Hacker News Reader

Jordan Peterson is pretty much the definition of right wing nutjob by anyone who is not a men's right activist, cherry picking studies on invertebrate species to justify his philosophy. Just for that one topic we could bring in an actual expert on marine invertebrates to refute Jordan Peterson's foundations. https://twitter.com/baileys/status/997646354414522368

View on HN

"Oh I absolutely did not read the book and have no intention to do so. I find hate-reading to be a waste of my time." - your Expert

So, she is drastically misrepresenting and misunderstanding ONE point he made in ONE chapter of his book (hardly a foundation of his philosophy), and she openly admits to having never read his book, and that's the example you want to give? Interesting...

Can someone mansplain "hate-reading" to a layman?

Hate-reading, noun:

The act of reading a piece of writing by someone you dislike for political reasons and mentally discrediting them by refuting their arguments with specious or fallacious reasoning. Primarily undertaken in the conscious pursuit of confirmation bias.

If you really think Jordan Peterson is a right wing nut job then I just don't know what to say to that. And the fact that there are other reproductive behaviours besides the lobster one doesn't really disprove the point. You can observe the same behaviours (that of a male hierarchy of competition) all across nature. I find it interesting that the thread you quoted didn't actually deny the lobster thing either. Nor really show that the alternative mating/sex behaviours of other animals disprove the hierarchy thing. I mean, I'm skeptical of some of the things he says, but just claiming he is wrong doesn't make him so without something to back the claim up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com