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.

  • Bye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s because we live in an age where people use the tactic of “well I just like this one thing he said” as a gateway to awful shit.

    • Lafari@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yeah I understand, and that does probably happen a lot. But we also seem to live in an age where we assume the worst of people… so even though it’s possible to partly agree with someone while genuinely condemning other aspects of that person, people are somehow certain that others are using that as a gateway to awful shit, as you say. (Not talking about you, of course.)

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s not about assuming the worst, it’s more about being skeptical toward anonymous people on the Internet you don’t know, which I think is healthy.

        The problem with JP is that even if you agree with one of his positions, he has almost certainly arrived to that opinion through his other terrible assumptions. By sharing his take, you’re not just sharing the opinion you happen to agree with, you’re sharing the underlying worldview he uses to justify it.

        If you really do care about people assuming your support for him, you should use your own supporting arguments for the opinion you’re sharing instead of shoehorning his in.