he was asking the interviewer why he was choosing to repeatedly quote out of context.

@Jacar Peterson regularily says controversial things and then claims that he meant something different. This "out of context" defence wouldn't be necessary if he talked more clearly. What he says very often is a mess so it's only natural that people ask him to clarify. And where is the harm in that? The interviewer has some false assumtions and Peterson is given the opportunity to clear them up. The problem for him is that it makes him unconfortable and that he can't answer some questions without contradicting himself, so he chooses to go to the offence and whines about the interviewer trying to frame him. This is ridiculous behavior. If you see this interview and come to the conclusion that Peterson is in the right here I don't know what to say to you. Sorry, but you delude yourself.

@OwlInASack ad hominem much?

Obviously your comment is based upon what you think of his ideas and not upon the fact that you know nothing of what he is talking about, correct?

@OwlInASack . . . actually Peterson is very science based. That is why he is so disliked by the alt-lefters

@OwlInASack . . Again: it is obvious that you have not listened to him. Sad for you.

@Jacar I have listened to him. At first, he sounds like a reasonable person. However, after you listen to him for while, if you have more than two brain cells to rub together, you realize he's really quite a piece of shit. He's also completely full of shit, to boot.

@KKGator . . Obviously you have not listened without your SWJ crap running a constant commentary.

Watch the complete video.. You will notice that she is spewing all the crap claimed about Peterson.
And he responds with reality.

[blogs.spectator.co.uk]

@Jacar Don't assume you actually know anything about me. I have nothing to do with SWJ, assuming I do makes you look really stupid. Seriously, really stupid.
I don't give two shits what she has to say. There are plenty of stupid people on the left, too.

@OwlInASack . . Think about this: ;you have decided to not learn for yourself.

Peterson's message is "take responsibility for your life."

How is that in anyway wrong?

I have reviewed your posts and comments, i find few examples of you contributing in a significant way to the conversation. You are mostly in opposition. Without supporting references. And often ad hominem. is this how you want to be perceived?

No one one here knows who you really are. You have real collerations here.

You can learn for your self here.

Spewing fake crap you hear from others who also know nothing does not reflect well upon your credibility.

"You need to review regularly: Who are you friends, and what are they doing to you?"
Jim Rohn, business philosopher

What have you heard that seems reasonable? It might not be. Don't just have FAITH. Learn for yourself.