For all the criticism that Vice gets from the anti-pc crowd that read - to me at least - as a perfectly neutral and fact based article about someone who is something of a curiousity.
Yes, he quit a few months ago. This is an 8 month old article. He has a video on his YT channel on why he quit (censorship - quite a few left Patreon).
This is from 2017. There is a video where he discloses that he makes quite a bit more. This also is prior to him outright cancelling his Patreon account and moving to Sunscribestar due to the censorship issue regarding YouTuber Sargon of Akkad. He also makes millions from his book sales, and he even revealed he makes $200k a month from an online service, presumably his "self-authoring program." There's also no doubt hundreds of thousands from his speaking engagements.
The real question is why do you think this is important? Jordan Peterson has done his part in introducing some of the critical talking points into mainstream political conversation, i.e. (paraphrasing both) "we do not have a good conception of determining when the left has gone too far" and "the end result of intersectionality is individualism, which is what liberal societies have already been correctly centered around for hundreds of years."
He's obviously slightly insane, with his over eagerness to attribute archetypal meaning to just about everything, and his willingness to explore his inner monologue with absolutely no attempt to clarify the absurdity of the hypothetical he's putting forward, but I would argue that the good far outweighs the bad. Conversations have gotten far more sane, and he had played his part in it.
10 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 40.9 ms ] threadBut don't you criticize these people, they're the next frontier of civil rights of course.
Edit: also, it's time that you stopped posting unsubstantive comments to HN generally. Would you, please?
This page has been removed.
The real question is why do you think this is important? Jordan Peterson has done his part in introducing some of the critical talking points into mainstream political conversation, i.e. (paraphrasing both) "we do not have a good conception of determining when the left has gone too far" and "the end result of intersectionality is individualism, which is what liberal societies have already been correctly centered around for hundreds of years."
He's obviously slightly insane, with his over eagerness to attribute archetypal meaning to just about everything, and his willingness to explore his inner monologue with absolutely no attempt to clarify the absurdity of the hypothetical he's putting forward, but I would argue that the good far outweighs the bad. Conversations have gotten far more sane, and he had played his part in it.