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

[Rufus]

Very much so, it's something women from all spheres are feeding back to us. It's hard though to fix though, overwhelmingly most interactions wont get physical in any way, but the fear of violence is always there so how as a guy do you combat this?

Take said feedback into consideration, I guess.

[benjipwns]

Lol why does that seem like he's in a hostage video? He looks and sounds so miserable. I supposed he is speaking with Tucker, after all.

"from a secret bunker somewhere in Totalitarian Toronto"

also he's growing back the beard just like i suggested

[etiolate]

You're going to have to show how we know how to handle these things. How do you deal with a woman who spreads lies about you, fills your neighborhood with flyers calling you a white supremacist and whose aim is to basically create a hate mob against you? You report her? Is she violating a law? Because when he pointed out the woman doing this, he got attacked for doxxing her. Strangely, there does seem to be double standards at  play, where one side can hunt down a guy's home and call him a monster, and the other side cant' even point out the girl doing it. Maybe there is no actual clear pathway on what is right in dealing with abusive "harpies".

Doesn't sound like a criminal case, defamation case maybe idk. The difference in the double standard is the power dynamic. To take a leaf out of Peterson's book, I'd consider the individuals involved in this situation, the sides they may fall on aren't really important. JP is relatively powerful, old and influential, it is a little tyrannical for him to direct an outraged fanbase towards relatively un-influential individuals. He, I doubt unwittingly, incited at least the threat of violence through his influence on these young women who understandably pissed him off. The context makes it seem a fairly lopsided punishment. It is irresponsible behaviour given his position and influence.

But the individual uses her Facebook to target him, organize against him and harass him in his home neighborhood. The last speaking event that Peterson had, they were breaking stained glass widnows and bringing garrottes. (Wtf? Who keeps a garrotte in their purse? Mafia Feminism?) Power relations aren't all top-down.

A Hollywood starlette has far more power than her stalker, but you still have to deal with the stalkers as the threat rather than the star.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Correction: I don't lose arguments. I lose patience. The argument rarely exists and only briefly exists when it does.

I got naff to actually respond to something said. I explain it. Explaining it reveals how much of the forum doesn't understand social norms. (The argument started and ended right there. "It's over." -Vince Carter) Most conversations don't even get that far.

The forum thinks due to its lack of self awareness that its someone like Peterson who is the social abnormality. They go back to a life where they are ostracized but lack the tools to recognize this. They come back to this online space where they don't get ostracized because ostracization and repercussion is removed by the nature of the format. Mistake the forum for reaffirmation of their rightness. This is essentially an argument about the dangers of social media. Boundaries cannot exist in the same way so they aren't developed. Cruelty becomes more common.

A certain part of the forum I have enough experience with to not even offer the initial civility. I do this on purpose as to mark them as bad. This is self preservation and social messaging. I waste less of my thoughts on the worst and I inform in a public way who to avoid.

When I say it's bad to constantly exist in the peanut gallery, that's not just some wild random thought.  To participate in certain discussions you need to be able to recognize those discussions and know how to change gears. We develop boundaries to have various levels of engagement. It is important to have these different gears. If you can only exist n mockery then you get left behind.

bitch, say shit like this again and i'll drone your bitcoins

[Oblivion]

What exactly are we arguing here? The video that started this off with Camille Paglia (or whatever her name is) was about Peterson whining about not being able to punch women in the context of having intellectual discussions. But now we're talking about people going around the neighborhood hanging signs that he's a nazi or somebody spreading shit about him on Twitter? What does this have to do with his initial argument?

[naff]

How do we control all dese crazy women

[toku]

[CatsCatsCats]

Still think it should be Wank Dad

[benjipwns]

is this actually a serious on-topic link for this Wank Dad thread? https://www.thenation.com/article/waiting-for-steven-pinkers-enlightenment/

But as Enlightenment Now clearly shows, Steven Pinker is no philosophe. The great writers of the Enlightenment, contrary to the way they are often caricatured, were mostly skeptics at heart. They had a taste for irony, an appreciation of paradox, and took delight in wit. They appreciated complexity, rarely shied away from difficulty, and generally had a deep respect for the learning of those who had preceded them.

Enlightenment Now has few of these qualities. It is a dogmatic book that offers an oversimplified, excessively optimistic vision of human history and a starkly technocratic prescription for the human future. It also gives readers the spectacle of a professor at one of the world’s great universities treating serious thinkers with populist contempt. The genre it most closely resembles, with its breezy style, bite-size chapters, and impressive visuals, is not 18th-century philosophie so much as a genre in which Pinker has had copious experience: the TED Talk (although in this case, judging by the book’s audio version, a TED Talk that lasts 20 hours).

It is the critics of science who most greatly annoy Pinker, and they drive him to the sort of populist anti-intellectualism more usually found on Fox News than at Harvard University. “Intellectuals hate progress,” he declares, apparently forgetting about the many generations of socialist and liberal intellectuals who could more easily be accused of fetishizing it. “A loathing of industry has been a sacred value of…literary intellectuals,” he continues, disregarding those many writers and artists whose hearts leapt at the sight of Soviet smokestacks. And he repeatedly accuses “intellectuals” of treating the ideals of the Enlightenment “with indifference, skepticism, and sometimes contempt,” as if a long, long tradition of intellectuals, from the 18th century to figures like Jürgen Habermas, had not devoted their careers to defending those ideals.   

But Pinker is not exactly reliable when it comes to the intellectuals and their ideas. He takes as his guide to intellectual pessimism a book titled The Idea of Decline in Western History by Arthur Herman, a far-right author whose most well-known book is a rapturously favorable biography of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Pinker credits Friedrich Nietzsche with the idea that “all statements are paradoxical” and that “works of art are tools of oppression,” raising the question of whether he has actually read Nietzsche or just relied on the summaries by Herman and others. (He also dismisses Nietzsche as “repellent and incoherent.”) Pinker rightly criticizes those who issue blanket condemnations of modern science without bothering to understand it. But he himself has not taken the trouble to understand serious and difficult writers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, since he lumps them together into the “disaster of postmodernism” and seems to think that their work can simply be reduced to a “relativist” denial of truth.

[Rufus]

Call me superficial, but I have a hard time ignoring their use of "philosophe" and "philosophie".

This one isn't kind, either:
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlightened-thinking-steven-pinker-s-embarrassing-new-book-feeble-sermon

[etiolate]

The Statesman critique is better. Of course, I'm saying this of a book that I haven't read. The Nation critique comes across a bit too emotional. There will be anger that Pinker is tripping up those who peddle in doom and gloom. Statesmen critique references some real counterpoints, such as the reality of current peace, the 20th century mass killings, readings on Nietzsche, the true nature of the idea of equality(not scientific), and the rising prison population.

The Nation piece tries to paint Pinker as a something unworthy. Comparing him to a Breitbart work is just.. c'mon man.

[etiolate]

I enjoy Heather and Bret, so I'm posting this very recent talk. Sommers mentioned a study that found boys got less out of sharing emotions or talking about them while suffering less depression than the girls in the study. Since that's relevant to my view that we overstate the need of men to express themselves, I'm going to see if I can dig that study up.

[Mandark]

A certain part of the forum I have enough experience with to not even offer the initial civility. I do this on purpose as to mark them as bad. This is self preservation and social messaging. I waste less of my thoughts on the worst and I inform in a public way who to avoid.

This strategy doesn't seem like it's been optimized for a splinter forum with like 17 active members.

[Oblivion]

https://twitter.com/HSW3K/status/972487617957761024

https://twitter.com/HSW3K/status/972503325018148866

https://twitter.com/HSW3K/status/972503605281546240

[shosta]

is he still on about that frozen thing? lol

[Mandark]

To be fair, should we really expect Peterson to be familiar with mythical stories from the past?

[Tasty]

[Oblivion]

is he still on about that frozen thing? lol

he never stopped

[Mandark]

Very reminiscent of how Jean-Paul Sartre would often digress from his lectures to attack Amelia Bedelia.

[shosta]

Let it go, let it go,
Can't hold back anymore
Let it go, let it go,
Turn away and slam the door

I don't care
What they're going to say
Let the storm rage on
The cold never bothered me anyway

It's funny how some distance
Makes everything seem small
And the fears that once controlled me
Can't get to me at all

It's time to see what I can do
To test the limits and break through
No right, no wrong, no rules for me
I'm free

[etiolate]

Frozen again? I don't agree that the film is any more propaganda than many other Disney films, but it is one of the most rewritten stories. It barely resembles the original folktale at all. It's largely an original work that borrows the idea of a Snow Queen but is nothing like the Snow Queen story. Little Mermaid at least resembles the original tale at first glance. I am not sure if that's what he means by TLM older or not. These stories are all inspired by traditional Norse folk tales and an original date to the idea is probably impossible to place. Frozen is pretty much an original story. It began as the Snow Queen but Disney could not adapt that story to the modern world. So they just rewrote all of it by the end, with the only leftover part being a Queen who controls ice.

[shosta]

I agree with etiolate although I'd add that they also preserved the ice-cynicism metaphor. You can withdraw from society and wallow in isolation instead of choosing to come to terms with the way the world is, and worse, when you lose the ability to see the goodness in others it has an effect that extends beyond you (Elsa causes a winter and freezes Anna's heart). And the warmth of love restores order, etc. But it really is far removed from the original fairy tale. And Hans has no meaningful place in it at all. I guess he's there because you don't need romance to fulfill your life, you can find love among your family and friends, and while that's a good message it's still a much more modern tale than the original fairy tale. In the Snow Queen, Gerda awakens Kai with a kiss, and it's love (even if it's childish love), and when they return to the village they're adult lovers.

I think the original Little Mermaid is better than the Disney movie, too. Even though she doesn't end up with the Prince, love allows her to transcend into a heavenly spirit, which reminds me of an obvious Shakespeare quote. The point of love is not that you obtain a lover but that you are awakened spiritually. And that's a really powerful idea.

So tying it back I like Peterson's ultimate sentiment: dispense with old fairy tales at your own risk. There's thousands of years of incremental knowledge in there. Trying to recreate it is, demonstrably, a hard task. But, that said, it's still funny seeing him go on and on about some dumb movie.

[Momo]

Be a 55 year old man waxing poetically on the propaganda of cartoons meant to sell dolls to little girls, brehs

Leave star wars fans alone

[Mandark]

So tying it back I like Peterson's ultimate sentiment: dispense with old fairy tales at your own risk. There's thousands of years of incremental knowledge in there. Trying to recreate it is, demonstrably, a hard task.

Eh, I think it's pretty clear from his own words that the "ultimate sentiment" is him being bothered by the message of female independence.

[etiolate]

*shrug* It's other people here who obsessed over the Frozen thing.

An interesting thing about the Snow Queen story is that it sets up a rule-of-three of proper male/female relationships. There is the childish love of Greta and Kay, then the teenage-like courtship of the crows, and the parental pairing of the Princess and Prince. After that, Gerta has the run in with the robber girl which is kind of sapphic but also oddly childish. Perhaps a path in life of personal gain rather than love. Finally she sets off to rescue the boy from the Snow Queen. (And he is lost in the cold of reason, having forgotten people. Almost like a workaholic.)

So maybe Peterson is miffed at how they took a story about positive male/female relationships and turned it into an isolated princess and a princess who first chooses a jerk prince. It's a story about sisterhood instead, which makes Elsa a bit more like the Robber Girl than the Snow Queen.

[shosta]

Eh, I think it's pretty clear from his own words that the "ultimate sentiment" is him being bothered by the message of female independence.

No I don't think that's it at all. He said he likes Mulan a lot and that that does female independence really well because it's a "balanced story", although I forget what he means by it. If I were being uncharitable to him I'd say he's really just miffed that it was her sister who "awakened" her, not the prince, because that was the archetype he recognizes. Aka a little male fragility

[Nola]

Or maybe it's just a cartoon

And maybe Peterson is just speaking to the Patreon audience that he knows eats this pseudo-intellectual culture wars shit up? 

[Oblivion]

Eh, I think it's pretty clear from his own words that the "ultimate sentiment" is him being bothered by the message of female independence.

He said he likes Mulan a lot

Uh, source?

[shosta]

Uh, source?

Oops, I misheard. It was Moana.

[Nola]

I think etiolate may be right this time, I am genuinely jealous right now that a guy can package that fallacious and logic bastardizing pandering into hour long youtube videos and make money.

[etiolate]

Propaganda ages poorly as art. It insta-ages, in my opinon. It's always stuck in its time period. It can't traverse a single human lifespan.

However, the visual arts differ from this. Soviet Realism art is very collectible and appealing, and the "message" aspect ends up surrendering to the beauty of the art over time. The message fades but the visuals still captivate. And this art was inspired the futurism of the Italian fascists, which is still interesting. However, and I've blurted this out before, story telling art forms can not climb out of the burden of temporarily of propaganda. The political aimed literature ages poorly and is just detestable to modern audiences. It offers nothing more than moralizing. Too often the prose acts scared to be prose. Thee written word frightened of revealing the author. It's sacrificing the artistic element of the craft for the political need.

If you want prose that speaks within the nature of the politics while becoming art and speaking in a subversive honesty about the outcome of the politics then read Platonov. The proper thing to say ends up becoming coded language for futility and failure. I got his play in book form over Christmas but I haven't sat down with it yet. Soul and The foundation Pit are prime works though.

FWIW, Peterson owns quite a bit of Soviet propaganda, but its the visual stuff so I think he has some inkling of these differences in format in regards to art versus politics.

[etiolate]

It's in response to whether propaganda can become art.

[Nola]

Propaganda ages poorly as art. It insta-ages, in my opinon. It's always stuck in its time period. It can't traverse a single human lifespan.

The bible would like a word... Though I guess it depends on how loose a person wants to apply that word.

[etiolate]

I forget why it was brought up. People bring up Disney films in his Q&As because he uses Pinocchio and Lion King in his lectures about archetypes. I found a video where a viewer calls Frozen propaganda and he agrees with that.

However, this looks like the oldest reference I can find of him discussing Frozen and he does references Sleeping Beauty (his reading being of a tale of the harm of sheltering children) and Frozen as an anti-Sleeping Beauty.



So the idea that he thinks Frozen is bad because of female independence misreads his entire view of the point of Sleeping Beauty. The sleeping is basically arrested development. The masculine comes in to awaken her from prolonged childishness, whcih is also a Jungian mix of the Masculine and Feminine in all people. Frozen is an invented fairy tale (which is true, as it barely resembles the original hand-me-down), and that you can't just invent something like a fairy tale. This is where you got to understand the religion as evolutionary adaptation idea. Folk tales are born of long, long oral traditions. They build over time. By the time a Hans Christian Anderson puts them to pen, they've evolved over various human experiences to speak to something transcendental. A piece of propaganda, as I've said, is extremely temporal and stuck in its time. It's instantly dated. The question being whether Frozen can stand the test of time.

[Nola]

Frozen and every other Disney movie is simply doing what humans throughout our civilizational history have done over and over again with stories for as long as we have told them. We take stories and their underlying themes or narrative structures and mold and morph them contemporaneously for the targeted audience of the day and over time the really good ones solidify themselves into cultural pillars of the era.

From a sacred obsession with the number 7, to a great flood, to the death and resurrection of a messiah figure(on the 7th day), the bible is merely a more contemporaneously formed version of many historical myths relative to the period they were written, borrowed from places like Mesopotamia and the religion contained within that former empire. If one were so inclined they could apply any of the sort of broad-brushing techniques underpinning this nonsense to pretty much any piece of art.

Frozen is no more propaganda than any religious parable or moralizing story of any stripe or any level of seriousness. Built for its era, borrowing from its predecessors, and altered to capture an audience of its day and influence it.

And for fuck sakes quit quoting Jung like some authority of anything, we have moved past early 20th century pseudo-cognitive science.

[Oblivion]

Why does a film need an "archetypal balance" in order to not be considered propaganda?

It would be one thing if Peterson just said he didn't care for it cause he prefers movies to follow certain structural constraints, but he goes way further than that and calls Frozen "reprehensible propaganda". He doesn't just not care for it, but he's severely troubled by it.

[etiolate]

ok since you persisted, I read your posts Nola

I agree that Frozen isn't any more propaganda than others. You are agreeing in a way that there exists non-temporal stories, but a sec on that.

I disagree that Frozen is less propaganda than religious parable, because religions that survive are adapted things. Frozen isn't designed to be non-temporal. I think its mostly the product of market research. It was immensely popular. Peterson is assuming that since what Frozen spits out is what audience expect to hear at this very moment that its propaganda, but that assumes intent in what it spits out. I believe there was no intent for the result of the message. The intent was just to make money and that intent created the regurgitation. The regurgitation is temporal.

A vague example, the rise in divorces lead to a rise in restructured families and parents of divorce in family oriented movies. My personal favorite of these films is probably Mrs Doubtfire, but there's plenty of these types of riffs in family films during a certain period of time. So what's my point? If divorce is the primary topic and issue of these films, then that part probably looks aged. If there is something to the film that works in the realm of divorced and single parents but translates across experiences then that film will probably stand up better than the divorced focused film. One type of film is an ideological or political attempt at handling a new topic that is only new in the time frame its made. The other film takes the change in the world and tests whether long standing values still work.

Religious parables, stories and traditional folktales adapt by becoming non-temporal. If something is highly temporal, it can't be passed down. Like genetic traits, if they don't pass down then they don't survive. if they don't adapt they don't survive. The mistake is thinking they become completely camouflaged in temporal motifs to adapt.  No, because that makes them stuck in time. They find what persists and shed that which does not.

[shosta]

We're right in the middle of the wank dad archetype of this thread I laid out

[Mandark]

Eh, I think it's pretty clear from his own words that the "ultimate sentiment" is him being bothered by the message of female independence.

No I don't think that's it at all.

Nah it's pretty obvious.

[Momo]

I think a lot of you don't give Peterson credit when he makes sense and I think some of you are unwilling to call him out for the taking of wisdom from fairy tales bullshit, yes he derives at decent conclusion most of the time, but the source is fucking Hansel and Gretel or bible shit.

[Mandark]

fairy tales? that's "thousands of years of incremental knowledge" to you, bud

[Oblivion]

How did I miss the best line?

Time: Aren’t we allowed to make up new stories?

JP: Not for political reasons.

 

[naff]

Eh, I think it's pretty clear from his own words that the "ultimate sentiment" is him being bothered by the message of female independence.

No I don't think that's it at all. He said he likes Mulan Moana a lot and that that does female independence really well because it's a "balanced story", although I forget what he means by it. If I were being uncharitable to him I'd say he's really just miffed that it was her sister who "awakened" her, not the prince, because that was the archetype he recognizes. Aka a little male fragility

You can interpret ideological statements, and infer meaning depending on how far you're willing to reach in nearly any piece of work. I don't even think it's wrong to try, work for children is often strongly messaged.

"I actually really liked Moana, that little girl allied herself with this very very powerful, but uncivilised masculine force. I think they got the archetypal balance right in that movie."

So based on the vid u posted. Moana is not idealogical reprehensible trash tho, coz Peterson agrees with the roles represented.

[Momo]

We should probably drop all this fairy tale shit unless the goal here is to just argue.

[shosta]

JP made a speech at some The Queen's University

How can protestors stand to bang on windows for thirty minutes (at around 22:00)? How can anyone have such complete dedication to incivility?

[warcock]

More of the same, updated

[Momo]

JP made a speech at some The Queen's University

How can protestors stand to bang on windows for thirty minutes (at around 22:00)? How can anyone have such complete dedication to incivility?

was listening to this while working then I heard the commotion at 10 mins, I laughed at these dumb fucking neckbeards

[Momo]

This window hanging shit is legit what we did in high school when the principle was having speeches, but we'd run the fuck away after 20 seconds 

[warcock]

JP made a speech at some The Queen's University

How can protestors stand to bang on windows for thirty minutes (at around 22:00)? How can anyone have such complete dedication to incivility?

was listening to this while working then I heard the commotion at 10 mins, I laughed at these dumb fucking neckbeards

its actually kind of frightening that his fan club is larger than eti and shos.

[Momo]

 

[HardcoreRetro]

I thought Frozen was about bad parenting. Let's lock up our handicapped daughter her entire childhood, it'll be fine.

Surprise!

[warcock]

The guy after blyth is worth a listen too.

[hungrynoob]

, if it was me I'd be falling over myself to get the Sam Harris' and Jordan Peterson's of the world on my shows so I can debate them and show how they are wrong,

This comment has thrown me through a loop, my mind swimming in a paradox here, because. Outwith the fact that I agree with a lot of what JP says, there are other factors at play that feed into my bias vs JPs views and everyone else's view in this thread. When I listen to JP he reinforces the idea that society will only get better when both sides of an argument enter said discussion with the mutual understanding that, i know some things, you know some things, and there are things we dont know, and we can learn together with our conversation. On top of that, the advice he gives in his book "assume the person you are listening to knows something you dont". And I think thats pretty solid advice. Yet, when I hear/read things like ive just quoted, my brain just switches off. Theres no reciprocity, right off the bat, and it causes me to decline further into my own perceptions.

I'm not directing this next part solely at you, but honestly, if the left could stop being a bunch of cunts for awhile, maybe people would listen. Instead of, "im right, youre wrong, accept that" and majority of the time, these arguments delve solely into "well hes wrong about that, haha" without any substantial reasoning as to why, and without substantial frameworks for what the actual answer is ( i know theres some WOTs in here havent read yet, but im talking larger scale in premise). The left constantly claim that, they are driven on empathy, morality and reciprocity yet most of the time im seeing emotional dissonance where their actions do not match with the words they speak. And honestly, I have no idea how to change that - from the way i see it, the worlds about to get a shit ton more divided than ever.



 

[hungrynoob]

exactly like that

[Momo]

, if it was me I'd be falling over myself to get the Sam Harris' and Jordan Peterson's of the world on my shows so I can debate them and show how they are wrong,

This comment has thrown me through a loop, my mind swimming in a paradox here, because. Outwith the fact that I agree with a lot of what JP says, there are other factors at play that feed into my bias vs JPs views and everyone else's view in this thread. When I listen to JP he reinforces the idea that society will only get better when both sides of an argument enter said discussion with the mutual understanding that, i know some things, you know some things, and there are things we dont know, and we can learn together with our conversation. On top of that, the advice he gives in his book "assume the person you are listening to knows something you dont". And I think thats pretty solid advice. Yet, when I hear/read things like ive just quoted, my brain just switches off. Theres no reciprocity, right off the bat, and it causes me to decline further into my own perceptions.

I'm not directing this next part solely at you, but honestly, if the left could stop being a bunch of cunts for awhile, maybe people would listen. Instead of, "im right, youre wrong, accept that" and majority of the time, these arguments delve solely into "well hes wrong about that, haha" without any substantial reasoning as to why, and without substantial frameworks for what the actual answer is ( i know theres some WOTs in here havent read yet, but im talking larger scale in premise). The left constantly claim that, they are driven on empathy, morality and reciprocity yet most of the time im seeing emotional dissonance where their actions do not match with the words they speak. And honestly, I have no idea how to change that - from the way i see it, the worlds about to get a shit ton more divided than ever.



 

It's like you didnt read my entire two sentence comment 

[warcock]

, if it was me I'd be falling over myself to get the Sam Harris' and Jordan Peterson's of the world on my shows so I can debate them and show how they are wrong,

This comment has thrown me through a loop, my mind swimming in a paradox here, because. Outwith the fact that I agree with a lot of what JP says, there are other factors at play that feed into my bias vs JPs views and everyone else's view in this thread. When I listen to JP he reinforces the idea that society will only get better when both sides of an argument enter said discussion with the mutual understanding that, i know some things, you know some things, and there are things we dont know, and we can learn together with our conversation. On top of that, the advice he gives in his book "assume the person you are listening to knows something you dont". And I think thats pretty solid advice. Yet, when I hear/read things like ive just quoted, my brain just switches off. Theres no reciprocity, right off the bat, and it causes me to decline further into my own perceptions.

I'm not directing this next part solely at you, but honestly, if the left could stop being a bunch of cunts for awhile, maybe people would listen. Instead of, "im right, youre wrong, accept that" and majority of the time, these arguments delve solely into "well hes wrong about that, haha" without any substantial reasoning as to why, and without substantial frameworks for what the actual answer is ( i know theres some WOTs in here havent read yet, but im talking larger scale in premise). The left constantly claim that, they are driven on empathy, morality and reciprocity yet most of the time im seeing emotional dissonance where their actions do not match with the words they speak. And honestly, I have no idea how to change that - from the way i see it, the worlds about to get a shit ton more divided than ever.

No. This kind of stupid ass reduction makes it seem that the left appeals to the humanity and emotions of detractors to forge a narrative. No our disagreement is based on technical, statistical, historical and philsophical principles.. I couldnt care less if you feel bad or not that poor people are suffering. My contention is that your view is irresponsible and if it were replicated past a certain point would be detrimental to me as well as the group, therefore my unpleasant delivery and demeanor. Now we can argue the effectiveness about this kind of aggression and demeanor in convincing  said detractors. Our understanding and expectations of the social contract are at odds, if not irreconcilable.

[Oblivion]

, if it was me I'd be falling over myself to get the Sam Harris' and Jordan Peterson's of the world on my shows so I can debate them and show how they are wrong,

This comment has thrown me through a loop, my mind swimming in a paradox here, because. Outwith the fact that I agree with a lot of what JP says, there are other factors at play that feed into my bias vs JPs views and everyone else's view in this thread. When I listen to JP he reinforces the idea that society will only get better when both sides of an argument enter said discussion with the mutual understanding that, i know some things, you know some things, and there are things we dont know, and we can learn together with our conversation. On top of that, the advice he gives in his book "assume the person you are listening to knows something you dont". And I think thats pretty solid advice. Yet, when I hear/read things like ive just quoted, my brain just switches off. Theres no reciprocity, right off the bat, and it causes me to decline further into my own perceptions.

I'm not directing this next part solely at you, but honestly, if the left could stop being a bunch of cunts for awhile, maybe people would listen. Instead of, "im right, youre wrong, accept that" and majority of the time, these arguments delve solely into "well hes wrong about that, haha" without any substantial reasoning as to why, and without substantial frameworks for what the actual answer is ( i know theres some WOTs in here havent read yet, but im talking larger scale in premise). The left constantly claim that, they are driven on empathy, morality and reciprocity yet most of the time im seeing emotional dissonance where their actions do not match with the words they speak. And honestly, I have no idea how to change that - from the way i see it, the worlds about to get a shit ton more divided than ever.

A JP fanboy begging the Left to be more politically correct so as not to hurt the fee fees of right-wingers.

[warcock]

Could u change your name to warcock pl...oh nvm

Im gonna rape you stro. After that bjj no real world fight application taco remington.

[Brehvolution]

https://twitter.com/InnerPartisan/status/973637640846233601

[naff]

 

"ALL HELL" is a minute of disruption to their lecture?  wouldn't be surprised if it was a plant by Peterson for the drama, and to give that cuck something interesting to discuss.