I watched him interview Zeena Schreck.

He has always been conservative, sometimes in a precariously sexist way. He doesn't like the idea of the modern female. His views are more along the lines of how the wife should be the husband's caterer. I like some trad principles around honing loyalty and till death do us part, those sort of things but Jordan's views are way too 1950ish.

I can't watch or listen to anything for long by him. He annoys me immensely. Something about the underlying energy.

I couldn't care less what Lobster boy thinks about anything.

Yeah he shouldn't have access to microphone or any recording equipment

The guy rules. Here he is debunking the myths of patriarchy and male privilege:

[media=https://youtu.be/8w4OXOXDcNM?t=1]

He is mostly right.

What I think is that I heard his name a couple times before so he's probably a podcaster, and we need to ban podcasts already so that people will have to create their own thoughts again.

He has very conservative opinions on most issues and is a sell out to a conservative news platform.
He tries to sound profound by creating long sentences and using specific vocabulary but if you actually listen to him he talks a lot of nonsense.

I think he attributes and focuses on value and responsibility due to his focus on suffering and exploration of it. It's the basis for his philosophy.

It happens to fall in line with conservative ideas.

I feel he could have gotten to his point sooner and I am bothered by the leather inlays in his cloth sports jacket. That being said, I like the way he defined marriage as a "great burden and responsibility."

Institutions are for review and change -. Unless you're in a no thinking, capitalist country.
Take what you get.

i fall asleep every time before he arrives at a point... 😴

What I think about Jordan Peterson's thoughts on (insert any of his opinions here) is that he's a blatant con man following a script.

Peterson is an idiot on just about everything.

Jordan Peterson is too dumb to feed himself.

He’s very good a sounding as if he’s being profound, but I find him to be a sloppy thinker who struggles with making simple points, seemingly by design.

Noam Chomsky does the same, relying on semantics to seem profound.