I dont think its a shame at all - that article is not the least bit well-argued. It goes pages before it quotes JP or in any way tries to debate his views. Her

I dont think its a shame at all - that article is not the least bit well-argued. It goes pages before it quotes JP or in any way tries to debate his views. Here are some excepts from this "well-argued article": >Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. >They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train. >A more important reason why Peterson is “misinterpreted” is that he is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is “actually saying.” Actually quotes JPs book, in what the author clearly thinks the reader will find is a confusing way (i dont) >But here I am already giving Peterson’s work a more coherent summary than it actually deserves. Note that i did not pull those out of context; there is no supporting evidence. the author just... says stuff. This is the opposite of well-written. It is ad-hominem after playground insult. there is no point counter-point or debate format of any kind. the author basically assumes you think JP is not meaningful and then makes fun of the way he speaks.