Aidspiggery refers to a very specific group of arguments. Namely, those people resort to in order to try to get out of having to admit they are wrong.

Yes

@ETBrooD Well, AIDSPIGgery revers to "semiotic disorienteering", i.e focusing on the signifier instead of the signified.

And people who speak their mind about literally everything are not knowledgeable about many of those things

Basically: referring to the dictionary.

So by pure probability, they can only be aidspigs

Winning an argument with wordplay alone.

The thing about Sargon, and honest folks like him, is that they will probably admit to being an aidspig at times. Especially if you point it out to them politely and with suggestions on how to avoid it.

Sure, yeah

And Sargon ... well, Sargon isn't usually AIDSPIGging. I do remember quite some times he has been AIDSPIGged (Kristi Winters, Metokur, etc.)

Oh fucking hell yeah.

I can respect someone who mentions that his/her insight into X is not deep, and thus isn't out to teach people something about X, but just wants to speak about it

Sargon does that all the time, tho.

I guess he's better than most in that regard, but he does fall into the trap as well

Sometimes

But that isn't what the term is about.

The term is much more specific.

Watch the video again.

The 40 minute video?

Yes.

Waste of time

It's not.

Can be reduced to 5-10 minutes, then I watch it

AIDSPIG ALERT!

It's worth listening to. It's about improving yourself and not being AIDSPIG yourself.

lolwut

If someone can't bring the gist of a non-scientific message across in 5-10 minutes, that's not my problem

You're kinda heading toward aidspig land, with your refusal to watch it, to see what it's really about.

???

That's elitism nonsense

It's non-scientific, is it?

Peterson is the King of AIDSPIG.

Watch it, and then see that I was right and you were wrong.

If it's non-scientific, then a *concept* can be explained much faster

There's a reason why it's so long, though. There's a lot of groundwork to the concept that needs to be laid out, before he can get to the nitty-gritty.

Big doubt

It's based on the fact that language is fluid.

Watch it and find out, instead of pedantically arguing with us.

The gist of his argument can be reduced a lot, I'd bet half my net worth on that

If you've watched any of his videos (which I'm starting to doubt), then you'd know that's not how Mike works.

He makes tons of much shorter videos, what do you mean?