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.
The problem is that the example he’s focused on is someone who is at their lowest point looking to recover. That specific person does not want to hear they’re fine because they’re crying for help and saying they’re fine is essentially ignoring their cries.
But consider instead someone who feels like a failure, feels like they’ll never be good enough, that they’re too weak (common depression symptoms.) Telling them that they need to try to be better is counterproductive as it may reinforce their negative feelings. They instead need to be told that they are strong, and the issue is that they’re likely trying to carry the whole world on their shoulders and they need to be easier on themselves.
Peterson is giving one size fits all advice rather than taking the time to listen to people who are looking for help. In doing so, he’s ignoring anyone who doesn’t fit into his specific archetype. The real advice should be to meet people where they’re at, listen to what they need, and work with them to meet those needs.