>>24476841
Ok good to see you're carefully ignoring my points and repeat your thrice-dismantled ones like your brain is stuck with some autistic loop error.
If you just want to be obtuse, so be it.
To say it one last time, as simply and autist-friendly as I can:
CLAIM: Petersons career was genuinely threatened and pointing to his stellar rise as a public figure is hindsight.
EVIDENCE:
1.There was a petition by a crowd of various people to fire him
2.There was a letter from the administration asking him not to aggravate minorities
3.It was cancel culture time
4.His grant application for previously approved research was refused
REFUTATION:
1.Petitions don't decide what happens to a tenured professor.
2.Neither do "letters of reprimand"; a uni admin asking a professor to behave is not a threat of firing. Your "meetings" are still made up and just as irrelevant.
3.Generic handwaving that has nothing much to do with the individual case. But feel free to point out a tenured professor who was fired(!) for problematic opinions at that time.
4.The only reasonable point; however, the proposal was not just for continuing a research program, but expanding it to include new topics, like investigating the effectiveness of his own for-profit enterprise (using taxpayer money). Thus, there is AT LEAST a non-conspiratorial possible explanation for the refusal, simple doubts about its worth and neutrality. All your appeals to what an amazing researcher he was before are near gambler's-fallacy level. Previous success doesn't guarantee grant approval, why else write applications? And you still seem to struggle with the distinction definite reason vs possibility. Here's another article where JP himself offers alternatives:
https://torontosun.com/2017/05/12/supporters-fund-u-of-t-professor-jordan-petersons-research
BUT, even assuming it was denied by a conspiracy of reviewers:
- his career and income as professor remained untouched
- he was already raking in patreon money
- Rebel crowdsourced the money for the first year in A DAY, and then for the second year. Wonder if he actually started the research btw, or what happened to that money.
Nothing about this is HINDSIGHT. He went on to grow into a superstar, but he was more than secure at that point already.
CONCLUSION:
Petersons career was not threatened other by what he paranoically perceived as threats, pointing to people disagreeing, complaining, and petitioning the uni as dangers on par with concrete administrative measures.
Financially, he immediately (not hindsight) profited from the controversy.
I already conceded that this indeed happened before the book sales, which is the only gotcha you have. Patreon alone makes this irrelevant.
Now, you can autistically repeat how you've convinced yourself you "won this debate", or just accept that your favorite substitute dad is a scummy performance artist overselling the dramas he's involved in.
