I honestly could not give you a good response because you have made this complete alternative universe for yourself in which you inhabit.

You have convinved yourself of such a long list of wacky ideas that trying to untangle that seems like an impossible job. And what exactly is there to argue? You don't connect your claims to anything clearly observable in the world. You don't cite any research, any data or well known fact.

You simple make some unfounded claims about fathers, feminized men and lots of other oddball stuff. What exactly am I supposed to reply that. All I could see was somebody who seemed to have overread somebody like Jordan Peterson, because it reminded me of his rants. And surprise, surprise, I wasn't wrong was I? You got very touchy about me having negative remarks about Jordan Peterson.

Obviously the man must be a genius because he has 4 million followers. I wonder how smart that makes Mao or Lenin. Quantity is not a substitute for quality.

You are making the classical logical fallacy of appealing to authority. You believe somebody to be right because they sell a lot of books and have a lot of followers. That their ideas are often absolute bonkers is apparently of no importance.

But Jordan Peterson is a followed of pseudo science. He is a disciple of Karl Jung which is a tons of New Age nonsense which has little to nothing to do with that modern neuroscience has told us about how the brain operates.

This leads Jordan Peterson to make the most bizzare claims, because the guys doesn't really know any real science. He talks about power hierarchies and make comparisons with lobsters and humans. He goes on to talk about how anti-depressants work on lobsters.

He doesn't get that neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonine serve entirely different functions in lobsters as in humans. https://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489

Jordan Peterson acts like a paranoid guy who sees a Marxis conspiracy around every corner. Of course this stuff will appeal to a lot of people just like Donald Trump appealed to a lot of angry guys of limited intellect.

Trump has even a larger following than Jordan Peterson. Does that make him smart, insightful or worth taking advice from?

You seem to take it very personal that scientists are leftist. I did not say scientists are leftist because they are smarter, but rather because doing science requires a person to be open minded and challenge conventions. Conservatism is the anthisesis of that. Conservatism is about sticking to what you know. To avoid change. It is to place specific value on things being traditonal or having been done in a particular way for a long time.

To a conservative because a women has traditionally stayed home, watched kids and cooked dinner she should keep doing that. Never mind that society gets trasformed economically, technologically and socially.

People like Jordan Peterson are nostalgic about a romantecized past where men were men and women were women. It is these guys who have a fetish about the 1950s.

They ignore the people trapped in unhappy marriages. Children who got abused, because well... you just didn't talk about what happened within the four walls of a home. Rampant racism.

For all the flaws of our current society, it is mostly better than the past. Admittedly I do at times miss the world before the internet and smartphones.

For your information I am not really a socialist, but I don't consider it a slur, so by all means keep calling me one if it makes you feel great.

It is strange that you assume that I rank myself relative to Jordan Peterson. I don't have a habit of ranking myself relative to public personas. Is that something you do? Do you tell yourself: "I am better than this guy, he is such an idiot!"

Such thoughts would imply that I believe that my words should somehow carry weight because I believe I am better than someone. That is the anthisesis of what I believe in. I have always told my children that they should never take anything for granted that an person in authority tells them, including me. Always think for yourself. Anybody can be wrong even highly intelligent people.

John von Neumann was one of the most intelligent people who ever lived. Yet he had this wacky idea in the 1950s that the US should just immediately go ahead and nuke the USSR. I argued it was guranteed that they would nuke the US first. But the USSR fell apart before they got to nuke anyone.

Elon Musk, one of the smarts guys around today claimed at the onest of COIVD19 in the US that it would be down to zero in a month later. Since then about a million people have died. He made a serious of other equally idiotic and wrong claims about COIVD19.

Really smart people get lots of things spectacularly wrong at times. It is puzzling and a bit disconcerning, but psychologists Daniel Kahneman has explained a lot of why that happens in his Thinking, Fast and Slow.

Bottom line is that I have come to believe that you cannot simply turn some smart guy into some kind of God and think they are right all the time. They can be really wrong even if they are smarter than your, more virtuous than you etc.

That is why I believe in scientific consensus and listening to a variety of views and opinions. But those opinions have to be built on some sort of foundation.

But your ideas don't seem to be built on any particular foundation other than that you are it appears really afraid of socialism.

We have had socialists in power for something like 70 years in Norway where I live and the same can be said about many other Nordic countries. They are just not as crazy and scary as you think. But sure when all you chose to read about socialism is about Stalin and Gulags then I suppose it seems very scary.

You call me snarky, but part of the reason for it was your judgmental tone. You pass judgement on people you don't really know. You don't know anything about my experience or attachment or detachment to life.

It would not surprise me if I have a lot more life experience than you, because you speak as someone with a very narrow experience of life. Someone who has lived all his life in a bubble. You try to make universal claims about experiences you had inside your little bubble, bu the world outside of it is a lot bigger and more varied than you think.