A brilliant breakdown of the current state of journalism and fake news.

[Louie]

Tulipanzo said:

Louie said:

If therapy against PTSD and sexual abuse sounds "too stupid" to you, hey - more power to you then! I mean, how stupid would it be to help people in need? Such a clown that Peterson guy. 

As for your second paragraph: What you say makes no sense. Here is the article I was referring to. The title (translated) is "Trump's dangerous manipulators". A lot of it is about Rubin who has nothing to do with the alt-right movement, except interviewing people from both the left and right. The article is behind a paywall, but seeing your "suggestion" I guess you already paid for their subscription service ;) I also read Spiegel regularly, so yeah... suggestion taken, I guess? It's usually a very good news publication by the way. 

First: clearly my point was that "enforced monogamy" Jordan Peterson and your Jordan Peterson are clearly two different people. More power to this extremely helpful homonymous guy.
Since the joke might have flown right over your head, I'm familiar enough with his works to know obvious deflection of what he does and why people actually give a toss about him. 
Spoiler alert: it's not because of philosophy or therapy

And second, you claimed Spiegel called him a leader of the alt-right, but reading the actual article, you see that their point his that he's an "illusionist", a useful pawn using a seemingly innocent "neutral" position to pass off his message as mainstream. 
Something which, btw, is dangerously closed to what you just did, misquoting an article in the hopes I wouldn't read it to make it seem like he was being unfairly targeted.

The point was that you wrote it sounded "too stupid" to be the same person. And I know that's not why people criticise him but that was exactly my original point: People do mainly a-political stuff most of the time, then say something that can be interpreted as politically not correct and are then put into the "alt-right" or "extremist" corner. 

Second: Clever, but you are the one who's misquoting something. Here is a screenshot of the original article as it was posted on the Spiegel website with a large picture of Dave Rubin slapped onto it, titled "Trumps army of demagogues", asking "who are its [the Alt-Right's) leaders?" The article also claims wrong things about Rubin. For example, it suggests Rubin is a Trump supporter but he actually supported Gary Johnson. You act as if that article was somehow fair, but it wasn't. It basically gives no evidence for its claims. For example, one of the two ex-Muslims Rubin interviewed, who are somehow proof he is part of the alt-right, was also interviewed by Rubin about Trumps "travel ban" - and criticised it. Calling people "illusionists" and suggesting they are pawns for extremism and strongly suggesting they are leaders of an extremist movement (see screenshot) without proof is a horrible kind of journalism that can be used to denounce anybody and that's exactly what the Spiegel reporter did. It's extremely heavy mission-driven story-telling, to use the wording of the video in the OP.