>If you believe that so strongly that you can assert I have never read anything by him, then we have nothing to discuss. The argument isn't winnable. faizshah,

>If you believe that so strongly that you can assert I have never read anything by him, then we have nothing to discuss. The argument isn't winnable. faizshah, you're making absolutely no sense here. I asserted no such thing. Here are my exact words. "I don't believe that you have ever read or written a documented quote of Jordan Peterson that a reasonable person would consider extreme." >If you just take for example his views on race and IQ, he holds a classic far right wing view that no reasonable person would call a moderate, centrist or left view. That is a ridiculous, false, and completely unsupportable statement. Which is why you offered nothing to support it. Pure hand-waving. >The Damore memo is another great example, defenders will never accept that Damore's key argument was that "the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership" To the contrary, I will indeed accept that is his main argument. It may be right, or it may be wrong, but it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. And now Google, and the left in general, are the Catholic Church to Damore's Galileo. It's not enough to disagree with him, and they will not engage him in debate. They have to punish him for his heresy and bar any and all discussion of his ideas. (E.g., every story about Damore gets quickly flagged into oblivion here on HN.)