I'm not insulting this person personally, I'm insulting this person's ridiculous comment.
And no, that's not facts and statistics, you and I both know that's a stretch. This person stated anecdotes, not evidence. Just because me and my friend both stubbed our toe against a car tire, doesn't mean there is an epidemic of people stubbing their toes on car tires. 4 families can't even considered a proper sample size.
Also, I have no reason to believe this person is speaking the truth, as they could very easily be lying. I don't automatically believe everything I read on the internet.
While talking to us in an informal manner, She is making a general observation about the society based on what she has seen, an observation that many people living here can resonate with, whether she presents "actual facts and statistics" or not, we know what she is talking about is actually happening here. She is not publishing a research study or making a formal claim that would require that kind of data. Imposition of such a condition and belittling the OP for not fulfilling it is absurd and reeks of bias.
Though even if a formal inquiry is made into the subject and facts and statistics are compiled from a large enough sample, the conclusions are extremely likely to be confirmed, when that happens, the progressive lot would simply deny them and probably go full ad hominem on anyone who presents those facts.
Anyone with an iota on common sense and who isn't biased can clearly see that these articles are little more than a smear campaign against that man while pretending to be critique. One needs to go no further than a couple of paragraphs deep to see that.
and you accuse them of being "far smarter than me and you"
The third video is just Peterson making vague statements, and when the Cathy Newmancomes to a conclusion, he rebukes Cathy and says "I didn't say that", and he does that constantly in the video. This is the reason why Cathy ended up looking bad in the video, because he set himself up for all eventualities, with those vague statements, which includes the infamous "so you're saying" moment.
lol through the interview, she comes at him from left right and center, uses every dirty trick in the book to attack him, trying to put words in his mouth, desperately trying to force him into a position where she can attack him, asking loaded questions that make false pre suppositions, trying to provoke, and despite all that, he kept his cool and calm, presented his views with integrity, and deflected or countered all her attacks and then took her to school to boot.
The entire premise was flawed from the beginning, but cathy was too upset to notice that this was exactly what Peterson was doing. By saying that the only two options were an overgrown child (basically lazy man) and a respectable man, he set the entire debate to be entirely a out this false choice.
She(Cathy Newman aka 'So you're saying') starts the interview by asking him: “Jordan Peterson, you’ve said that men need to, quote, ‘grow the hell up.’ Tell me why.”
answering her question, he talked about this subject for the first 5 minutes or so which included bits about an overgrown child and growing up and adopting responsibility. This was not entire premise, only first 5 min or so, secondly, this opening part was set by the host herself due to her opening question, the professor was simply answering her question, thirdly, there's nothing really flawed about the views he expresses on the subject, they make a lot of sense actually.
Quite an amusing interview:
No wonder the SJWs and the like go after him like a vengeful ex wife.
