There is a tendency I noticed for university trained journalists (spin sisters) to try and lump Tate and Peterson together. Using their names in the same sentence, yet they are as similar to each other as chalk and cheese.
I’ve noticed that. I’ve also noticed that when they talk about, for example, growing “misogyny” they explain it as young men being “influenced” by Peterson and Tate, as if said young men were witless swallowers of others opinions, rather than thinking humans matching some theory with their own experiences and observations, and with exposure to competing theories.
There is a tendency I noticed for university trained journalists (spin sisters) to try and lump Tate and Peterson together. Using their names in the same sentence, yet they are as similar to each other as chalk and cheese.
I’ve noticed that. I’ve also noticed that when they talk about, for example, growing “misogyny” they explain it as young men being “influenced” by Peterson and Tate, as if said young men were witless swallowers of others opinions, rather than thinking humans matching some theory with their own experiences and observations, and with exposure to competing theories.
Young women, on the other hand, are having their “consciousness raised” by feminist lies.
Peterson is NOT a Tate fan and not shy about it, either. You might as well try and lump Emma Watson and J. K. Rowling together.
Haven't heard of Peterson being violent in any way. He's an academic.
Still doesn’t stop them from trying to paint him as a negative influence.
Nosir. Correct.