The Intellectual Wank Dad [ ot ] jordan peterson Jordan Peterson JORDAN PETERSON

[Mandark]

https://twitter.com/dril/status/987936547549974528

[team filler]

[Momo]

[Assimilate]

clearly an uncle tom.  you won't fool us filler but nice try   


It is funny though.. people keep trying to get Peterson but he keeps annihilating fools. How long until The Bore and Ree lose their shit over this guy?

I wish etoilet was here to enjoy this 

[Oblivion]

I thought Peterson's reaction totally proved Dyson's point that for all the BS the Right spews about PC being a bad thing, the truth is they desire nothing more than PC, just...for themselves (as with everything in life).

Fry's arguments were nonsensical too. On the one hand, he was arguing that people should be allowed to say whatever they want without worrying about people's feelings, while also somehow simultaneously making the case that the reason gay rights were able to succeed in England was because....people were polite about it and not yelling or being mean.

You're having a debate with someone and you call them an "angry white man" Imagine if he called him an 'angry black man' what good is that going to do? You're trying to put a person in a corner based on whatever group they are in. That's problematic. No one is debating he can't say those things if he wants to say them. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.

The point is that he got triggered when he was called something he was incredibly sensitive too. This honestly isn't difficult.

And it's not the right spewing anything, many liberals, centrists  are saying Pc is a bad thing.

Yes, but all three of those groups have a different idea of what PC is.

Peterson pointed out multiple times that when the right does PC it's also bad.

Oh, well shit 

But it does no good when you start playing these word games, and these group identity politics bullshit that is severely hindering any type of honest conversation.

Yes, non-identity politics related "honest conversations" like what percentage of Mexicans are rapists, murderers and drug dealers?

edit: And let me point something out to you Oblivion. When Dyson kept saying "well, it's you, it's the right that put people into groups, making it racial"

The "you" part is problematic. Who the fuck was he talking to? Peterson even said it at one point pissed off like "Who is you??" Dyson's stance was that Peterson and Fry being white guys somehow should hold the brunt of the responsibility during the debate just because they were white guys. That's ridiculous.

Sounds like you didn't understand Dyson's point at all.

Peterson spent most of his career (has he pointed out) talking about the tyrannical right. He's in total agreement with Dyson on that point and yet Dyson did not understand it, he couldn't grasp that Peterson fights against group identity politics on both sides and just kept goign at him as if he was some republican candidate.

Serious question: does shit like this ever work on anyone? By that, I mean trying to brag about a person's non-shitty positions even though you yourself don't give a shit about said non-shitty position(s), and are a fan of said person for the exact OPPOSITE positions?

Like, I'm honestly surprised you haven't pointed out that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican at this point.

[agrajag]

Ass is now a Jordan Peterson historian all of a sudden

 

[HardcoreRetro]

. How long until The Bore and Ree lose their shit over this guy?

It's funny, because the only guy in here completely losing it so far was on your side.

[Brehvolution]

[Rufus]

The 2nd part is now out.

[Assimilate]

I thought Peterson's reaction totally proved Dyson's point that for all the BS the Right spews about PC being a bad thing, the truth is they desire nothing more than PC, just...for themselves (as with everything in life).

Fry's arguments were nonsensical too. On the one hand, he was arguing that people should be allowed to say whatever they want without worrying about people's feelings, while also somehow simultaneously making the case that the reason gay rights were able to succeed in England was because....people were polite about it and not yelling or being mean.

You're having a debate with someone and you call them an "angry white man" Imagine if he called him an 'angry black man' what good is that going to do? You're trying to put a person in a corner based on whatever group they are in. That's problematic. No one is debating he can't say those things if he wants to say them. I'm not sure what the confusion is here.

The point is that he got triggered when he was called something he was incredibly sensitive too. This honestly isn't difficult.

And it's not the right spewing anything, many liberals, centrists  are saying Pc is a bad thing.

Yes, but all three of those groups have a different idea of what PC is.

Peterson pointed out multiple times that when the right does PC it's also bad.

Oh, well shit 

But it does no good when you start playing these word games, and these group identity politics bullshit that is severely hindering any type of honest conversation.

Yes, non-identity politics related "honest conversations" like what percentage of Mexicans are rapists, murderers and drug dealers?

edit: And let me point something out to you Oblivion. When Dyson kept saying "well, it's you, it's the right that put people into groups, making it racial"

The "you" part is problematic. Who the fuck was he talking to? Peterson even said it at one point pissed off like "Who is you??" Dyson's stance was that Peterson and Fry being white guys somehow should hold the brunt of the responsibility during the debate just because they were white guys. That's ridiculous.

Sounds like you didn't understand Dyson's point at all.

Peterson spent most of his career (has he pointed out) talking about the tyrannical right. He's in total agreement with Dyson on that point and yet Dyson did not understand it, he couldn't grasp that Peterson fights against group identity politics on both sides and just kept goign at him as if he was some republican candidate.

Serious question: does shit like this ever work on anyone? By that, I mean trying to brag about a person's non-shitty positions even though you yourself don't give a shit about said non-shitty position(s), and are a fan of said person for the exact OPPOSITE positions?

Like, I'm honestly surprised you haven't pointed out that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican at this point.

You're now trying to insinuate what my positions are? and what i actually think? nice. Something about radical leftists that they do this shit a lot....

watch the video filler posted.

Poor assimilate must be exhausted having to play contrarian for every single post just to keep this going

Contrarian to the bore maybe because it's filled with a bunch of soft ass pussies

[Oblivion]

You're now trying to insinuate what my positions are? and what i actually think? nice. Something about radical leftists that they do this shit a lot....

I don't need to "insinuate" anything, dude. You're putting them on full display.

[Assimilate]

You're now trying to insinuate what my positions are? and what i actually think? nice. Something about radical leftists that they do this shit a lot....

I don't need to "insinuate" anything, dude. You're putting them on full display.

Riiiiiight. Now you guys need to put more effort this is getting boring.

[curly]

https://twitter.com/cyborg_blog/status/999359105176428544

[CatsCatsCats]

Consider this my vote for hall of faming this turd bucket

[shosta]

[agrajag]

Is that really him? What a dum dum

[Mandark]

Has anyone written anything comparing the IDW to the early 00's "warbloggers?"

Cause it feels like there's enough parallels to make it worthwhile: semi-credentialed autodidacts using new-ish media to circumvent the old gatekeepers, generally hostile to Islam, predominantly (but not exclusively) center-right white guys who try to avoid the labels of partisan politics, etc.

Of course the audience for a piece like that is basically "people who remember Steven Den Beste" so...

[shosta]

This is even more annoying for me because his ine lecture on nazism as orderliness and disgust response gone mad was really illuminating as an example of pathological personality amplification in a society, so I know he's got way better takes than "if only the Nazis were real Christians". It's annoying but completely predictable that he'd throw out such a lazy response like that instead of conceding that his half-assed shtick about atheists "not really being atheists" might be wrong.

[agrajag]

IDW, IWD 

[shosta]

Has anyone written anything comparing the IDW to the early 00's "warbloggers?"

Cause it feels like there's enough parallels to make it worthwhile: semi-credentialed autodidacts using new-ish media to circumvent the old gatekeepers, generally hostile to Islam, predominantly (but not exclusively) center-right white guys who try to avoid the labels of partisan politics, etc.

Of course the audience for a piece like that is basically "people who remember Steven Den Beste" so...

why can't you let me live this down

[agrajag]

I think his whole "atheists aren't really atheists" schtick is so contingent on redefining terms that it's just a waste of time trying to even engage him on. I mean, this dude came up with his own definition of truth.

[shosta]

I understand the points he's trying to make if I tilt my head sideways and apply enough cocaine to my nostrils, but he could, you know, use different words instead of turning everything into a lexicographic jousting session. Like instead of saying truth, say "the truth about the lived experience". Or whatever.

[agrajag]

I mean it's kind of annoying to try to have a discussion with an annoying pest that refuses to even make the slight concession to you that you are, in fact, what you identify as (an atheist in this case). Maybe that's why people like etoilet gravitate towards him, because he believes he operates on a higher plane of understanding than everyone else. Reminds me of arguing with religious fundamentalists on Myspace forums circa 2002 or so.

[agrajag]

I really mean it. I used to have arguments all the time with Christian fundies who would say shit like "you can't be an atheist because you have a sense of morality and morality comes from God," he isn't breaking any new ground in that regard.

[shosta]

It comes from a place of arrogance. People spend so much time coming up with a narrative they think is so clever and interesting that they refuse to abandon it because they're attached to it. The solution to that of course is to have an abundance of interesting thoughts.

[Mandark]

Let's switch gears and roast Sam Harris for a bit. This is the thing that got me thinking of those old warbloggers:

There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weapons? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own . . .

How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a global genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world's population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher's stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen.

He wrote this in 2004 but he was defending it at least a decade later.

What jumps out at me is how this was such a common meme on the right at the time: deterrence won't work because Muslims don't care if they die. This was all over blogs and comment sections and forum posts, from people who would talk about sharia law, dhimmitude, taqiyya, etc. Even if you hedge this with "well not all Muslims believe this, but lots do," the argument still relies on grossly exaggerating the number of Muslims who act with the logic of suicide bombers.

There's also this one:

The demographic trends are ominous: Given current birthrates, France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow.

That gives us a target date of 2031. They did not stop immigration, and the current Muslim population is 5-10%.

So there's this whole "I'm just stating the facts!" shtick while botching the facts and consistently exaggerating the physical and cultural threat posed by Muslim people, then he turns around and cries about "Islamophobia" being a made-up word that doesn't reflect anything in real life. The most charitable interpretation is basically a bad case of Dunning-Kruger.

[agrajag]

Couldn't his faulty logic be applied to Japan as well, and their kamikaze bombers in WW2?

[thisismyusername]

I'm more interested in pointing out the behavior here of people towards incels. Incels are downtrodden people. Not every one is a madman. Most are just socially awkward and starving for confidence. Many just may not be good looking. These are people who likely got bullied a lot and this forum sees them as their own bullying target. It takes a real piece of shit to want to hate on the already beat down. But that's what this place is about. A bunch of meek people looking for anything or anyone they can be above so they can step all over them.

Lmao. So this is E-toliet's "I'M GONE NOW (TOTALLY FOR REAL GUYS, HONEST!)" Himu post.

Bitch, Incels are like Rah: They hate women because they didn't lose their virginity on a milestone time-table for themselves, and don't course-correct. They are RIGHTLY mocked for good reasons.

Rah, bless his heart, at least seems to realize that he was sounding like them, went soul-searching and seems to be improving. A lot of these incels double-down and never look in a mirror. They don't deserve pity, they deserve a good hard slap across their face when they go "I'm going to go to this party to lose my virginity before I hit 22 otherwise I'm going to gun down a town!" because they don't realize how ridiculous and unfuckable they sound.

[Oblivion]

[Steve Contra]

I finally listened to Jordan Peterson actually speak and his opinions aside you have to have no fucking life to put up with listening to the guy's voice for longer than say, 20 seconds.

[agrajag]

So he admits he's just spit-balling?

 


...


 

[Mandark]

Couldn't his faulty logic be applied to Japan as well, and their kamikaze bombers in WW2?

Yup! You could also extend the logic to basically any soldier asked to place their life at risk in the service of what they believe to be a greater cause.

The thing is, we have an actual historical record we can look at. By the time he wrote that, Iran had an Islamist government for 25 years and hadn't acted in the way he was predicting.

What's ironic is the second paragraph of his I quoted talks about the response from other Muslim countries to a US nuclear strike, saying the risk would come from them misreading US motives as implacably hostile rather than as self-preservation, and that botched analysis would lead the world deeper into a nuclear war. He's so close to figuring something out, which is that's exactly what he's doing here: assuming that an Islamist country would be implacably hostile and justifying a nuclear strike against it on those grounds.

Have I mentioned how salty I am about the JCPOA situation?

[Mandark]

ahahah "If you have a better idea, put it forward."

I got you, b.

[Assimilate]

I really mean it. I used to have arguments all the time with Christian fundies who would say shit like "you can't be an atheist because you have a sense of morality and morality comes from God," he isn't breaking any new ground in that regard.

Honest question did you accomplish anything else from that time till now? I hope you've done something with your life other than argue online endlessly

[Oblivion]

So he admits he's just spit-balling?

 


...


 

I can't tell what's better about that quote. The fact that he came up with the theory based on some pseudo-scientific book by a guy who believes that shamans have actual spiritual power, or that he didn't make a "claim" just a "tentative hypothesis".

[agrajag]

So he admits he's just spit-balling?

 


...


 

I can't tell what's better about that quote. The fact that he came up with the theory based on some pseudo-scientific book by a guy who believes that shamans have actual spiritual power, or that he didn't make a "claim" just a "tentative hypothesis".

He sounds like Trump.

"Many people are saying that imagery of coiled snakes on ancient artifacts represents a double helix"

 

[agrajag]

I really mean it. I used to have arguments all the time with Christian fundies who would say shit like "you can't be an atheist because you have a sense of morality and morality comes from God," he isn't breaking any new ground in that regard.

Honest question did you accomplish anything else from that time till now? I hope you've done something with your life other than argue online endlessly

I have a lot of time to post right now, simmer down cupcake.

[Assimilate]

I really mean it. I used to have arguments all the time with Christian fundies who would say shit like "you can't be an atheist because you have a sense of morality and morality comes from God," he isn't breaking any new ground in that regard.

Honest question did you accomplish anything else from that time till now? I hope you've done something with your life other than argue online endlessly

I have a lot of time to post right now, simmer down cupcake.

From 2002 to now? Yeah i'd' say that's a lot of time.

And you guys need to stop trying so hard to peg Peterson. Let him actually get challenged and then we can talk. Until then take the L bros because that's all he has been handing out to people.

[agrajag]

Says the guy with 1,500 posts on a splinter forum of neogaf.com 

And stop trying to channel etiolate, you are a poor imitation.

[Assimilate]

And stop trying to channel etiolate, you are a poor imitation.

i feel his powers running through me 

[agrajag]

alright, you're the new L dispenser I guess 

[seagrams hotsauce]

lol at kermit using amazon affiliate links in his ama. totally not a grifter, folks

[Mandark]

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/313623700085817344


Rule 8: Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie.

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/313623700085817344


Rule 8: Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie.

Sure "hacked".

Number of hackers who hack an account and proceed to post one obscure porn link: 0
People who lied about being hacked because they accidentally hit retweet or like on Pornhub: 343877111

[agrajag]

what kind of depraved shit is Jordan Petereson into?

I bet it's cuck or pegging porn

 

[Oblivion]

JP on his comments about the gays getting married:

I've never claimed that gay people shouldn't get married because marriage is fundamentally about children.

It's certainly possible that marriage will serve gay people well. We'll see.

"We'll see.".

[curly]

Has there ever been a "truth teller/I'm just stating the facts" character that was likable at all

Jesus of Nazareth

[Mandark]

Well, that made me find and listen to this, out of curiosity...





SHOSTA, HOW DID YOU STAN THIS GUY?

[nachobro]

this is the first thing i've ever seen from this peterson dude but wow he really is just king autismo, huh?

[Oblivion]

Well, that made me find and listen to this, out of curiosity...





SHOSTA, HOW DID YOU STAN THIS GUY?

Lots to unpack with that clip, but one thing I want to focus on is his dumbass argument that he wouldn't support something, even if it seemed like a good idea, if it was also supported by the postmodernneowhatevers. But by that logic, wouldn't that mean he wouldn't be able to support anything like either gay marriage or any other civil rights because no doubt those things would also be supported by those same people?

[Assimilate]

Well, that made me find and listen to this, out of curiosity...





SHOSTA, HOW DID YOU STAN THIS GUY?

what the fuck is controversial about any of this?? i'm legitimately confused what exactly you guys have a problem with? or don't understand? It's ok to disagree with him but what's hard to understand given his viewpoint?

Traditions matter to people. Why is this a bad thing? I'm not a religious person, i'm for gay marriage, but if someone doesn't want to host a gay couple in their specific church i'm ok with that. They want to hold their tradition the way they see it, if they aren't harming someone else what is the problem?

And when he says "we'll see" if marriage works out for them again what is controversial about that? Are we just going to pretend the gay community isn't promiscuous as fuck? What's the point of getting married outside of the rights you get as a couple (which is now under civil unions in a lot of places). What is the point? How many gay couples are hyper religious that they NEED to get married in a church? Probably not many (but go ahead and tell me i'm wrong on that one). When he goes into his marxist tangents it's because in his viewpoint radical people on the left want to tear everything down and rebuild it the way THEY see fit.

Unless you understand where the guy is coming from everything may sound weird to YOUR specific viewpoint.

You guys are like fucking REE children. Seriously. 

Lots to unpack with that clip, but one thing I want to focus on is his dumbass argument that he wouldn't support something, even if it seemed like a good idea, if it was also supported by the postmodernneowhatevers. But by that logic, wouldn't that mean he wouldn't be able to support anything like either gay marriage or any other civil rights because no doubt those things would also be supported by those same people?

Jesus fucking christ. This is the problem that i have with millennials like yourself.  Just because it's online doesn't make it 100 percent. He's thinking out loud here, as if he was having a conversation with someone. It's clear he hasn't made up his mind on any of this. JUST BECAUSE IT'S ONLINE doesn't make it FINITE.

Unless you want everything in tight packaged corporate speak where no one speaks freely about thoughts then.....

And then you guys wonder why there's so much corporate shilling on these other forums. You guys are stupid as fuck.

[Mandark]

Unless you understand where the guy is coming from everything may sound weird to YOUR specific viewpoint.

lol you don't believe this and you're not gonna read his dumb books

[El Babua]

Him just taking the comment of gay marriage being a cultural marxist plot at face value is the best part.

[Oblivion]

The more Assimilate posts, the more it appears that the main reason he voted Democrat was so it would give him more cover to shit on minorities.

Sort of like how some conservatives seek out black friends in the hopes that they'll allow them to use the n-word some day.

[Great Rumbler]

Assimilate’s really trying, isn’t he?

Go easy on him, breh, his father was just murdered [in the digital realm].

[seagrams hotsauce]

even 'assy' is a relatively complimentary nickname since Assy McGee was funnier than anything lil man has ever posted

[Assimilate]

Him just taking the comment of gay marriage being a cultural marxist plot at face value is the best part.

Why is it so hard for you guys to actually LISTEN. It blows my fucking mind.

The question to Peterson went "...i'm against gay marriage BUT ONLY because it's backed by cultural marxist" in which Peterson responds "i would to be against it if it were backed by cultural marxists"

Years of reading hot takes has fried your brains. This is why every time i open up something like Apple News it's nothing but hot takes and catchy tag lines to pull you into the article... they know you won't read the fucking thing, they just want the clicks.

I'm good. Most clever thing dude can come up with is calling me unibrow. At least etiolate came up with interesting narratives like me turning Tasty gay and Mandark being responsible for holodomor.

Assy is just a pretender.

even 'assy' is a relatively complimentary nickname since Assy McGee was funnier than anything lil man has ever posted

Mr Beaks and The Unibrow both at the same time 

Filler look at this! shower me with likes!!!!

[thisismyusername]

Filler look at this! shower me with likes!!!!

It's really sad that's the security blanket you seem to have chosen for yourself.

[Tasty]

Users can only like a post one time idiot.

[Assimilate]

Users can only like a post one time idiot.

Dude...

EDiT: some of you honestly concern me.