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.

  • ilmagico@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year 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.