonpartisan person needs to conclude that the only possible motivation for their invective is envy. JP’s thinking and counsel has delivered more value to people around the planet than these two unexceptional, inconsequential and malevolent academics can ever hope to achieve. Their writing is simply click bait in a desperate hope for publication, tenure and acclaim among an academy that has lost all sense of balance and intellectual rigour. As Samuel Johnson wrote “Whoever envy’s another confesses his superiority”. May I suggest these two braggarts stop infecting their own students and do some homework of their own by reading Samuel Johnson’s essay No.183 ‘The influence of envy and interest compared’.

  12. “What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love.” That’s what Dostoyevsky wrote. Imagine the hell the author of this piece must be in for this to be his conclusion. No engagement with how people might be helped or save, just whose “argument” might stand up better to relatively arbitrary definitions of logic in some types of Western philosophy. Philosophy should be about results and not the small-minded hell of a single skull this author suffers from

  13. “That we’re narrow-minded left-wing ideologues whose polemics against Peterson are—perhaps unbeknownst to us!—facilitating a totalitarian agenda”

    The book that the author is co-authoring: “Announcing the Release of “Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson”

    Your attempted critique of Peterson’s work is ideological. You admit it in the title of the book. How you and that hack McManus can’t see this is truly amazing.

  14. I surely hope Jordan does not die because Conrad and Matt have nothing or no one else to write or think about. Just like Trump and the mainstream media.

  15. The stark contrast between the response of Mr. McManus and that of Mr. Conrad Hamilton is a perfect illustration of a pundit with a particular political leaning trying to engage in productive discourse with people who hold different views from his own, and the fool of the same political leaning who undermines him. While Mr. McManus has offered a thoughtful and informed defense of his critical work in regards to Mr. Peterson, Mr. Conrad Hamilton has demonstrated that he is clearly out of his depth, attempting to hide his lack of comprehension regarding his own political leanings behind shameless pontification and emotionally charged tone that does little to further his argument and much to prove his incompetence. Frankly this is a common dichotomy seen in both left-wing and right-wing circles, but this pair of articles are a particularly apparent example of this. If you disagree, I would kindly ask that you would, you know, scroll through the comments of both articles and note which author has felt the greater need (and sense of ego) to defend the content of their writing.

  16. Peterson does argue that the demands of the left are in search of the equality of outcome. The point you make about it doesn’t acknowledge the duality of wealth, as it is both means of opportunity and a result of your labour. Thus, the one who is trying to equal the opportunities for everyone also has to equal the results of everyone, creating both inequalities at the same time. Here is where the neoliberalist claims arise, that as both inequalities and the solution are unfair for someone, one should not try to mess up with them as it could have unknown conswquences.

    What Peterson does is defending a certain level of wealth inequality based on the natural law of the Pareto distribution, which has been confirmed to be the level of wealth distribution at which a society is socially stable. Then, what he argues is that we ought to achieve a level of economic wealth (at society level) where everyone has opportunities, not by redistributing wealth, but by increasing the wealth of everyone. In other words, this is incrementing the middle class. Nevertheless, I have to acknowledge that this may harm the distribution of Pareto, but I don’t think that people getting out of poverty would destabilice a society.

    P.S: Pardon me if my grammar or expressions are not completely correct, language is not my primary language.

  17. Apparently, the most insulting thing one can do to a crazy homeless person in a suit, is to run away from them, yelling, “POLICE!!!!”…or, perhaps the most insulting thing one can do when one’s host offers poison, is to refuse it.

    Jordan Peterson teaches the confused girlboys of the 21st Century, to be sniveling cowards who crawl on their bellies, all the while calling themselves “men”. Given the choice, I’d rather be a chancre-ridden, centenarian Teuton who, in larger times, shot down little Juden as they ran for their lives.

    Jordan Peterson. The Backwards Man. Stalinist miscast as Hitlerite, clad in dance frock of Harvey Fierstein. Our Gift to The Children. What’s tragic, is that even a Russian hospital couldn’t toast him. Pretty sure that’s one of the Seven signs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.