Considering the way the average online moron fawns over guys like Peterson, Molyneux, Sam Harris, etc...

Considering the way the average online moron fawns over guys like Peterson, Molyneux, Sam Harris, etc., just how hard can it be to be a public intellectual? This isn't even new, they're all essentially doing exactly what Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw did in Britain at the beginning of the 20th Century. So how do you pull it off? Is there a formula?

The main difference is that Shaw and Chesterton weren't cretins. The comparison should be more in the line of Roger Scrotun and Chomsky.

>Chomsky
Why are all the mental midgets on Veeky Forums constantly triggered by this guy?

I think Peterson seems to know his limits better than Molyneux or Harris do, and it pays off. He has been humbled by most writers he recommends, and you can hear this in his speeches.

I think their success is more about someone else doing things in public we want to do, as opposed to them being revolutionary thinkers.

He is the go-to figure you invoke if you want to be accepted in Veeky Forums cool kids' club. Or was, until it became hip to hate the guy.

I personally find him, in his political writings banal and partisan. Didn't read his linguistics.

Seriously what do you think is wrong with Peterson. I appreciate all his stuff, you just don't like him because he's a pop philosopher? He's nothing like fucking Molymeme or Harris.

>he really needs to ask this question after it has been answered a thousand times in a thousand threads over the past year alone
Are you trying to start an autistically contrarian flame war or are you just new to the board?

maybe because he's a dimwit who every trilby-wearing latte-sipping pseud refers you to as this great genius solely because every other member of his caste referred him in the same way

>no actual critique of his work
>HUR HE BOBULAR AN SHIET
?

OP didn't say anything about his opinion of the people he mentioned, just their online fanbases. Good job confirming his thoughts.

He's terrifying to conservatives because he's everything they can never be but wish they were; high IQ, as well read as pretty much anyone. Conservatives really and truly know that the chosen people are blessed in the eyes of God, He gave them IQ and smarts and gave the poor goy nothing but microweiners and chubby women who love balck men lol

he's not particularly popular, he's just the go-to leftist for intellectually bankrupt poseurs such as yourself

>I personally find him, in his political writings banal and partisan.

is really all there is to say about his "work"

>my political opponents have low IQ
You sound like /pol/.

>why do you dislike chomsky?
>he a dimwit
>trillby latte pseuds like him
>you a stupid poseur
Compelling case.

it's hard. being fake, branding, marketing, etc. isn't easy. unless you're an attractive woman.

They are born in it, molded by it. They don't see reality until the menopause hits.

Harris and Molyneux are charlatans and sophists par excellence
Peterson has displayed his humbleness and willingness to learn from others more than once. He's not trying to sell the image of an invincible debater

>my internet dad is a pretty cool guy
>eh humble and doesn't afraid of anything

both statements are correct

Peterson is competent within the realm of giving good advice to weak people and analyzing archetypes.

In everything else he has proven himself retarded. He is trying to go into fields beyond his capability. For instance his discussion of post-modernism.

Get with the times, gramps. It's now cool to shit on Chomsky and post-ironically like Zizek.

>Good at what he does
>What he does is read all the fore-runners of post-modernist thought
>What he does is study marxism
>What he does is study the capacity for human error and evil
>What he does is understand the human experience from a semiotic, cross cultural, mythic, and phenomenological perspective
>Bad at post-modernism
Wut?

If it were easy, why are you here?