>>24512639
I noticed Peterson defenders never talk about his ideas. They talk about him as a person. They talk about his supposed stances in the abstract like caring about boys. They can, like OP vaguely handwave about what he (supposedly) talks about.
But they don’t actually employ any ideas of his. They don’t quote him. They never show up in a general thread with some brilliant insight to a question provided by Peterson.
He exists more like a totem for them to project their ideals upon than derive any wisdom from. If they even read any of his books they certainly didn’t learn anything from them they can apply. They can only insist on the value of the person and ideas.
In this way he occupies the space of a political figure, not a philosopher or thinker.
