You're not alone in this, your second paragraph resonated with me.
About a year back I shared something he had said about personalities which was interesting, and someone replied by sending me a 2hr lecture he did, and asking me "So do you also hate all trans people?"
My reply, "No, only some of them" was not as funny to her as it was to me.
I agree with you on this. A few years ago (if memory serves) his position was when asked about God that he did not believe he existed but that he acted as if he did. This in the subsequent years changed to the above. My (slightly cynical take) was that as his audience numbers exploded, many of his fans/followers where theists and that taking an atheistic or agnostic position would quite potentially alienate these fans (& their money)
What does 'new atheism have to say about the origins of Western values & standards which are visible through concepts of universal rights and democracy?
You are not alone. I found Peterson's university lectures about 6 months before he became infamous and I found them fascinating. I was shocked when he came out with his video about bill C16, trans and pronouns. I had to reconsider if I should be listening to this guy. But, on listening again, I thought he was right.
I think he was doing great until the Cathy Newman interview. It's been all downhill from there. I also immediately saw the veering into a kind of postmodern slipperiness when talking about the Big G. (although I think definitions and linguistic territory are important)
He was a "lightning-rod for the culture war" but became a liability for liberals. I now kind of cringe when I see a thumbnail with him in it. He seems to be doing his best now to become the person he was falsely accused of being at the start.
I like a lot of what he says too but sometimes it’s incoherent. The times he has used the phrase ‘the science is in’ to justify what some may consider controversial views but then completely ignores all the science when making his climate change denial assertions.
On balance I still think he has done more that can be praised than attacked, but the gap is closing. These obfuscations are transparently awful, and jar even more coming from someone who made their name through straight talking and encouraging people to be honest with themselves. I think he knows he’s shown his hand and there’s little left to tell.
You're not alone in this, your second paragraph resonated with me.
About a year back I shared something he had said about personalities which was interesting, and someone replied by sending me a 2hr lecture he did, and asking me "So do you also hate all trans people?"
My reply, "No, only some of them" was not as funny to her as it was to me.
I've never quite understood the mass appeal of Peterson. To me, he seems all over the place intellectually. And constantly wired...
I agree with you on this. A few years ago (if memory serves) his position was when asked about God that he did not believe he existed but that he acted as if he did. This in the subsequent years changed to the above. My (slightly cynical take) was that as his audience numbers exploded, many of his fans/followers where theists and that taking an atheistic or agnostic position would quite potentially alienate these fans (& their money)
I am willing to bet his position changed after his wife's- and his near death exoeriences.
What does 'new atheism have to say about the origins of Western values & standards which are visible through concepts of universal rights and democracy?
You are not alone. I found Peterson's university lectures about 6 months before he became infamous and I found them fascinating. I was shocked when he came out with his video about bill C16, trans and pronouns. I had to reconsider if I should be listening to this guy. But, on listening again, I thought he was right.
I think he was doing great until the Cathy Newman interview. It's been all downhill from there. I also immediately saw the veering into a kind of postmodern slipperiness when talking about the Big G. (although I think definitions and linguistic territory are important)
He was a "lightning-rod for the culture war" but became a liability for liberals. I now kind of cringe when I see a thumbnail with him in it. He seems to be doing his best now to become the person he was falsely accused of being at the start.
I like a lot of what he says too but sometimes it’s incoherent. The times he has used the phrase ‘the science is in’ to justify what some may consider controversial views but then completely ignores all the science when making his climate change denial assertions.
On balance I still think he has done more that can be praised than attacked, but the gap is closing. These obfuscations are transparently awful, and jar even more coming from someone who made their name through straight talking and encouraging people to be honest with themselves. I think he knows he’s shown his hand and there’s little left to tell.