I will say on the "vague debate style", that I think he's often trying to avoid sounding certain about things he's not certain about, and to stick to the point he cares about rather than take a side in every issue. I haven't watched everything he's done, I've seen a lot more interviews / podcasts than debates, but I do think on the whole he's trying to avoid getting sucked into every controversy and stick to the handful of topics he thinks are important to the point of almost being a personal crusade.

Macarthur said:

---

This is probably the best and most thorough discussion about JP from a critical standpoint.

He is certainly smart and I have no qualms with him in his professional area of expertise, with some of the exceptions mentioned in the book like his penchant for enormous vaguery.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve


And he's made his name by embarrasing unprepared college kids and reporters. When he has stepped up to people on a seemingly equal intellectual and/or professional level, he's been boring, at best, and at times flat out embarrased - like Dillahunty and Zizek for two. Hell, even Jim Jeffries made him look foolish.

---

The article essentially states Peterson is vague, verbose, and pompous. A lot of times, especially in his live lectures, he seems to be thinking out aloud, and there are times where he'll explicitly state that something is a complex issue, and go on to consider that point from multiple sides. These are actually things I appreciate about him, but I wonder if these are things the author of the article also considers verbose and vague. Still, even if the article is correct in its critiques, these are hardly the types of things you would expect Peterson to draw so much vitriol over. I don't think this explains that.

And boring is pretty subjective, I've found a lot of his discussions/debates fairly entertaining, and while I haven't listened to the Dillahunty/Jeffries discussions, I thought he held his own with Zizek (though if any of the debates were boring, that was one of them).

Rocag said:

---

There's a basic stereotype of them as simultaneously being extremely arrogant that their point of view is the best while mindlessly puppeting anything Peterson says. Kind of a cult of personality he's built around himself which is almost overwhelmingly male and overly confrontational.

---

This seems to be the case with a lot of these recent "intellectual" movements. For instance, I feel like the same could have been said about "new atheism."

Macarthur said:

---

I'm no legal expert but the issue is repeated misuse that would rise to the level of harrassment. So basically, if you want to be an ass and keep using the improper pronoun even after repeated attempts to correct you.

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

So, while it is possible it could rise to a legal issue, that is highly unlikely so I don't think the reddit comment was a lie. The issue is that Peterson took an issue way out of context and made himself famous over it.

---

To me, this sounds pretty bad.

What sounds bad?

The idea that repeated misuse of pronouns could lead to legal action.

I saw this interview by Stossel and felt it addressed many issues that have been brought up on this thread and Peterson answers them in his own words. The whole interview is really good. I have always liked Stossels' interview style. But for those "TLDW" types:

2:45 Good to be dangerous, compassion can be a vice
8:20 Comments about trans claims and compelled speech
11:00 Address gender as social construct vs biology
13:45 Protests around Bill C16 and the spilling of Marxist ideology from universities into society
18:45 "You sound like a Libertarian?"
19:00 The importance of individual sovereignty over the group
19:20 the importance of telling the truth (the cost of compelled speech to society and the individual)
24:00 Problem with inequalities; the Reality of Marxist ideology of addressing inequality.