You're editorializing. Tweet text: I'm an atheist, but I've enjoyed many of his religious allegories. So too his various definitions of masculinity. And I find him a far more rigorous thinker than his detractors the vast majority of the time. That he's ALSO entertaining is a cherry on top!
> If the title contains a gratuitous number or number + adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
By "detractors", does he mean "the usual bunch of chumps rushing out hot takes?"
If so, that doesn't seem a fair comparison. He's a supposed intellectual, and highly influential. They are just dipsticks with twitter accounts, about half of whom will have two-digit IQs just by the law of large numbers, possibly with dozens of followers.
If "detractors" are themselves influential public intellectuals, it would be a stronger statement. But it would also require more support than goes into a tweet.
You can't expect everyone to be perfectly ideologically pure on every topic. I'm not a fan of Peterson and honestly, I think that after the whole benzo addiction and coma I think he's kind of lost it, he's always putting out strange statements. But he's not even saying that he agrees with Peterson on everything.
So some of the "successful" people in our industry never read anything other than technical books. And if they have read some, they never understood anything.
16 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 50.0 ms ] thread> If the title contains a gratuitous number or number + adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
If so, that doesn't seem a fair comparison. He's a supposed intellectual, and highly influential. They are just dipsticks with twitter accounts, about half of whom will have two-digit IQs just by the law of large numbers, possibly with dozens of followers.
If "detractors" are themselves influential public intellectuals, it would be a stronger statement. But it would also require more support than goes into a tweet.
So some of the "successful" people in our industry never read anything other than technical books. And if they have read some, they never understood anything.
And this is the article that he is mentioning https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2018/03/the-intellectual...