You are right, I should have addressed that: I don't agree with his idea of enforced monogamy making men less violent. I think it's a stupid idea and would be strongly against it. That doesn't mean he's a loon, though. It means he's said something stupid / wrong and other things that are correct. And I'm sure Peterson has a large following because of his work as he had a following before the political controversy regarding him - he just got way more popular afterwards because he is now in the spotlight. 

Bad journalism by a reputable magazine is simply that: Bad. I don't have to resort to anything, I was referring to the original version of the article all along and the article does strongly suggest that Rubin is a leader of the alt-right movement, just look at the screenshot. If I put a picture of your face next to that article and text, everyone would assume you are a leader of the alt-right movement. This article claimed lots of stuff that simply isn't true. I gave you the evidence, you dismissed it - so I guess we disagree on it. I don't even know what you are suggesting I apparently believe in, enforced monogamy? You are doing the exact same thing I was criticising in my original response to you: Rapidly putting people into an "extremist" corner without enough evidence. But I guess that's highly dependent on where one stands politically.

So let's keep it at this: We agree to disagree and part our ways. Because we can keep replying to each other for dozens of posts and it's not gonna get us anywhere. Originally, I just wanted to point out that Peterson does a lot of good stuff, too and was labeled "extremist" too quickly. It was not my intention to get into an hour-long discussion and I'm sure there are many people out there who actually do deserve the label extremist, alt-right, radical left, etc. It was an interesting discussion, anyways - I appreciate it and I appreciate you actually read the article I was talking about regarding Dave Rubin. 

Joke?

Please say you're joking...

I actually feel like he gave you a detailed answer and did the wise thing and agreed to disagree when he saw the discussion wasn't going anywhere (as I suggested you do in the previous discussion we had). 

You're just being needless aggressive with this stuff, I'd say. He doesn't have to address every point you make. He's been reasonable with you, and even if you don't like his methods, he's remained cordial. 

Trump’s reading comprehension borders on illiteracy. So when he reads an article, he doesn’t internalize anything they’re saying and skips the words that are too difficult. Then, in his mind, develops the story into something it’s not.

Then all the other outlets are pretty bad, then. Being the best is not indicative of the actual quality of the news outlet. Here's an example of how CNN spun the news about Kanye West and netted only a 32% integrity rating on The Knife Media. In fact, CNN very rarely gets over a 60% integrity rating.

I agree that story could have been better covered. I did say they weren't completely unbiased.I don't think there's any network that is completely unbiased.

But, you see, those were opinion pieces. The facts themselves were accurately reported. It was the interpretation that was biased. If you ask me, this is the consequence of reporting twitter as news. Though faced with attacks from a lying president, it is not difficult to understand they will retaliate when they can as well. This Kanye stuff is completely subjective.

But you know, if you are gonna judge them in one story, what about all the times Trump called them Fake news and they were accurate/correct? So, we can't really compare water to oil, imo.

And there are different degrees of "incomplete unbias". A 32% integrity rating is not good and as I said already, CNN rarely gets over 60%.

The "It's just an opinion, man" argument is also weak. CNN does not differentiate between opinion and fact, as their headline says "#IfSlaveryWasAChoice marks bad week for Kanye West". "Bad week" is subjective. The Knife Media also stated that CNN implied that Kanye's remarks are problematic without explaining their reasoning. There are differences between a well-supported opinion, a badly-supported opinion, and in this case, an unsupported opinion.

I'm also not judging CNN on one story. Note that I said "Here's an example of" and how CNN usually gets low integrity ratings. So you are effectively making a strawman fallacy. And what about Trump? That's a moot point. We're talking about CNN and Trump is not CNN. Oh, I see. If you can't make a convincing counterargument, sway the conversation to another topic with an unsupported assertion. As a matter of fact, I have the perfect Knife Media article for you.

You can see that Trump's tweets have low integrity, but that doesn't excuse CNN and the other mentioned outlets from being guilty of being opinionated and slanted in what are supposed to be reports/observations. To quote an example of CNN's lack of objective reporting from The Knife Media:

"Trump is clearly stating his opinion via his tweets. Yet news outlets, if they purport to be publishing objective journalism, lose the luxury of expressing opinion as fact. Yet many slip in their own opinion, and when they do some readers may not distinguish it from the facts. Here’s an example from CNN:

But even those occasions [upcoming meetings Trump has with four heads of state] are unlikely to divert the President’s mind from the ever-expanding controversies. Seemingly by the day, the legal distractions have mounted. And next week will provide little respite.

This is the outlet’s opinion and speculation about what might or might not “distract” Trump from his duties. Did CNN attribute this to a verifiable source? No. Did it back its opinion with data? No. Those are two questions that can easily set fact apart from fiction."

An honor to work with CNN indeed....