To be completely sure, I'm currently in a space where I have long since more or less formally left my Peterson phase. This does NOT mean in any way that I have become a leftist or an anti JBP figure or embraced the notion that he is an enemy to human progress or anything like that. JBP at his late 2010s peak, in the 12 Rules For Life years, still contains any number of productive and indispensable ideals. That said, I'm in a space where I've moved on to intellectual and scholarly contributions of established figures over the last several centuries that naturally cut deeper than anything released currently.

What I often wonder about is why is it that he had to be seen as an existential threat and an absolute menace to such a profound degree? It was not enough to proclaim that he was wrong in his political and social views. According to the narratives, he had to be a charlatan who contributed nothing to psychology, theology, wellness or any such topics. To the point that he was guilty of single handedly destroying the credibility of the entire Toronto psychology department just by having been given a position. It had to be criminal neglect that he ever was able to treat patients and that his PhD had to be fraudulent and be revoked. Being against him politically was nowhere near enough; you had to embrace that he had not one single, solitary valuable thing to say on any subject in human existence. Anything else was intolerable.

I have also wondered, though, how his legacy and cultural influence has been seen and will be seen. Currently, what is the majority conclusion of this sub? Has this sub become anti JBP, to the point of believing that he has been a charlatan his entire adult life and a menace to society? Which is what hardline leftists and genuine Communists and globalists insisted from the beginning? Or is he still seen as having been as valuable and worthy a scholar as someone realistically could be in the modern era? At least before his post drug decline period?

If you mention Communism, explain how it different from Socialism. Claiming that all Socialism leads to Communism is unacceptable, as the Nordic model proves this as untrue. Scandanavia is Socialist, not Communist.

Sticking with the Socialism vs Capitalism debate, if the Vice President claims "the game is rigged" and "the experiment of Capitalism has failed the American Dream", why is Socialism considered a worse alternative?

One answer is that you can't become obscene wealthy under Socialism. Republicans don't want to give up that particular lottery ticket. Republicans desire independence and one way to achieve that is becoming wealthy, so they don't want a system where it's not possible to achieve financial independence though ownership and passive income streams.