How so? Example?

@JynxQi

If you're really interested, explore on the Internet.

@Ellatynemouth I have. It’s kinda what I do. A lot. But I’m not here to disprove anything, as I’m not the one making bold claims here. If anything, the videos clearly debunk those types of accusations regularly.
But if you don’t have anything to back it up, it’s okay. We’ll just leave it at assumptions until then. I’m not going to pull any teeth for it. Was just hoping to get something solid from the opposition. Unfortunately, it’s been quite the disappointment. But thanks anyway. (:

@JynxQi

You sound like a troll. I've already shared articles multiple times. If you can't find them yourself. That's fine.

@Ellatynemouth Yikes. Ad hominem. Didn’t expect that.
I’m new and you have too many posts to go through. Don’t have the time to dig around that long. Feel free to repost.

@JynxQi

Look at your post title..

What did Sam Harris say that supports views that inspire Islamophobia exactly? I’ve yet to see any.
And though I disagree w/ some of Peterson’s ideas, how does him having an alt-right following make it a problem?
I couldn’t care less about the alt-right movement. I’m asking about Peterson himself.

@JynxQi Harris was basically drawing a line between islam and terrorism; intimating that muslims have a natural predilection towards violence and extremism. I don't think life has easy answers like that.

And for Peterson, his basic message on Maher's show is people have the right to speak their mind and be politically incorrect, which is true. But he seemed to be supporting incivility and generally douchebaggery. Throw in his appeal with the alt-right, and I had learned all I needed to know about him.

@JeezumsCripes Any examples of these? Their views are often misrepresented. So I’m not surprised by this.

That’s quite a mouthful. Any examples?

@JynxQi I suggest watching the debate between Jordan Peterson and Matt Dillahunty, faced with an intellectual superior, who does not fall for Jordan's wheedling verbal trickery, Peterson is forced to admit to some of his actual beliefs
Such as
Atheist have no morals because there is no metaphysical restraint upon them
Atheist are all potential murderers and dangerous to society
However
Atheists are not really Atheists because they don't kill people and do create art, music and poetry, they could not do that if they were "Godless" because to be godly is psychologically inherent.
Therefore all professed Atheists are mistaken or liars, there benevolence betrays them as such.
Like all Christians and religious people he is willing to throw away his knowledge and learning, in order to indulge in mental gymnastics so that is professional ethics can be hammered in a religious mindset, where it has no right to be, as a precocious child hammers an incorrect piece of puzzle in to a place where it does not belong out of sheer stubborn arrogance, without regard for the damage being done to the subject of their rage and every regard for there own self righteousness.
When taken in light of this mindset, Jordan Peterson's motives for his "Heroic" defense of free speech in refusing to use preferred pronouns becomes very suspicious in light of Deuteronomy 22:5

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

@LenHazell53 I’ve watched that debate. And I don’t agree w/ Peterson. Even though you are trying to correlate his beliefs w/ the bible. In fact, I agreed w/ Sam Harris in the debate between them as well.
Why have a problem w/ someone, just b/c their views differ from yours or mine.. or anyone else’s for that matter? You know it’s okay to disagree, right? That’s what these discussions and debates are partly for.
What does refusing to call someone their preferred pronouns have to do w/ that bible verse? There’s no relation there. Also, Peterson may be a theist, but he’s no Christian. Not by definition, anyway. He doesn’t believe in the literal death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He takes the metaphoric approach to these things. He’s really agnostic.

@JynxQi
"Why have a problem w/ someone, just b/c their views differ from yours or mine.. or anyone else’s for that matter? You know it’s okay to disagree, right?"

That is a totally cart before the horse statement.
My disagreement with the ideological position expressed by Peterson's, and the concomitant intellectual dishonesty revealed by that ideological position is the reason I have a problem with the man.
I don't disagree because I have a problem with JP
I have a problem with JP BECAUSE I disagree with him.

It is fine to disagree with some one if your disagreement is founded on a basis that can be evidenced or at least logically defended.
Simply deciding you disagree for no reason other than personal distaste has a name, that name is prejudice.

My contention is that Peterson is nothing more than a Christian apologist camouflaged in agnostic clothing, lending credence to his arguments by an appeal to authority based upon his academic status as a psychologist, a field he was not particularly distinguished or noteworthy in and which in many cases is irrelevant to his contentions.
His recent fame and status as an "authority" is not based on his academia but on his infamy as
A) the voice of the disenfranchised young male oppressed in a PC world,
B) as the champion of undefined common sense,
C) as the advocated of a mythical social status quo and
D) as the mouth piece of any other cause that will get his "physog on the googlebox" and donations in his Patreon account.

Never was the old maxim, there is no such thing as bad publicity so well applied as by this gentleman, who uses his understanding of human mental tendencies as a tool of merciless self promotion and wields knowledge in the same way as his countrymen famously wield an ice hockey stick.
Inaccurately, illegitimately and as a tool of blunt force and showmanship.

When opinion ranges between the apparent to the patently obvious as to Peterson's religiosity, to such as myself and other commentators both lay and academic, then Peterson's position on religion is potentially and likely far more orthodox than he admits, a thesis backed up by his vehement at times even zealous, defense of the famous old chestnut "without God one cannot be objectively moral" argument .
Therefore it is perfectly admissible to postulate that he is a bible believer and that his views line up with those of scriptures to a greater of lesser extent by social conditioning and voluntary conformity.
Therefore to use a bible verse condemning cross dressing allows for us to extrapolate a potential view on transvestism per se and trans gendered people as an extension of this in the mind of Jordan Peterson either at a conscious or sub conscious level is a legitimated consideration.

@LenHazell53 “I don't disagree because I have a problem with JP
I have a problem with JP BECAUSE I disagree with him.”

• " have a problem w/ someone, just b/c their views differ from yours or mine.. or anyone else’s for that matter? You know it’s okay to disagree, right?"
  Um.. that’s kinda what I was saying... but anyway, moving on...

All I’m reading from your responses are unwarranted claims, analogies, fallacies (especially false equivalency), and no examples. These are the types of responses that get debunked online all the time.

Now, as I’ve said, I don’t agree w/ some of what Peterson says. Especially when it comes to religious ideas and philosophies. Nor am I an apologetic for him or his apologetics. I do my best to understand anyone’s views and defend those views if/ when they are hastily and dishonestly misrepresented.

I was going to comment on this post, but you took the words right out of my mouth. Until a few years ago, Peterson was an unknown Canadian psychology professor who stumbled into a pot of gold when Canada decided to codify standards for use of gender pronouns into law (something that would not happen in the USA because of our First Amendment). He quickly, and smartly, realized that there is big to be made in Conservative American politics. He is obviously very intelligent and can easily embarrass your typical journalist or protester who takes him.

However, he is not a serious contributor to the broader discourse on profound topics such as Free Will, ethics and, as a Canadian, should have no voice in our politics. Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris, have been able to "pierce the veil" and show some of Peterson's true beliefs.

Sam Harris, on the other hand, has made what I think are two profound contributions to the discussion of neuroscience and philosophy. First, the idea that "Free Will" is nothing more than an illusion. Before Harris, this was just some fringe philosophical concept; however, thanks to Harris, there is a growing scientific consensus that he is absolutely correct. Secondly, his ideas on using science to create a framework for objective moral truth are quite profound. In all of his podcasts he is trying to have an intellectual discussion with his guests and is not afraid to shy away from "third rail topics."

This is a far cry from Peterson, who as a clinical Psychologist, knows how to expertly press the right buttons that translate into Patreon contributions.

@TonyMacaroni Pretty fair statements. I mostly agree. Though, Idk if his intent was opportunistic or not, it would make sense. I do agree on some his philosophies, however. I don’t necessarily think he’s a hack though.
He does dodge often and beats around the bush, but it’s not enough for me to have a huge problem w/ him.
The more he debates powerhouses like Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty, the better.

@JynxQi I do believe that the media unfairly tries to sensationalize him. Honestly, they seem desperate to brand him as some type of racist, misogynist or white nationalist. None of those are fair labels. Since most people can see through this the media has unwittingly made him a sympathetic figure.