T Nation

Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro: Religion, Trans Activism, and Censorship


Yes, I heard her on Rogan’s podcast. She had some SERIOUS issues that were eliminated. It’s very fascinating from a diet perspective, but is more of a rare case than something for everyone. However, if you are having serious auto-immune issue, it’s interesting to see how an elimination diet could shed some light on what is causing the problems.


It’s not a word salad. Though taken out of context, it’s meaning is pretty understandable. It’s an argument for the necessity of a moral frame work. If you want word salad read some of the postmodernists. That is actual word salad, intentionally written to distract from the fact that it has no substance. It’s like the “artwork” of Marcel Duchamp, stick a urinal in the middle of an art gallery and dare you to say it isn’t art, which most people won’t because they are scared of looking like they “don’t get it”.

It’s also a marginally clever insult to call Peterson’s writings postmodernist, since he is so vocal in his criticism of postmodernists. But it’s an insult designed to appeal to those who already hate him.


Exactly. Objectively, his approach has methodological flaws but I’m sure his YT videos and 12 rules for life have helped many young adults.

If I had access to Peterson’s opus when I was young I could have saved myself from experiencing several really fucked up years in my life.

And when you’re dealing with a messed up teenager or a young adult, it’s not an optimal approach to say “Hey, you need to read Marcus Aurelius and stoics in general”.

What you need is bite sized philosophy to provide you with that “a-ha” moment, the initial insight to start the proverbial ball rolling and help you stop wallowing in self-pity or whatever else may be plaguing you.

And that’s his greatest benefit.


You’ve gotta remember, he does the whole carnivore diet thing because he suffers from a handful of autoimmune issues. He talks at length about it on a Rogan podcast.


Yeah, I mentioned that above. He isn’t advocating it as a zealot. He’s using it as a medicinal response to a family AI issue. Not the same thing at all.


I think I probably agree with Peterson on more issues, but I prefer Shapiro as a debater and a communicator.

I’ve actually been watching a lot from Shapiro recently, mostly because my initial gut response to some of his videos was that I didn’t like anything about him. I gave it some time and thought, and realized what I really didn’t like was how videos of him are being used, the captions other people put with his videos, etc. Like, I’ve never been a fan of ‘Watch this EPIC SLAM when Shapiro meets a FEMI NAZI ABORTION LOVER!’ Or whatever. That’s very off-putting, doesn’t do anything to further any conversations.

His arguments also initially annoyed me. The formula of most of his conversations are as follows: Shapiro is asked a question by some mindless left-leaning person who can barely put a sentence together, with no real capacity for argument, Shapiro easily wins the argument, and the audience applauds Shapiro. Meanwhile, I’m watching the video coming up with all the arguments I would be making that the doofus on screen can’t begin to formulate. That’s frustrating.

It’s also why I’ve come to like Shapiro. It’s a reason for the left to step up their game. I’m tired of seeing these tired, shitty, emotion-filled, fact-devoid arguments coming from so many on the left. The left needs sharper minds debating publicly. Shapiro is constantly winning debates without actually having a ton of facts on his side, because he just makes better arguments, and he’s quick to point out why others are making bad ones. He wins debates without having to make a point of his own.


The left has those minds; Shapiro won’t debate them. If Hitchins we’re still alive Shapiro wouldn’t go near him.


You assume a great deal of disagreement between the two? They agreed on abortion and foreign policy interventionism. Religion would be a major bone of contention, but Shapiro has debated Sam Harris on the topic. That’s hardly ducking opponents.


There are many reasons to question Shapiro’s positions, as you’ll generally get a boiler plate tea party answer for any question asked, but opponent dodging would not be the hill I’d die on.


He wouldn’t debate Hitchins on something they disagreed on. The religion debate isn’t a debate. It’s a can’t lose argument. Shapiro did not arrive at his beliefs via a scientific or logical pathway so you can’t use that to debate him. All pro divine being arguments always end with you can’t prove god doesn’t exist.


I think it would be more accurate just to call Peterson incoherent, but his word-saladism certainly reaks of postmodernism. Foucault and Judith Butler arenfar easier to understand than JBP. Peterson doesnt even understand postmodernism.

For the record, the Duchamp urinal artpiece is modernist. Postmodern art has a variety of forms, often pastiche. The pinnacle of postmodern architecture is Las Vegas, with its replicas of buildings from all over the world. Postmodernism doesnt seek to create anything new and it denies the existence of creative genius and it denies the possibility to create anything new. This desribes JBP very well.

Peterson is a charlatan and snake oil salesman and, frankly, it’s embarrassing and a testsment to human folly that anyone takes him seriously enough to love him or hate him for his “ideas.”

He has no new ideas. He is not even capable of giving coherent lectures on the figures or topics he lectures on. He is divisive only to the most beta and bluepilled members of society who cannot accept that there are differences between races and sexes.

Peterson is a blind alley leading a seemingly large number of young white men away from the truth and further into untruth. I seriously have to wonder why he gets so much attention and, at this point, money given how unimpressive and unoriginal he is.

Given mankind’s propensity to outsource its thinking to others, Peterson is neither the best, nor the worst man for that role. For those crying about misogyny, I suppose you dont have a problem with misandry and the the many ways men get an unfair deal in society?

Please, save your money. Think for yourselves. If you must outsource your thinking to others, find someone who has his own ideas!


Didn’t you just post a bunch of dumb shit about how unjustified the US’s intervention was in WW2?


He debated Sam Harris on a subject of disagreement (a close personal friend of Hitchens). So I’m struggling to see a debate he has ‘dodged.’

He certainly cannot debate the dead without absurdity.


This entire post is rife with logical fallacies and appeals to emotion. At no point do you offer anything other than your opinion, and a rather vague generalized opinion at that. You also aim to insult others as if you have some unique insight into “truth” At no point in this incoherent ramblings did you even approach an argument. We are all dumber for having read it and may God have mercy on your soul…


Probably shoulda just said muh logic


I like my way better. It’s more cathartic for me


Oh no I liked your post. I meant him. Woulda saved him a load of typing.


Gotcha … I read your post as saying I should’ve mocked his post by saying “muh feelings” (i.e. I read your post as tongue in cheek - which, in a way, it was)


That wasn’t a debatable subject.


You’re still going to have to give me a debate he’s dodged to convince me. That should not be hard, surely?