[quote=Sedai][quote=Iroquois]If I were more optimistic, perhaps.[/quote]

Peterson covers this, too. I dunno, you might give his latest book a shot, even if just to arm yourself better against the guy during these arguments. Some of the stuff he says is interesting, even if he prattles on a bit too much in places.[/quote]

[quote=Velvet]also I remember saying I would post pics of my dog but didnt. I shall soon[/quote]

[quote=Velvet]I definitely didn't understand a single word from the iro-yoda debate. 

10 out of 10 would read again[/quote]

[quote=The Rodent]Change of subject... is it odd, cruel, funny or something else... that my usually noisy budgie goes extremely quiet when I cook chicken?[/quote]

[quote=Austruck]TLDR: Typically, unless you're inciting violence, you should be allowed to say anything, even if it makes you look like an a-hole.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda]Also, much more general thought, not directed at you specifically:

I think, if we actually value discourse, we need to allow people a lot more leeway to express and iterate ideas in public. This particular comment, when properly understood, is totally unobjectionable and closer to boringly obvious than dangerous, but anyone who talks and thinks a lot in public is going to say something a little off or ill-advised sometimes. That should be okay, at least to a point. A society which is specifically looking for misstatements to pounce on (particularly if everyone is only applying that level of scrutiny to people they disagree with) is being actively hostile to serious thought, because serious thought is the result of trial and error and correction.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda]The main thing is that our opinions are our own and formed after hearing the best each side has to offer, as opposed to just being received from some clickbaity headline.[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois]Fortunately, I seem to be getting a whole new set of curated sources to help me figure this out.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda]I don't understand how "he should know how it would sound" is supposed to be a meaningful intellectual critique, anyway. Kinda reminds me of when someone criticizes a politician not because they say or do something wrong, but because "it looks bad." Tell me why it [i]is[/i] bad. If your supposed intellectual objection is about [i]optics[/i] then it's no objection at all.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda][quote]What's important is that this exchange isn't the only thing that matters[/quote]
Again, was not complaining about the delay, was pointing out its likely relationship to the opinion.

[quote]it doesn't help that the main times I hear about Peterson are less when he delivers some sage advice and more[/quote]
Yeah, this is precisely what I thought the response was based in: vague, second-or-thirdhand stuff from probably curated sources.

[quote]suggesting "enforced monogamy" (which he admittedly walked back but still, for such an intellectual he ought to have known how that would sound to people)[/quote]
He didn't walk it back. He explained that the people who were mad at it were ignorant of an academic term, which is true. The term refers to a general cultural support for monogamy, not whatever overwrought Handmaideny dystopian fantasies popped in people's heads when they heard the word "enforced."[/quote]

[quote=Iroquois][quote=Yoda]Huh? That's a non-sequitur. As I just explained, the rhetorical question wasn't a complaint about waiting. It was a suggestion that the original opinion probably wasn't especially well-informed.[/quote]

Huh, and here I was about to say that the David Cross thing was admittedly a bit of a non sequitur (at least in retrospect, if not necessarily by design).[/quote]