-14

Why do people not understand that you can agree with one thing someone said or did while disagreeing with the majority of what they stand for? (www.youtube.com)

submitted 9 months ago by Lafari@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

An example is that I generally despise Jordan Peterson and most of what he says, but I often quote one thing that Jordan Peterson said (in the linked video) because I think it's a good summary of why toxic positivity doesn't work.

People (who hate JP) freak out when I quote him and say "Why tf are you quoting Jordan Peterson? Are you a insert thing that Jordan Peterson is?" And I'm like "No, I generally disagree with him on most points, aside from this one thing." But they don't believe or accept it and assume that I must be a #1 Jordan Peterson fan or something.

I think it can be considered a partial agreement, majority disagreement. Or a partial agreement with a person you generally disagree with. But I'd be open to other terms of how to describe this in a way people can understand.

Also, to avoid the controversy of referencing Jordan Peterson, if anyone has a better summary of the same concept explained by a different person in a way as well as he does, that would be appreciated too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ilmagico@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

That's because you're on the internet, and nuance doesn't exist. It requires thinking, which is hard.

Note: I don't know JP and don't have an opinion on him (yet). I'm responding only to the question in the title.

[-] u_tamtam@programming.dev 3 points 9 months ago

I mean, the internet was fine until the advent of global "engagement-driven social networks" that practically became filter bubbles optimizing for ads delivery, then echo chambers for political gain, down to self-sustained propaganda machines for geopolitical sabotage. Early internet felt like village-scale communities centered around a single purpose/interests where people came in the first place to contribute something or help each other. Trolls did exist but there was no tolerance for them because the absence of centralization meant they didn't have to be accepted there in the first place.

[-] pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 9 months ago

nuance doesn't exist

I think it's a little more nuanced than that...

this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023

-14 points (37.9% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26282 readers

1282 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.