Peterson is getting all kinds of flack because he promotes critical thought and rejection of automatic acceptance of narratives. He doesn't say to reject those narratives but rather to think critically before accepting them and then if you can accept them to do so. He also promotes "personal responsibility" which is one of the biggest sins of the left this decade. This kind of critical thought isn't based on an emotional foundation as much as pure thought and so it must be rejected by the party which lets emotions rule the day.
This kind of "emotional rule" is very typical of the left which has been characterized as being more short sighted than republicans on more than one occasion. It gives them the reward of satisfying their emotions now instead of dealing with the long term effects of sticking with critical thought which would only pay off in the long run.
In other words, it's "How can you sleep at night" vs "How can you live with yourself" and I think that that's a critical distinction that a lot of people fail to recognize. There's not anything particularly wrong with either approach but the more immediate rewards for emotional thinking tend to create problems down the road and leads to a more reactionary response instead of dealing with issues long before they arise in a proactive way.
Peterson is getting all kinds of flack because he promotes critical thought and rejection of automatic acceptance of narratives. He doesn't say to reject those narratives but rather to think critically before accepting them and then if you can accept them to do so. He also promotes "personal responsibility" which is one of the biggest sins of the left this decade. This kind of critical thought isn't based on an emotional foundation as much as pure thought and so it must be rejected by the party which lets emotions rule the day.
This kind of "emotional rule" is very typical of the left which has been characterized as being more short sighted than republicans on more than one occasion. It gives them the reward of satisfying their emotions *now* instead of dealing with the long term effects of sticking with critical thought which would only pay off in the long run.
In other words, it's "How can you sleep at night" vs "How can you live with yourself" and I think that that's a critical distinction that a lot of people fail to recognize. There's not anything particularly wrong with either approach but the more immediate rewards for emotional thinking tend to create problems down the road and leads to a more reactionary response instead of dealing with issues long before they arise in a proactive way.
Peterson is getting all kinds of flack because he promotes critical thought and rejection of automatic acceptance of narratives. He doesn't say to reject those narratives but rather to think critically before accepting them and then if you can accept them to do so. He also promotes "personal responsibility" which is one of the biggest sins of the left this decade. This kind of critical thought isn't based on an emotional foundation as much as pure thought and so it must be rejected by the party which lets emotions rule the day.
This kind of "emotional rule" is very typical of the left which has been characterized as being more short sighted than republicans on more than one occasion. It gives them the reward of satisfying their emotions now instead of dealing with the long term effects of sticking with critical thought which would only pay off in the long run.
In other words, it's "How can you sleep at night" vs "How can you live with yourself" and I think that that's a critical distinction that a lot of people fail to recognize. There's not anything particularly wrong with either approach but the more immediate rewards for emotional thinking tend to create problems down the road and leads to a more reactionary response instead of dealing with issues long before they arise in a proactive way.