Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 18 March 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <5>, <6>

, (new)(back)

Accusations of transphobia and racism

I tried removing a paragraph in the article directly calling Peterson transphobic and racist based on the pathetic source PressProgress.ca article "Former Truth and Reconciliation Commission Chair: ‘Jordan Peterson is Racist. Are We Really Surprised?" - here is the paragraph:

"Peterson oftentimes speaks in dog whistles, with his comments seeming benign at first but at the same time communicating bigoted ideas. His transphobia is motivated by a belief that there are only two genders and that these genders are biologically determined (thus repeating the neurosexist bigotry of trans-medicalists). His anti-authoritarianism is only directed at the left (to pander to his fans on the far-right). His masterful ability to seem reasonable despite being a huge racist in private is typical of much of the right's consciousness raising."

However, my edit was reversed and I was told to find a better source refuting the aforementioned source to justify removing the paragraph accusing Peterson of transphobia/racism. So I've written this talk section to argue the point:

Nothing in this article suggests Peterson is transphobic, and the tweet the article cites to imply his racism is extremely weak evidence. To start with transphobia, Peterson's argument since his rise to fame has always been the same: he does not want compelled speech as mandated by the government. That in and of itself has nothing to do with transphobia. You can be against compelled speech without being transphobic. When asked if Peterson would use a transgender person's preferred pronouns, he has stated in multiple interviews that he would; in fact, in the youtube video "Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech" hosted by Steve Paikin, one of the first videos to ever come out discussing gender during his beginning rise to fame, Peterson directly stated he would refer to the transgender guest Theryn Meyer with the pronoun "she", which is her preferred pronoun. Why is this not considered evidence of Petersons lack of transphobia? If transphobia is perceived as 'individuals who use pronouns in line with a transgender person's biological sex at birth rather than their self-perception of their gender', Peterson has not done that, and has in fact done the opposite. So this is a stupid accusation.

The accusation of racism is also ridiculous. The PressProgress.ca article accuses Peterson of racism by citing his tweet that says "It's good that you consumed the liquor this time instead of letting some indian steal it.." - first of all, there is no further context to this tweet. People don't know what exactly he's talking about, or whether or not it's a joke. And I would hope no one would argue that race-oriented jokes are evidence of an individual being racist. The point is, without knowing further context of the tweet, you have no reason to use this tweet as evidence that Peterson is racist, or more specifically racist against indians.

The article further illegitimately justifies its nonsense claim of racism by pointing out Peterson has interacted with or retweeted tweets from white supremacists (as if to imply that means Peterson agrees completely with their white supremacist views) and that Peterson is also a fan of Pepe the Frog, as if that meant anything. Hence, this source is not a rigorous analysis of Peterson's actions and it certainly did not provide proper evidence to reasonably justify directly calling him transphobic or racist, therefore it should not be used, and this paragraph should remain removed.--Moobnert (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Do you have any objections to my reasoning? If not, and no one else does either, I will re-attempt removing this careless paragraph and hopefully my edit will not be reverted. --Moobnert (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Moobnert I do in fact have a few issues with your reasoning. First off it's been less than a week's time and the site's users do not edit one article exclusively, give them time sit down and read the disputed content and source, as well as time to think things over and consider their decision. Secondly, it has been my observation that white supremacists tend to be ostracized within mainstream society, hence one must seek them out in order to socialize with them, and one must want to associate with them in order do so. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The removed paragraph was "Peterson oftentimes speaks in dog whistles, with his comments seeming benign at first but at the same time communicating bigoted ideas. His transphobia is motivated by a belief that there are only two genders and that these genders are biologically determined (thus repeating the neurosexist bigotry of trans-medicalists). His anti-authoritarianism is only directed at the left (to pander to his fans on the far-right). His masterful ability to seem reasonable despite being a huge racist in private is typical of much of the right's consciousness raising". False defamation (bigot, transphobe, racist, far-right) cannot be endorsed on RationalWiki anyhow. The tweet was misrepresented ([1]), the "unscientific claims" speaks more about Sinclair's scientific education and ideological worldview, the Pepe photo is again failed guilt by association without proper understanding of the context.--RationalP (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the evidence and context for the tweet in question. Glad to see this pitiful paragraph removed from the article. --Moobnert (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The page seems like it's trying to make a point against Peterson instead of providing information on Peterson

There are plenty of little remarks and phrasings in the article that seem mischievous in nature. Here are some of them.

In the Reactionary fans -section, it states that:

"...but also due to his views on the psychological differences between men and women[16] (which the sexist reactionaries all love)"

Is the statement in parentheses truly justified? The statement only seems to want to make fun of "sexist reactionaries".

In the same section it is also stated that:

"His transphobia is motivated by a belief that there are only two genders and that these genders are biologically determined (thus repeating the neurosexist bigotry of trans-medicalists)."

Here it is stated as a self-evident fact that he has transphobia, even though it is highly controversial statement. It seems like a manipulative statement, placed to endorse the writer's opinions and to frustrate anyone who might disagree. Also, in the parentheses it is worded that he is "repeating the neurosexist bigotry", making it seem like he isn't truly forming his opinions thoroughly but parroting what other people have said. I do not think anyone here has the qualification to see inside Peterson's head and dictate whether he is just copying his opinions or taking his time to form them, thus the wording seems prejudiced.

In the Anti-postmodermism -section, there are other derogatory phrasings:

"Peterson does not like postmodernism, judging from the very reasonable number of videos he has produced on the subject.[98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115] (In his book, Peterson praises Heidegger, who is sometimes described as the first postmodernist philosopher, which would therefore be ironic, sometimes.[116])"

Saying that Peterson simply dislikes postmodernism is presenting the matter as if he didn't have valid reasons to argue against postmodernism but as if it was just a matter of liking or disliking postmodernism. Again, that seems like an unfair and prejudiced wording. The remark in the parentheses also seems to have mostly humor value, but it also endorses what I think is faulty supposition that it were impossible to support Heidegger and be an anti-postmodernist at the same time. As the article doesn't elaborate on Peterson's views on Heidegger and postmodernism, it seems like an unfair set-up.

The Pseudoscience -section starts by saying that:

"Peterson presents himself as a defender of science and criticizes poor methodology in fields like sociology. However, Peterson himself is not above using mythology in his counselling practice and presentations when they suit his point."

This seems like a situation of false equivalence. It is one thing to use poor methodology in scientific studies, and totally another thing to use mythology in presentations and counselling, or, as it is mentioned in the subsections, to tweet about things on a personal Twitter account. The more equivalent counter-part in that comparison would be Peterson's actual research.

All in all, in parts like these the article seems like a high schooler making an essay on a topic that hits too close to them personally and they can't hide their feelings of it. These are probably very emotional provoking topics for everyone who are interested in the topics Peterson talks about, but it is clear the article is prejudiced and humiliating in nature. To make the article better, I think these clearly prejudiced parts should at least be erased and perhaps people with less attached view on Peterson should touch up the article. Pardon the in your face -boldings, I thought it made the text easier to read. ^{— Unsigned, by: Kittensmittens / talk / contribs 16:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)}

Hello! If you are out there, please sign your comments (4 tildas will do) if you hope to have the desired effect.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

By any chance, are you familiar with RationalWiki's article standards? It's good you pointed out specific examples in the article you have trouble with, though, since many other criticisms don't do this, and it's frustrating. I don't see the controversy as labeling him transphobic. The National Post article quote: "He is also critical of Bill C-16, federal Liberal legislation that seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. 'Bill C-16 is predicated on absolute nonsense,' Peterson wrote last year. 'Sex is a biological fact and is determined by anatomy and chromosomes.'" I'm not sure if the parentheses remark of "trans-medicalists" is necessary; it's the first time I've seen that word. But Moobnert's comment above seems to contradict it, that Peterson WOULD refer to transgendered people by their preferred pronoun and his opposition to gender expression and all stems from not directly transphobia at least.

As for the post-modernism part, the section goes further into why his beliefs on post-modernism is ridiculous. I don't understand why you'd say otherwise, that you say it simply states he doesn't like it. He said it was "a serious threat to academic life" and the article compares his criticism to post-modernism to other criticisms to post-modernism. Sure, maybe it can quote him more and the sources can do a much better job at formatting, but I don't see it as an unfair mocking of him.

As for the pseudoscience part, yeah, he's wallowing in it. Maybe the wording can be better but I still think he's in no position to criticize methodology in sociology and at the same time be a global warming denier twat and wallow in quantum woo.

I think the derogatory phrasing is mostly justified though I do think the transphobia part can be touched upon a bit, and the post-modernism bit should also be expanded so we can more clearly see his views on it. I think on the pseudoscience part, it just needs to be reworded. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain, but did Peterson refer to quantum terminology more than once or twice in thousands of videos and excepts on Youtube? I do not approve of social scientists flirting with QED. Neither do I imagine a single unscientific statement should be ascribed significance incommensurate with its frequency. "One swallow does not make a summer." Ariel31459 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

How can you say and be so overreaching stating that "he's in no position to criticize methodology in sociology and at the same time be a global warming denier twat" when there's no evidence nor endorsement to be labeled as a warming denier, even more, called a twat? That is guilt by association. It speaks more about you and your perception of Peterson's persona rather than Peterson really is.--RationalP (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Global warming denier = twat. All of them are twats. That's all to it. If he isn't a global warming denier, why does he make these tweets like this, this (which links to a denial blog), this, and this? These aren't retweets, not in the strict sense at least. His further comments certainly are not discrediting these links. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems like they're quotes from the article, but I don't understand why he didn't put them in quotes. It seems like he was endorsing them. And still, why is he linking them? If he doesn't agree with them, he's giving them credit they don't deserve. It's confusing. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You made two horrible mistakes, firstly proclaim guilt by association, secondly prohibit freedom of speech and activity. Most of the "comments" are not even originally his for e.g. the cited "Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation & extinction due to C02" was copied from the article, yet you represent it as his. That's or ignorance or intentional fraud.--RationalP (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So he was actually quoting despite lacking the quotation marks. He's plagiarizing now. How about the NoTricksZone tweet, I don't see a quote from the parent article? Is he quoting something when he says "So it turns out that it was scientists who were sensitive to atmospheric CO2 level increases?". What are his intentions when he tweeted this besides "let's repeat a PRATT by global warming deniers and make myself appear 'skeptical'"? Is it a rhetorical question now? If he's trying to link to those pages so his followers can debunk them, why is he not even a smidge critical of them? Has he made any tweets in favor of global warming? Also, how am I "prohibiting freedom of speech and activity"? By calling the global warming deniers "twats"? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@RationalP You have an unfortunate habit of attempting to find malice where none exists. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

That can be hardly called as plagiarizing, actually, you obviously want to see something which there is not. Are you aware that prohibiting people to tweet about something is denial of the freedom of speech&acitivity, and if they do to label them so-and-so ("denialist" in this case) with guilt of association. That's totalitarianism par excellence.--RationalP (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie So you are saying is that denial of the freedom of expression and false guilt of association is alright, rational, and something which should be endorsed by RationalWiki? I am stunned we need to have discussion about this issue. Incredible.--RationalP (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie engage in the discussion, explain your action and why you support obvious defamation in this article?--RationalP (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@RationalP Allow me to be blunt, freedom of expression does not protect against criticism nor against hurt feelings. In other words freedom of expression works both ways, and you are the one engaging in censorship if you disagree. Furthermore it has not yet been proven whether his association with certain groups makes him innocent or guilty, hence why this discussion is taking place.

PS:False defamation is the fraudulent filing of defamation charges not a synonym for defamation itself. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You're full of nonsense who doesn't know what "freedom of expression", "totalitarianism", "censorship" "defamation" is. If I'm defaming Peterson for things he hasn't said, what's the deal with the lack of quotes to show he's quoting from an article? And how the hell am I or RationalWiki prohibiting this person to tweet? What am I doing to prevent this guy from tweeting? Strongly disagreeing with him? Psychological manipulation with hats involved? And what exactly is Peterson doing? I see denialism, what is he doing otherwise? How is this totalitarism by merely calling someone who uncritically shares global warming denialist information from global warming denialist blogs (NoTricksZone is one with its name along, "the sun is fueling global warming", taking Climategate seriously, repeating "scientists used to believe in global cooling", outright denies global warming) (The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which isn't a science site, it's an advocacy think tank which isn't outright denier, but softcore "skepticism" by saying that "it endorses climate change realism" and "scientific controversies increase as climate research moves further back in time, and predictions move further into the future" and calls science as "CLIMATE GROUPTHINK". Wikipedia said that the Charity Commission ruled that it broke impartiality rules and while it pursued Climategate nonscandal, it doesn't even want to disclose its funding). Based on whatever this guy is doing, I am inclined to think it's not defamation. If he's not a global warming denier himself, he's a global warming denier apologist. It's a stretch to think, by labeling him things that he is, it is somehow inviting people to torment him to silence. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommieObviously it does not protect anyone to be hurt, but sorry, on his Twitter is a statement that says he does not endorse nor agree with everything he tweets (innocence), you said that his association needs to be proven as innocent or guilty, yet you did not even give any time for such consensus and in advance proclaimed him as guilty (misrepresentation of original quote, revert of the claim he "supports" global cooling, category calling him as "Global warming denialists") in the article. That's such hypocritical morality.--RationalP (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Then what were those tweets about? Some of those I cited were neither reTweets nor were they direct quotes from the articles he linked. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@RationlP Allow me to be even more blunt than I already have been, you must offer proof for your claims and convince other users via sound arguments that your point of view is correct before the disputed portion of the article changes. You do not get to celebrate victory in advance by changing the article to suit your views in the interim. That is how this site, and Rationalism and general, works. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Nobody knows, his Twitter has obvious statement - it's his freedom. You see "denialism" because you ideologically want to see that like others want to see him as "alt-right" or "Hitler" or "transphobe", and so on, but nobody, including you, do not question if what you see is true and moral or not.--RationalP (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie you are playing with rationality like a postmodernist - the evidence for denialism was not provided in the first place - that's a "fact" or "argument" with weight enough to convince somebody, it does not need additional "evidence" about his anti-denialism or pro-global warming. Those are not "my views" that's "factual truth", calling and labeling him as a "supporter of/and global warming denialist" is somebody view.--RationalP (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Quit acting like a child. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

That is false, not an argument, nor a reasonable answer/conclusion to end the discussion. Your own "convincing" is shaking to the ground.--RationalP (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to assume that when his tweets are uncritical of the stuff he shares, he wants people to read the stuff and agree with them. Whatever his intentions are, ultimately, it's irresponsible. He wants people to debunk his stuff? Unclear, because he has never told them to be critical and while some commenters on his tweets criticize him, a lot of others agree with him. He wants people to be given a fair balance? That's as fair as uncritically linking to vaccine-cause-autism blogs (and yes, global warming denialism is fringe for all the same reasons). He wants people to support global warming denialism? He is willing to give people denialism information. I've covered his possible intentions, can you think of anything else? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario you again project your own frustration to the perception of reality. This is unfounded accusations. Instead to say "he wants people to read the stuff and think about it", you say "he wants people to read the stuff and agree with them". It is not up to you judge it as irresponsible, again, you want it to be considered as irresponsible. He told people many times to be critical, including of his work. What you are doing is clear guilt of association.--RationalP (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I brought that scenario: "He wants people to debunk his stuff? Unclear, because he has never told them to be critical and while some commenters on his tweets criticize him, a lot of others agree with him." And besides, for global warming, you have to listen to the experts here since most people don't understand the subject at all. Global warming denialism would be like listening to 2% of airplane mechanics who think the plane can fly. The denialist shit is irresponsible because that "second opinion" crap is giving undeserved credence to the fringe viewpoint. Yes, global warming denialism is fringe. Get over it. This guy is all right showing uncritically fringe viewpoints to his followers. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I know it is fringe, it is funny you have a monologue with yourself stating "get over it" in that aspect. You obviously have an issue with the freedom of speech. What should he do? Not speaking to the alt-right audience? Not showing them anything, like Lindsay Shepherd should not have shown his clip in the classroom? What do you want, a total censorship? That would be irresonsible.--RationalP (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

dude, freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence or freedom of criticism. stop clutching onto that argument. no one's censoring him, people are calling him out for being an ignorant asshole. he can continue spouting out bullshit beliefs, people have every right to call out on his bullshit. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 00:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

He has the right to spew whatever denialist shit he has out of his mouth, but when it comes to global warming denial (which is in the same pseudoscience as creationism by the way) it'll serve better for the interests of humanity to stop abusing his credentials to make claims on fields he has no business in and shut the fuck up alongside the anti-vaxxers, the Holocaust deniers, evolution-deniers-that-want-creationism-taught-in-school and the germ theory deniers. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

for someone to claim to think we're against freedom of speech, he sure doesn't like it when we use our free speech rights to call this person a fucking moron when it comes to climate science БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 00:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, such a lack of self-awareness. LeftyGreenMario invented every scenario why he "responsibly" must not share such content on his Twitter, the article is still misrepresenting his "support" as well categorizing him as a "denialist" with guilt of association, which is obviously against freedom of speech, yet you dare to say that you are not "against freedom of speech", that "no one's censoring him" or "he has the right... but (!)... when it comes to". Incredible. I personally support his criticism (already said that in previous discussions), but if it is not accurate then what's the point?.--RationalP (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

calling him a twat isn't a rally against freedom of speech. it does breach etiquitte and it's an ad hominem at worst, but it's still completely within free speech rights do to so. please learn what freedom of speech actually means before you continue slinging that term around haphazardly. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 05:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think RationalP has an issue with my reaction toward Peterson's actions, that it's knee-jerk to call him denialist scum because he links to denialist blogs. He's not merely linking to those blogs, though, he's uncritically linking to them. There's providing alternate viewpoints, but global warming denial isn't an "alternate viewpoint". It's a fringe viewpoint that seeks to discredit experts on a real ongoing expensive and dangerous crisis that threatens people's lives. Climate change denial delays policy that would otherwise prevent killing people and destroying property. By even merely linking to those sites without additional comment, he's exposing people to those dangerous fringe viewpoints. He can't and shouldn't be naive enough to assume people are critical thinkers. Most are not. And they'd think that since he's an expert and those links don't look, superficially, crazy, they'll think there's something reasonable in the whole climate change denial camp. So, that's how I came to the conclusion that what he's doing is, sharing climate change denial viewpoints, is irresponsible and deserves scorn and the "climate change denier" label. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario This is a long thread, but I think the original problem has not been solved. Comparing sociological research and Peterson's personal tweets is a situation of false equivalence. In sociological research, the standards of knowledge are much higher. You're allowed to demand that sociological research meets the standards of scientific research, even if you held some unscientific opinions yourself in your spare-time. There are religious scientists, for example, but that doesn't pose as a problem as long as they don't mix their religion with their scientific work.

To add, Peterson's views of Jungian psychology can be seen as unscientific. But even though counseling and psychotherapies must ideally be based on scientific research, not every practice in counseling or psychotherapy has to be "100% certified by science". Psychotherapies aren't that strictly science-driven enterprises. Scientists at the moment aren't even sure what are the exact factors that make psychotherapy work, but it's shown that many kinds of therapies do work for people. Even the ones that are based on psychoanalytic theory (they usually have something to do with Jung's or Freud's theories). So using Jungian psychology in therapies is totally allowed, it's a legitimate thing even in today's world.

Also I think the use of unscientific metaphors and mythologies is also allowed in otherwise scientific lectures, if they're not presented as scientific facts but they're more like rhetorics. I'm not sure if Peterson's more popularized lectures (the ones targeted at mostly layman audiences) even try to be strictly scientific. They might be more like popularization of psychology and part of his own "movement", where the psychology is more like a tool, and the main message is a political one. If his university lectures, targeted at psych and other students, were filled with mythologies, I'd be more worried.

Anyways, thank you for reminding me of the Rationalwiki's article standards - I just saw this article and didn't think it was very rational, as the name of the wiki poses. But I do understand now that e.g. snarky humor is allowed here.Kittensmittens (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kittensmittens I think you should take your criticisms to another section, please. Thanks. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@RationalP Do you understand the difference between "X person shouldn't do Y" and "X person shouldn't be allowed to do Y"? Nobody here has argued that Peterson shouldn't be allowed to spread global warming denialism. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no difference, you are making things up to defend your own "moral code", the action until now speaks more than you want to admit. A guy asks for comments about recent scientific paper - "denialist, moron, twat". He admits to not be a "climate expert" and that "I'm also very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change" (for e.g. recent Nature paper). Great, from now on any kind of free inquiry and skepticism is prohibited.--RationalP (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

why are you taking climate advice from someone who has absolutely no credentials in that field БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 05:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

In climate change, Peterson's not a skeptic. He's a complete dolt. He doesn't realize it, but he thinks he knows better than the climate scientists and therefore, has the position to "question" experts, which is idiotic as questioning experts on every other subject, especially on something as settled as climate change. And he's not "merely asking a question", referring to this braindead tweet you claim is "merely asking", he's buying Luc Simard's wonderful tried-and-true tactic of cherry-picking the data (notice how the graph is after a little before 2000 because if you zoom the graph out, it doesn't show the results he likes) as well as the Twitter thread beginning with a link from pseudoscientific filth called "The Deplorable Climate Science Blog" who also have the nerve to call the government scientists frauds. I have no respect for climate change deniers. I'll stick with the strong language. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

That tells more about you than Peterson. As if you know what he thinks putting your words of wishful thinking in his mouth and mind, also calling him a mental retard I don't doubt you have higher intelligence and wisdom than Peterson and is not an act of dumbing him down for leveling the competence. However, you once again proved that you are against freedom of speech because he has "no position" (right) to be a skeptic about the models. Although he is clearly asking a question, of course, let's ignore that tweet, and cherry-pick it to the point of twisting it he is a complete denialist, that's very reasonable and rational thing to do, it won't hurt anybody, it's not an exceptional claim which needs exceptional evidence, it's not a narrative, actually it reminds me of something, hmmm, what is it...? Oh yes, the methodology of the Catholic Inquisition. How dare he ask a question! Blasphemy!--RationalP (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

In most contexts of contemporary speech, "dolt" means "stupid". Trying to make that etymological stretch that I'm stooping low by calling him a "retard" by using the urban dictionary (not a reliable source) rather than the dictionary itself is completely disingenuous and even offensive you even try to score points against me by suggesting I'm an ableist who uses slurs. Anyhow, I'm done with you and your dismal understanding of "freedom of speech", your accusing me of calling him a retard, your constant edit warring with other users, and your poor understanding of the nature of climate change "skeptics" despite my expending substantial verbiage explaining my stance on it. So fuck off. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

so now you admit he's JAQing off. wonderful. again, you have no fucking idea what freedom of speech is. if i call you an idiot right now, does that mean you can't stop spouting bullshit out of your big fat mouth? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 23:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@RationalP Before you start slinging insults and accusations around I think you should explain how you were able to edit a page that is locked above your privilege level. You wouldn't by any chance be using illegal software to bypass the page protection would you? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 11:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie You shouldn't sling accusations around either. RationalP is implicitly an autoconfirmed user since their account is more than a day old and has made at least ten edits. There's no illegal software being used. You'll need to protect it so only sysops can edit if you want to prevent RationalP from editing. CowHouse (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@CowHouse I see, in that case I owe @RationalP an apology. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I am writing insults and accusations although basically am reflecting back editors words and actions. Until now have received various reprehensible false accusations, I don't care anymore. Apology accepted--RationalP (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@RationalP I understand that twitter is not at all the best way to determine someone's views and accurately write about them. However, twitter can give some indication into people's views. Any public intellectual who uses science as a weapon in their argument should be called out in RationalWiki when they are inadequately using science or not using it at all. The tweets provide enough evidence to show Peterson only tweets climate change articles from denier blogs, and these are not even blogs that cherry pick peer-reviewed 'evidence' against climate change. They flat out lie, or just don't even read the peer-reviewed papers they link to. They're quite easy to dismantle just by exploring them and referring back to the scientific literature. So even if Peterson doesn't neatly fit the 'climate change denier' label, and is simply 'skeptical of the models', his skepticism is derived from illegitimate sources and therefore is worth mentioning on here. Besides, the section currently in RT's Peterson article is quite fair and doesn't directly call him a denier anyway. --Moobnert (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I'd put the "skeptical" in airquotes. Most deniers won't outright deny, they'll just say "I question things". It's the same vein of vaccine "skeptics" and the majority of Holocaust "skeptics" (not talking about those who also aim for accuracy. Honest global warming skeptics, those that aim for accuracy, wouldn't flat-out lie or cherry pick to make a point, and they'd maybe talk about minor errors in the data. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Moobnert I am not opposing the mention, yet the labeling it is used. How can you say that the section is "fair" and "doesn't directly call him a denier" when it falsely mentions that "On occasion, he supports "global cooling"..." and the article is categorized as "Global warming denialists"? LeftyGreenMario is making up a narrative because wants to depict Peterson as a denialist, or sexist.--RationalP (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@RationalP The section is fair because it says "While Peterson has made retweets (his retweets aren't endorsements) to global warming deniers...Peterson's has made tweets himself that tend to downplay or deny global warming." This is accurate. The rest of the section is just examples that attest to the quote I've shown. I'm not sure what your objection is to the global cooling remark, since the reference shows Peterson directly suggesting that the earth has been cooling the past 20 years based on the claim from the climate change denial website 'Whatsupwiththat'. If you object to the statement 'on occassion', given that he's tweeted this apparently once only and not multiple times, you can remove the 'on occassion' part if you like. Other than that, all of Peterson's tweets referring to climate change is based off climate change denial websites. I personally don't see the problem in labelling him a climate change denier at that point, but if you want to withhold that label until he directly makes a claim personally that is clearly denialist, I can also respect that. However, as a section, it is worth remaining on RW because any scientific researcher that uses science as a tool in their argument should be criticized when they do not adhere to the same strict standard of referring to the peer-reviewed literature for fields they do not have expertise in. Peterson has only referred to denialist websites on the topic of climate change, hence the section deserves to be on here. --Moobnert (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Moobnert Once again, I am not against criticizing him out for making such tweets nor wish to remove "on occasion", but if it was not for my arguing the part about his tweets were not an endorsement would not have been even added to the section, but including that and in the same time saying that he "supports" and is categorized as "denialists" is hypocritical excuse at best. The section from the beginning was made to push a narrative of a climate change denialist, that's more than obvious from revision history. The tweets do not show Peterson directly suggesting anything, that's pushing personal editors perception as truth. In this tweet he asks a question "Cooling into warming?", while in this the text "Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation & extinction due to C02" is copied from the article "...You heard it here. “Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation and extinction due to lack of CO2”. To use the analogy of the Atomic Clock...", these are not even his words, how can you accuse him of supporting&suggesting it? It's a fraud. Also, due to protection editors can't edit the article.--RationalP (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

No on will gain expertise in recognizing climate-change denialism by studying this article. The inclusion of this topic is just Fuzzy's kitchen-sink method of reproach. Those interested in Peterson's psychology are not likely to care about his financial interest in attracting support from the denialist faction of conservatives and contrarian skeptics. He is making a million a year from these sorts of people. Let's not clutch our pearls too tightly.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)